Key result
The PACE trial is designed to randomize 200 patients with 90% power to detect a 5% difference in LVEF after 1 year of biventricular versus right ventricular apical pacing.
Why the study?
Does biventricular pacing preserve LV systolic function and prevent adverse remodeling compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with normal LV systolic function indicated for pacing?
Population
Patients with normal left ventricular (LV) systolic function (LVEF > 45%) indicated for pacing (target n=200)
Comparison
Atrial-based biventricular (BiV) pacing for 1 year vs Atrial-based right ventricular apical pacing for…
Design
RCT, randomized, double blinded
Follow-up
1 year
Authors
Loading...
Randomized trial powered for 5% LVEF difference at 1 year; will clarify optimal pacing mode in patients with preserved baseline systolic function.
RCT (n=200)
Double-blind
parallel
Yes
Does biventricular pacing preserve LV systolic function and prevent adverse remodeling compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with normal LV systolic function indicated for pacing?
The PACE trial is designed to determine if biventricular pacing is superior to conventional right ventricular apical pacing in preserving LV function among patients with normal baseline LVEF requiring pacing.
Fung et al. (2007) conducted an RCT in Normal LV systolic function indicated for pacing (n=200). Biventricular pacing vs. Atrial-based right ventricular apical pacing was evaluated on Changes in LV end-systolic volume and LVEF 1 year after pacing. The PACE trial is designed to randomize 200 patients with 90% power to detect a 5% difference in LVEF after 1 year of biventricular versus right ventricular apical pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: