Why the study?
Does right ventricular outflow-tract pacing improve left ventricular synchronization and global longitudinal strain compared to apical or mid-septal pacing in patients with atrioventricular block?
Does right ventricular outflow-tract pacing improve left ventricular synchronization and global longitudinal strain compared to apical or mid-septal pacing in patients with atrioventricular block?
RVOT pacing provides better left ventricular synchronization and global longitudinal strain than RVMS or RVA pacing in patients with AV block, suggesting it may be the optimal pacing site despite a longer QRS duration.
RVOT pacing may favor better LV mechanics in AV block; hypothesis-generating and requires RCTs before any site preference.
Background Recently, due to the detrimental effects on the ventricular function associated with right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing, right ventricular septal (RVS) pacing has become the preferred pacing method. However, the term RVS pacing refers to both right ventricular outflow‐tract (RVOT) and mid‐septal (RVMS) pacing, leading to a misinterpretation of the results of clinical studies. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to elucidate the functional differences of RVA, RVOT, and RVMS pacing in patients with atrioventricular block. Methods We compared the QRS duration, global longitudinal strain (GLS), and left ventricular (LV) synchronization parameters at the three pacing sites in 47 patients. The peak systolic strain (PSS) time delay between the earliest and latest segments among the 18 LV segments and standard deviation (SD) of the time to the PSS were also calculated for the 18 LV segments at each pacing site using two‐dimensional (2D) strain echocardiography. Results RVMS pacing was associated with a significantly shorter QRS duration compared with RVA and RVOT pacing (154.4±21.4 vs 186.5±19.9 and 171.1±21.5 ms, P <0.001). In contrast, RVOT pacing revealed a greater GLS (−14.69±4.92 vs −13.12±4.76 and −13.51±4.81%, P <0.001), shorter PSS time delay between the earliest and latest segments (236.0±87.9 vs 271.3±102.9 and 281.9±126.6%, P =0.007), and shorter SD of the time to the PSS (70.8±23.8 vs 82.7±30.8 and 81.5±33.7 ms, P =0.002) compared with RVA and RVMS pacing. Conclusions These results suggest that the functional characteristics of RVOT pacing may be a more optimal pacing site than RVMS, regardless of the pacing QRS duration, in patients with atrioventricular conduction disorders.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hirayama et al. (2016) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: