Why the study?
Does upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy improve cardiac function and myocardial perfusion in patients with chronic right ventricular apical pacing and left ventricular dysfunction?
Does upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy improve cardiac function and myocardial perfusion in patients with chronic right ventricular apical pacing and left ventricular dysfunction?
Upgrading from chronic right ventricular apical pacing to cardiac resynchronization therapy improves left ventricular function, dyssynchrony, and inferoseptal myocardial perfusion as assessed by SPECT.
Introduction The aim of this study was to evaluate the changes in cardiac performance and myocardial blood perfusion by single photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) in patients upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) from right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP). Methods Eleven patients (age, 70±7.7 years; pacing career, 95±48.8 months) with chronic RVAP were studied. Their baseline characteristics included New York Heart Association (NYHA) class ≥2, with left ventricular end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV) >55 mm or left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%, as shown by echocardiography. Cardiac function and cardiac blood perfusion of 17 segments were evaluated by SPECT. Cardio‐GRAF (cardio Gated single photon emission computed tomography Regional Assessment for left ventricular Function), a left ventricular (LV) segmental time–volume analyzing program for SPECT, was used to assess dyssynchrony. Results Upgrading from RVAP to CRT resulted in an increase in LVEF and a decrease in LVEDV. The standard deviation of the time from the onset of QRS to end‐systole in the 17 LV segments, which indicates LV dyssynchrony, showed the tendency to shorten from 98 to 70 ms. Furthermore, the %uptake of blood perfusion was increased at the inferoseptal lesion. Conclusion Upgrading to CRT from RVAP improved cardiac function and increased %uptake of blood perfusion at the inferoseptal lesion, as demonstrated by SPECT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Honda et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: