Key result
EAM-guided pacemaker implantation at right ventricular septal sites yielded significantly lower global longitudinal strain, narrower paced QRS, and reduced radiation exposure versus RV apex pacing.
Why the study?
Does EAM-guided pacemaker implantation into alternative RV septal sites improve LV contractility and reduce radiation exposure compared to conventional fluoroscopic-guided RV apical pacing in children with CAVB?
RCT (n=21)
randomized
Does EAM-guided pacemaker implantation into alternative RV septal sites improve LV contractility and reduce radiation exposure compared to conventional fluoroscopic-guided RV apical pacing in children with CAVB?
In children with complete AV block, EAM-guided RV septal pacing reduces radiation exposure and achieves narrower paced QRS compared to conventional RV apical pacing, despite longer procedure times.
Supports EAM-guided RV septal pacing in pediatric CAVB; extends adult evidence on alternative-site pacing.
BACKGROUND: Alternative right ventricular (RV) sites (RVAPS) have been proposed to prevent or reduce RV pacing-induced left-ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Nonfluoroscopic 3D electroanatomic mapping systems (EAM) have been developed to guide cardiac catheter navigation and reduce fluoroscopy during electrophysiological procedures or pacemaker implantations. AIM: The aim of the study was to compare the results of EAM-guided permanent pacemaker implantation aiming at RVAPS with conventional fluoroscopic-guided implantation in RV apex (RVA) in children and adolescents. METHODS: A prospective, randomized analysis was performed on children/adolescents with complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) who underwent EAM-guided pacemaker and transvenous leads implantation into RVAPS (EAM-RVAPS) or conventional, fluoroscopic-guided implantation into RV apex (RVA). In EAM-RVAPS, a pacing map guided the implantation of ventricular leads in septal sites with narrower QRS. After implantation, LV contractility (ejection fraction [EF], Global Longitudinal Strain [GLS]) and synchrony were evaluated at 1-12 months. RESULTS: Twenty-one pediatric patients with CAVB, with (six patients) or without structural heart diseases, aged 4-16 (median 10.5) years, were divided in two groups: EAM-RVAPS (11 patients, four dual-chamber/DDD, seven single-chamber/VVIR pacemakers) and RVA (10 patients, one DDD/nine VVIR). The two groups did not show significant differences for preoperative parameters. EAM-RVAPS showed: preserved LVEF and synchrony (not significantly different than RVA), significantly lower GLS and radiation doses/exposures, in spite more complex procedures, significantly longer procedure times and narrower paced QRS than RVA. CONCLUSIONS: EAM-guided procedures have been useful to reduce radiation exposure and to localize RVAPS with narrower paced QRS and lower GLS than RVA.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Silvetti et al. (2018) conducted an RCT in Complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) (n=21). EAM-guided pacemaker implantation into RVAPS vs. Conventional fluoroscopic-guided implantation into RV apex (RVA) was evaluated on LV contractility (ejection fraction, Global Longitudinal Strain) and synchrony. EAM-guided pacemaker implantation at right ventricular septal sites yielded significantly lower global longitudinal strain, narrower paced QRS, and reduced radiation exposure versus RV apex pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: