Key result
Biventricular pacing achieved superior reductions in global mechanical dyssynchrony compared with bifocal right ventricular pacing in patients with heart failure.
Why the study?
Does temporary bifocal right ventricular pacing improve mechanical resynchronization compared to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and severely impaired left ventricular function?
Does temporary bifocal right ventricular pacing improve mechanical resynchronization compared to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and severely impaired left ventricular function?
Biventricular pacing provides superior mechanical resynchronization compared to bifocal right ventricular pacing in heart failure patients, though BRVP may serve as an alternative when LV lead placement fails.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Biventricular pacing may be preferred for mechanical resynchronization in heart failure; leaves open clinical outcome benefits versus bifocal RV pacing in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: The complications and limitations of biventricular pacing largely relate to left ventricular (LV) pacing. An alternative approach was tested of simultaneously pacing the right ventricular (RV) apex and outflow tract (RVOT) or using bifocal right ventricular pacing (BRVP) to provide cardiac resynchronisation. METHODS: 21 consecutive patients with heart failure and severely impaired left ventricular function were studied. Ejection fraction and tissue Doppler data were collected at baseline, during BRVP, and during biventricular pacing, using a temporary pacing protocol. RESULTS: BRVP was achieved in all patients without complication. BRVP significantly reduced mean baseline intra-LV, inter-LV-RV, and global mechanical dyssynchrony from (mean (SD)) 71 (35) to 44 (18) ms, p = 0.003; 86 (42) to 57 (33) ms, p = 0.029; and 157 (67) to 101 (42) ms, p = 0.005, respectively. It increased the ejection fraction from 21 (8)% to 29 (7)%, p = 0.002. Compared with BRVP, reductions in intra-LV, inter-LV-RV, and global mechanical dyssynchrony were superior with biventricular pacing (31 (12) ms, p = 0.014; 36 (27) ms, p = 0.008; and 67 (34) ms, p = 0.01 compared with BRVP, respectively); improvements in ejection fraction were similar (26 (9)%, NS). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with heart failure, superior mechanical resynchronisation is achieved with biventricular pacing compared with BRVP. BRVP may be useful when left ventricular lead placement is not possible.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lane et al. (2007) studied Heart failure and severely impaired left ventricular function (n=21). Bifocal right ventricular pacing (BRVP) vs. Biventricular pacing was evaluated on Global mechanical dyssynchrony (p=0.01). Biventricular pacing achieved superior reductions in global mechanical dyssynchrony compared with bifocal right ventricular pacing in patients with heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: