Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate real-life CRT fusion left ventricular only pacing without a right ventricular lead in patients with normal AV conduction.
Does LV only pacing without an RV lead improve LV reverse remodeling and ejection fraction in patients with normal AV conduction and CRT indication?
Does LV only pacing without an RV lead improve LV reverse remodeling and ejection fraction in patients with normal AV conduction and CRT indication?
LV-only pacing without an RV lead achieves significant reverse remodeling and LVEF improvement in carefully selected CRT candidates with normal AV conduction.
May support LV-only CRT without RV lead in selected NAVc patients; leaves open need for randomized trials to assess outcomes.
Background: The aim of our study was to assess the real life cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) fusion left ventricular (LV) only pacing in patients with normal AV conduction (NAVc) without right ventricular (RV) lead. Methods: Consecutive NAVc patients with CRT indication were implanted with a right atrium RA/LV DDD pacing system. Complete follow-up at 1, 3 and every 6 months thereafter included echocardiography and stress testing. Results: We analysed 55 patients (62 ± 11 years). All patients were responders with significant LV reverse remodelling (LV end-diastolic volume 193.7 ± 81 vs. 243.2 ± 82 mL at baseline, p < 0.002) and increased LV ejection fraction (38 ± 7.9% vs. 27 ± 5.2% at baseline, p < 0.001). Mitral regurgitation decreased in 38 patients (69%). During follow-up (35 ± 18 months), 20 patients (36%) needed reprogramming sensed/paced AV delay or maximum tracking rate (MTR) because of inadequate or lost LV capture at exercise test; personalized programming to achieve up to 100% fusion pacing was used in all patients. One patient developed Mobitz II second degree AV block and triple chamber CRT-P upgrade was performed; defibrillator upgrade was not necessary. Conclusions: LV only pacing CRT-P without RV lead showed a positive outcome in carefully selected patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cozma et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: