Why the study?
Tricuspid regurgitation is a recognized complication after permanent pacemaker implantation, but the comparative degree of TR and lead position across the tricuspid valve between RVA and non-RVA pacing remained to be determined.
Does non-RVA pacing reduce the severity of tricuspid regurgitation compared to RVA pacing in patients with permanent pacemakers?
Does non-RVA pacing reduce the severity of tricuspid regurgitation compared to RVA pacing in patients with permanent pacemakers?
Non-apical right ventricular pacing is associated with less tricuspid valve leaflet impingement and a lower incidence of severe tricuspid regurgitation compared to apical pacing.
Non-RVA pacing was associated with less TR; leaves open whether lead position should guide implantation site selection.
BACKGROUND: Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a well-known complication after permanent pacemaker implantation. The aim of this study was to compare the degree of TR and the relationship of lead position across the tricuspid valve (TV) between patients with right ventricular apical (RVA) and non-RVA pacing determined by three-dimensional echocardiography. METHODS: Conventional and three-dimensional echocardiography was performed in 284 patients to determine the change in TR severity following permanent pacemaker implantation. Transvenous lead locations were based on fluoroscopic images. This was a retrospective study, and the selected pacing mode was not randomized. RESULTS: RVA pacing had more frequent severe TR (37.9% vs 25.7%, P = .03) compared with non-RVA pacing. Severe TR occurred in 9.7%, 12.6%, and 58.8% of patients when the lead passed through the middle, between the commissures, and impinging the TV leaflets, respectively. Non-RVA leads were more likely to be positioned in the middle of the TV (30.3% vs 12.1%, P < .01) and had the lowest chance of leaflet impingement (33.6% vs 51.5%, P < .01) compared with RVA leads. RVA pacing was associated with worsening of grade ≥2 TR severity compared with non-RVA pacing (42.4% vs 27.6%, P < .01). A TV lead passage angle of -15° to 15° minimized TR. CONCLUSIONS: Pacing-induced TR is more prevalent with RVA than non-RVA pacing. Preferential lead impingement on the TV leaflet, as determined by TV lead passage angle, can explain the development and progression of pacing-induced TR.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yu et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: