Key result
Synchronous biventricular pacing increased LV ejection fraction from 18% to 26% and decreased global mechanical dyssynchrony from 187 ms to 97 ms compared to unpaced baseline.
Why the study?
Does temporary biventricular pacing with varying interventricular intervals and LV lead positions improve ventricular dyssynchrony and function in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block?
Does temporary biventricular pacing with varying interventricular intervals and LV lead positions improve ventricular dyssynchrony and function in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block?
Sequential biventricular pacing with LV preactivation optimizes LV synchrony and ejection fraction, with inferior LV pacing sites offering comparable results to lateral sites.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Temporary BiV pacing was associated with acute LVEF gain and less dyssynchrony in HF-LBBB; leaves open optimal sequential strategies for outcomes.
OBJECTIVE: To determine the effects of interventricular pacing interval and left ventricular (LV) pacing site on ventricular dyssynchrony and function at baseline and during biventricular pacing, using tissue Doppler imaging. METHODS: Using an angioplasty wire to pace the left ventricle, 20 patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block underwent temporary biventricular pacing from lateral (n = 20) and inferior (n = 10) LV sites at five interventricular pacing intervals: +80, +40, synchronous, -40, and -80 ms. RESULTS: LV ejection fraction (EF) increased (mean (SD) from 18 (8)% to 26 (10)% (p = 0.016) and global mechanical dyssynchrony decreased from 187 (91) ms to 97 (63) ms (p = 0.0004) with synchronous biventricular pacing compared to unpaced baseline. Sequential pacing with LV preactivation produced incremental improvements in EF and global mechanical dyssynchrony (p<0.0001 and p = 0.0026, respectively), primarily as a result of reductions in inter-LV-RV dyssynchrony (p = 0.0001) rather than intra-LV dyssynchrony (NS). Results of biventricular pacing from an inferior or lateral LV site were comparable (for example, synchronous biventricular pacing, global mechanical dyssynchrony: lateral LV site, 97 (63) ms; inferior LV site, 104 (41) ms (NS); EF: lateral LV site, 26 (10)%; inferior LV site, 27 (10)% (NS)). ECG morphology was identical during biventricular pacing through an angioplasty wire and a permanent lead. CONCLUSIONS: Sequential biventricular pacing with LV preactivation most often optimises LV synchrony and EF. An inferior LV site offers a good alternative to a lateral site. Pacing through an angioplasty wire may be useful in assessing the acute effects of pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lane et al. (2007) studied Heart failure and left bundle branch block (n=20). Synchronous biventricular pacing vs. Unpaced baseline was evaluated on LV ejection fraction (EF) (p=0.016). Synchronous biventricular pacing increased LV ejection fraction from 18% to 26% and decreased global mechanical dyssynchrony from 187 ms to 97 ms compared to unpaced baseline.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: