Key result
Dual-site right ventricular pacing was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality or heart transplant compared to standard biventricular pacing (HR 1.66).
Why the study?
Does dual-site right ventricular pacing improve clinical outcomes compared to standard biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Cohort (n=186)
Yes
Does dual-site right ventricular pacing improve clinical outcomes compared to standard biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy?
Hazard Ratio: 1.66 (95% CI 1.12–2.47)
p-value: p=0.012
Dual-site right ventricular pacing is associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher complication rates than conventional biventricular pacing in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Should not yet change CRT practice; hypothesis-generating for dual-site RV pacing risks.
BACKGROUND: Dual-site right ventricular pacing (Dual RV) has been proposed as an alternative for patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with a failure to deliver a coronary sinus (CS) lead. Only short-term hemodynamic and echocardiographic results of Dual RV are available. We aimed to assess the long-term results of Dual RV and its impact on survival. METHODS: Multicenter retrospective assessment of all CRT implants during a 12-year period. Patients with failed CS lead implantation, treated with Dual RV, were followed and assessed for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and/or heart transplant. A control group was obtained from contemporary patients using propensity matching for all available baseline variables. RESULTS: Ninety-three patients were implanted with Dual RV devices and compared with 93 matched controls. During a median of 1,273 days (interquartile range 557-2,218), intention-to-treat analysis showed that all-cause mortality and/or heart transplant was higher in the Dual RV group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.47, P = 0.012). As-treated analysis yielded similar results (HR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.31-2.96, P = 0.001). Cardiac device-related infections occurred seven times more frequently in the Dual RV site group (HR = 7.60, 95% CI 1.51-38.33, P = 0.014). Among Dual RV nonresponders, four had their apical leads switched off, five required an epicardial LV lead insertion, a transseptal LV lead was implanted in two, and in nine patients, after reviewing the CS venogram, a new CS lead insertion was successfully attempted. CONCLUSION: Dual RV pacing is associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher complication rates than conventional CRT.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Providência et al. (2017) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with electrical dyssynchrony (n=186). Dual-site right ventricular pacing (Dual RV) vs. Standard biventricular pacing (Bi-V) was evaluated on All-cause mortality and/or heart transplant (HR 1.66, 95% CI 1.12-2.47, p=0.012). Dual-site right ventricular pacing was associated with a significantly higher risk of all-cause mortality or heart transplant compared to standard biventricular pacing (HR 1.66).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: