Why the study?
Does biventricular pacing improve cardiac sympathetic activity in patients with heart failure?
Does biventricular pacing improve cardiac sympathetic activity in patients with heart failure?
In patients with stable heart failure, biventricular pacing improves cardiac sympathetic nerve activity, providing a potential mechanism for its known morbidity and mortality benefits.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports BiV pacing in HF via sympathetic modulation; extends mechanistic understanding of CRT benefits.
AIMS: We investigated whether biventricular (BiV) pacing favourably affects cardiac sympathetic activity in heart failure (HF). METHODS AND RESULTS: In 10 HF patients treated with BiV pacing, we assessed cardiac sympathetic activity by metaiodobenzylguanidine ((123)I-MIBG) imaging. Patients were randomized in a double-blinded crossover fashion, for two weeks of either inactivation of BiV pacing or BiV pacing, with crossover to the alternate group for a further two weeks. After randomization blocks, cardiac (123)I-MIBG imaging and a 6 min walk test were performed. BiV pacing was associated with significant improvements in cardiac (123)I-MIBG uptake reflected by increases in early (BiV 1.71 +/- 0.09 vs. non-BiV 1.63 +/- 0.06, P = 0.03) and late (at 4 h) heart to mediastinal ratio of uptake (BiV 1.54 +/- 0.08 vs. non-BiV 1.45 +/- 0.06, P = 0.03). Additionally, pulmonary (123)I-MIBG uptake, measured as lung to mediastinal ratio, significantly improved (P = 0.009). Six-minute walk and systolic blood pressure tended to improve with BiV vs. non-BiV pacing (P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: In patients with stable HF, BiV pacing is associated with long-term improvements in cardiac sympathetic nerve activity, as reflected by improvements in cardiac (123)I-MIBG uptake. This is a potential mechanism for morbidity and mortality benefits observed in larger studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gould et al. (2007) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: