Key result
Non-right ventricular apical pacing resulted in comparable rates of death or heart failure hospitalization compared to right ventricular apical pacing (P=0.609).
Why the study?
Does non-RVA pacing improve clinical outcomes compared to RVA pacing in patients with high-grade atrioventricular block requiring dual-chamber pacemaker implantation?
Does non-RVA pacing improve clinical outcomes compared to RVA pacing in patients with high-grade atrioventricular block requiring dual-chamber pacemaker implantation?
p-value: p=0.609
In patients requiring dual-chamber pacing with a high percentage of RV pacing, non-apical RV pacing did not significantly improve clinical outcomes compared to traditional apical pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Non-RVA pacing showed comparable outcomes to RVA pacing; should not yet change practice and leaves open whether RCTs will demonstrate benefit.
Muto et al. (2018) studied High-grade atrioventricular block (n=437). Non-right ventricular apical (non-RVA) pacing vs. Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing was evaluated on Death due to any cause or hospitalization for heart failure (p=0.609). Non-right ventricular apical pacing resulted in comparable rates of death or heart failure hospitalization compared to right ventricular apical pacing (P=0.609).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: