Key result
Biventricular pacing significantly shortened the aortic systolic preejection time interval compared to right ventricular pacing (198 vs 218 ms; P=0.013) and increased PEA variations.
Why the study?
Does left ventricular or biventricular pacing improve hemodynamics compared to right ventricular pacing in patients with end-stage heart failure?
Does left ventricular or biventricular pacing improve hemodynamics compared to right ventricular pacing in patients with end-stage heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 198% vs 218%
p-value: p=0.013
Biventricular and left ventricular pacing provide comparable acute hemodynamic improvements over right ventricular pacing in end-stage heart failure, which can be effectively monitored using a peak endocardial acceleration sensor.
Supports acute hemodynamic benefit of biventricular over right ventricular pacing in end-stage HF; hypothesis-generating for PEA-guided optimization.
Multisite ventricular pacing acutely improves the hemodynamic status in heart failure, though longer-term observations require invasive procedures. The hemodynamics of multisite ventricular pacing were assessed by echocardiography and peak endocardial acceleration (PEA) measured by a pacemaker sensor. PEA variations are highly correlated with those of dP/dt. Thirteen end-stage heart failure patients (left ventricular ejection fraction < 0.30) with a QRS > or = 140 ms received a DDD PEA sensor-driven pacemaker allowing right (RV), left (LV) and biventricular (BV) pacing. Ten days after implantation, standard echocardiographic parameters and variations in PEA were measured after 20 minutes at each pacing mode. The aortic systolic preejection time interval was statistically comparable between RV and LV pacing (218 +/- 24 vs 219 +/- 34 ms; P = NS), and significantly shorter with BV pacing (198 +/- 27 ms; P = 0.013). Aortic ejection duration was nonsignificantly shorter during BV pacing than during LV pacing (-.061, P = 0.09). The aortic velocity time integer increased during LV pacing versus RV pacing (+21%, P < 0.05) and during BV pacing versus RV pacing (+37%, P = 0.05). As a result, the values of the PEA variations over a 15-minute period were significantly greater during LV pacing and BV pacing versus RV pacing (+43%, P < 0.05, and +38%, P = 0.05, respectively) and were statistically comparable between BV pacing and LV pacing (9% for LV pacing, P = NS). During various ventricular pacing configurations, PEA measurements were consistent with echocardiographic data, showing comparable hemodynamic effects of BV and LV pacing. The PEA sensor is a promising tool for long-term hemodynamic monitoring and serial evaluation of the effects of multisite ventricular pacing in heart failure patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bordachar et al. (2000) studied end-stage heart failure (n=13). Biventricular pacing vs. Right ventricular pacing was evaluated on Aortic systolic preejection time interval (p=0.013). Biventricular pacing significantly shortened the aortic systolic preejection time interval compared to right ventricular pacing (198 vs 218 ms; P=0.013) and increased PEA variations.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: