Key result
Alternative RV pacing sites may prevent stimulation-induced HF vs traditional apical pacing via physiological propagation.
Why the study?
Do alternative right ventricular pacing sites prevent heart failure and preserve left ventricular function compared to apical pacing in patients requiring permanent pacing?
Do alternative right ventricular pacing sites prevent heart failure and preserve left ventricular function compared to apical pacing in patients requiring permanent pacing?
Alternative right ventricular pacing sites, such as the RV septum or His-bundle, may offer a more physiological activation pattern than traditional apical pacing, potentially reducing the risk of pacing-induced heart failure.
Alternative RV sites may warrant consideration to mitigate HF risk; leaves open confirmation by large RCTs before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The main adverse effect of chronic stimulation is stimulation-induced heart failure in case of ventricular contraction dyssynchrony. Because of this fact, new techniques of stimulation should be considered to optimize electrotherapy. One of these methods is pacing from alternative right ventricular sites. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article is to review currently accumulated data about alternative sites of cardiac pacing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Medline and PubMed bases were used to search English and Polish reports published recently. RESULTS: Recent studies report a deleterious effect of long term apical pacing. It is suggested that permanent apical stimulation, by omitting physiological conduction pattern with His-Purkinie network, may lead to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony of heart muscle contraction. In the long term this pathological situation can lead to severe heart failure and death. Because of this, scientists began to search for some alternative sites of cardiac pacing to reduce the deleterious effect of stimulation. Based on current accumulated data, it is suggested that the right ventricular outflow tract, right ventricular septum, direct His-bundle or biventricular pacing are better alternatives due to more physiological electrical impulse propagation within the heart and the reduction of the dyssynchrony effect. These methods should preserve a better left ventricular function and prevent the development of heart failure in permanent paced patients. As there is still not enough, long-term, randomized, prospective, cross-over and multicenter studies, further research is required to validate the benefits of using this kind of therapy. CONCLUSIONS: The article should pay attention to new sites of cardiac stimulation as a better and safer method of treatment.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Łuciuk et al. (2015) conducted a review in Cardiac pacing indications. Alternative right ventricular pacing sites (RVOT, RVS, His-bundle, CRT) vs. Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing was evaluated. Alternative right ventricular pacing sites, including the outflow tract, septum, His-bundle, and biventricular pacing, provide more physiological electrical propagation and may prevent stimulation-induced heart failure compared to traditional apical pacing.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: