Key result
Left ventricular pacing matches biventricular pacing hemodynamically but yields a ~15% lower LV dyssynchrony index.
Why the study?
Do left ventricular pacing and biventricular pacing improve hemodynamic and ventricular dyssynchrony parameters compared to spontaneous rhythm in patients with heart failure?
Population
33 patients with heart failure undergoing implantation with a multisite pacing device
Comparison
Left ventricular pacing and biventricular pacing… vs Spontaneous rhythm (SR) prior to implantation
Design
Cohort
Follow-up
2 days after implantation
Authors
Loading...
LV pacing may inform site selection in HF with similar hemodynamics to BiV; leaves open outcome impact pending randomized trials.
Do left ventricular pacing and biventricular pacing improve hemodynamic and ventricular dyssynchrony parameters compared to spontaneous rhythm in patients with heart failure?
Absolute Event Rate: 29% vs 34%
p-value: p=<0.05
Although both left ventricular and biventricular pacing provide similar hemodynamic improvements, left ventricular pacing results in more delayed contraction and shortened filling time, which may influence optimal pacing configuration choices.
Bordachar et al. (2004) studied Heart Failure (n=33). Left ventricular pacing (LVP) vs. Biventricular pacing (BVP) was evaluated on Index of LV dyssynchrony (p=<0.05). Left ventricular pacing provided similar hemodynamic improvement to biventricular pacing but resulted in a smaller index of LV dyssynchrony (29 vs 34; P<0.05) alongside delayed LV contraction.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: