Key result
Long-term VDD pacing linked to worse LV volume and E/A ratio but unchanged BNP versus IVA.
Why the study?
Ventricular desynchronization imposed by permanent dual-chamber ventricular pacing (VDD) may compromise ventricular function.
Does permanent dual-chamber ventricular pacing (VDD) compromise ventricular function compared to intrinsic ventricular activation in clinically stable outpatients with pacemakers or defibrillators?
Observational (n=129)
Does permanent dual-chamber ventricular pacing (VDD) compromise ventricular function compared to intrinsic ventricular activation in clinically stable outpatients with pacemakers or defibrillators?
p-value: p=<0.05
Long-term VDD pacing does not significantly affect BNP levels or LV filling pressures in clinically stable patients with normal or moderately reduced LV systolic function, despite minor echocardiographic changes.
Authors
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Long-term VDD pacing may not harm biventricular function in stable patients; leaves open effects in higher-risk or longer-follow-up cohorts.
Chiladakis et al. (2007) conducted an observational in Clinically stable outpatients with a dual-chamber pacemaker or automatic defibrillator (n=129). Permanent dual-chamber ventricular pacing (VDD) vs. Intrinsic ventricular activation (IVA) was evaluated on BNP levels and echocardiographic parameters of ventricular function (p=<0.05). Long-term VDD pacing was associated with a lower E/A ratio and increased LV end-systolic volume (P<0.05) but did not significantly affect BNP levels compared to intrinsic ventricular activation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: