Key result
BiV pacing cuts LVEF deterioration ~68% versus RVA pacing at two years.
Why the study?
The PACE trial was conducted to evaluate the long-term effects of biventricular versus right ventricular apical pacing on left ventricular function and remodelling in bradycardia patients with preserved systolic function.
Does biventricular pacing prevent left ventricular adverse remodelling and deterioration of systolic function compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with bradycardia and preserved LV ejection fraction?
RCT (n=177)
Double-blind
randomized
Yes
Does biventricular pacing prevent left ventricular adverse remodelling and deterioration of systolic function compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with bradycardia and preserved LV ejection fraction?
Biventricular pacing prevents the progressive left ventricular adverse remodeling and deterioration of systolic function observed with right ventricular apical pacing at 2 years in bradycardia patients with preserved LVEF.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports preferential biventricular pacing in bradycardia with preserved LVEF; extends randomized evidence to 2-year remodeling outcomes.
AIMS: The Pacing to Avoid Cardiac Enlargement (PACE) trial is a prospective, double-blinded, randomized, multicentre study that reported the superiority of biventricular (BiV) pacing to right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing in the prevention of left ventricular (LV) adverse remodelling and deterioration of systolic function at 1 year. In the current analysis, we report the results at extended 2-year follow-up for changes in LV function and remodelling. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients (n = 177) with bradycardia and preserved LV ejection fraction (EF ≥45%) were randomized to receive RVA or BiV pacing. The co-primary endpoints were LVEF and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV). Eighty-one (92%) of 88 in the RVA pacing group and 82 (92%) of 89 patients in the BiV pacing group completed 2-year follow-up with a valid echocardiography. In the RVA pacing group, LVEF further decreased from the first to the second year, but it remained unchanged in the BiV pacing group, leading to a significant difference of 9.9 percentage points between groups at 2-year follow-up (P < 0.001). Similarly, LVESV continues to enlarge from the first to the second year in the RVA pacing group, leading to a difference of 13.0 mL (P < 0.001) between groups. Predefined subgroup analysis showed consistent results with the whole study population for both co-primary endpoints, which included patients with pre-existing LV diastolic dysfunction. Eighteen patients in the BiV pacing group (20.2%) and 55 in the RVA pacing group (62.5%) had a significant reduction of LVEF (of ≥5%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Left ventricular adverse remodelling and deterioration of systolic function continues at the second year after RVA pacing. This deterioration is prevented by BiV pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chan et al. (2011) conducted an RCT in Bradycardia with preserved LV ejection fraction (n=177). Biventricular (BiV) pacing vs. Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing was evaluated on LVEF and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) (MD 9.9 percentage points, p=<0.001). Biventricular pacing prevented LVEF deterioration compared to right ventricular apical pacing at 2 years (LVEF reduction ≥5% in 20.2% vs 62.5%; P<0.001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: