Key result
Biventricular pacing improves LVEF by ~7 percentage points over isolated LV pacing in IDCM.
Why the study?
The long-term clinical effects of biventricular pacing compared with isolated left ventricular pacing in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy were unclear.
RCT (n=40)
Randomized
No
Absolute Event Rate: 12.5% vs 5.1%
p-value: p=0.01
Isolated LV pacing may confer higher risk than BiV in dilated cardiomyopathy; leaves open confirmation in larger prospective trials.
AIMS: The objective of this study was to compare long-term clinical effects of biventricular pacing with isolated left ventricular pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty consecutive patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy and indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy were randomized to biventricular or isolated left ventricular pacing. Clinical and echocardiographic parameters were studied regularly prior to implantation and during 1 year of follow-up. Patients with atrial fibrillation were excluded from the study. A retrospective cross-sectional outcome analysis was performed 4 years after the beginning of the study. Biventricular pacing was associated with more pronounced clinical and echocardiographic benefit compared with left ventricular pacing. Biventricular pacing was associated with significantly more distinct reverse remodelling. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved by 12.5 per cent-points (95% CI 7.3-17.7) compared with 5.1 per cent-points (95% CI 1.1-9.2) (P = 0.01) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter decreased by 8.69 mm (95% CI 5.2-12.2) compared with 5.1 mm (95% CI 1.5-8.7) (P = 0.05) in the biventricular and left-ventricular pacing group, respectively. Semi-quantitative summarization of response points revealed a greater benefit in the biventricular vs. left ventricular pacing group [mean sum of response points 3.25 (95% CI 2.62-3.88) vs. 2.35 (95% CI 1.74-2.96), respectively, P = 0.06]. After 3 years of follow-up, there was no cardiovascular death in the biventricular pacing group compared with three cardiovascular deaths in the left ventricular pacing group. CONCLUSION: In patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy, biventricular pacing is associated with significantly more pronounced benefit in clinical outcomes and reverse remodelling. A retrospective analysis after 3 years of follow-up suggests that isolated left ventricular pacing may be associated with a higher mortality rate compared with biventricular pacing.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sedláček et al. (2010) conducted an RCT in Idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy (n=40). Biventricular pacing vs. Isolated left ventricular pacing was evaluated on Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (percentage points) (p=0.01). Biventricular pacing improved left ventricular ejection fraction more than isolated left ventricular pacing (12.5 vs 5.1 percentage points; P=0.01) in patients with idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: