Biventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block and Systolic Dysfunction

Dual-chamber (DDDR) pacing preserves AV synchrony and may reduce heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with ventricular (VVIR) pacing in sinus node dysfunction (SND). However, DDDR pacing often results in prolonged QRS durations (QRSd) as the result of right ventricular stimulation, and ventricular desynchronization may result. The effect of pacing-induced ventricular desynchronization in patients with normal baseline QRSd is unknown. Baseline QRSd was obtained from 12-lead ECGs before pacemaker implantation in MOST, a 2010-patient, 6-year, randomized trial of DDDR versus VVIR pacing in SND. Cumulative percent ventricular paced (Cum%VP) was determined from stored pacemaker data. Baseline QRSd 40%) and VVIR (HR 2.56 [95% CI, 1.48 to 4.43] for Cum%VP >80%). The risk of AF increased linearly with Cum%VP from 0% to 85% in both groups (DDDR, HR 1.36 [95% CI, 1.09, 1.69]; VVIR, HR 1.21 [95% CI 1.02, 1.43], for each 25% increase in Cum%VP). Model results were unaffected by adjustment for known baseline predictors of HF hospitalization and AF. Ventricular desynchronization imposed by ventricular pacing even when AV synchrony is preserved increases the risk of HF hospitalization and AF in SND with normal baseline QRSd.

Dual-chamber (atrioventricular) and single-chamber (ventricular) pacing are alternative treatment approaches for sinus-node dysfunction that causes clinically significant bradycardia. However, it is unknown which type of pacing results in the better outcome. We randomly assigned a total of 2010 patients with sinus-node dysfunction to dual-chamber pacing (1014 patients) or ventricular pacing (996 patients) and followed them for a median of 33.1 months. The primary end point was death from any cause or nonfatal stroke. Secondary end points included the composite of death, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure; atrial fibrillation; heart-failure score; the pacemaker syndrome; and the quality of life. The incidence of the primary end point did not differ significantly between the dual-chamber group (21.5 percent) and the ventricular-paced group (23.0 percent, P=0.48). In patients assigned to dual-chamber pacing, the risk of atrial fibrillation was lower (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.66 to 0.94; P=0.008), and heart-failure scores were better (P<0.001). The differences in the rates of hospitalization for heart failure and of death, stroke, or hospitalization for heart failure were not significant in unadjusted analyses but became marginally significant in adjusted analyses. Dual-chamber pacing resulted in a small but measurable increase in the quality of life, as compared with ventricular pacing. In sinus-node dysfunction, dual-chamber pacing does not improve stroke-free survival, as compared with ventricular pacing. However, dual-chamber pacing reduces the risk of atrial fibrillation, reduces signs and symptoms of heart failure, and slightly improves the quality of life. Overall, dual-chamber pacing offers significant improvement as compared with ventricular pacing.

Observational studies suggest that conventional right ventricular apical pacing may have a deleterious effect on left ventricular function. In this study, we examined whether biventricular pacing is superior to right ventricular apical pacing in preventing deterioration of left ventricular systolic function and cardiac remodeling in patients with bradycardia and a normal ejection fraction. In this prospective, double-blind, multicenter study, we randomly assigned 177 patients in whom a biventricular pacemaker had been successfully implanted to receive biventricular pacing (89 patients) or right ventricular apical pacing (88 patients). The primary end points were the left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-systolic volume at 12 months. At 12 months, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in the right-ventricular-pacing group than in the biventricular-pacing group (54.8+/-9.1% vs. 62.2+/-7.0%, P<0.001), with an absolute difference of 7.4 percentage points, whereas the left ventricular end-systolic volume was significantly higher in the right-ventricular-pacing group than in the biventricular-pacing group (35.7+/-16.3 ml vs. 27.6+/-10.4 ml, P<0.001), with a relative difference between the groups in the change from baseline of 25% (P<0.001). The deleterious effect of right ventricular apical pacing occurred in prespecified subgroups, including patients with and patients without preexisting left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. Eight patients in the right-ventricular-pacing group (9%) and one in the biventricular-pacing group (1%) had ejection fractions of less than 45% (P=0.02). There was one death in the right-ventricular-pacing group, and six patients in the right-ventricular-pacing group and five in the biventricular-pacing group were hospitalized for heart failure (P=0.74). In patients with normal systolic function, conventional right ventricular apical pacing resulted in adverse left ventricular remodeling and in a reduction in the left ventricular ejection fraction; these effects were prevented by biventricular pacing. (Centre for Clinical Trials number, CUHK_CCT00037.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society