Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Analysis of Dyssynchrony and Ventricular Function in Right Univentricular Stimulation at Different Positions

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction

          Chronic stimulation of the right ventricle with pacemaker is associated with ventricular dyssynchrony and loss of contractility, even in subjects without previous dysfunction. In these patients, there is a debate of which pacing site is less associated with loss of ventricular function.

          Objective

          To compare pacemaker-induced dyssynchrony among different pacing sites in right ventricular stimulation.

          Methods

          Cross-sectional study of outpatients with right ventricle stimulation higher than 80% and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Pacing lead position (apical, medial septum or free wall) was assessed through chest X-rays. Every patient underwent echocardiogram to evaluate for dyssynchrony according to CARE-HF criteria: aortic pre-ejection time, interventricular delay and septum/posterior wall delay on M mode.

          Results

          Forty patients were included. Fifty-two percent had apical electrode position, 42% mid septum and 6% free wall. Mean QRS time 148.97±15.52 milliseconds. A weak correlation between the mean QRS width and pre-aortic ejection time (r=0.32; P=0.04) was found. No difference in QRS width among the positions could be noted. Intraventricular delay was lower in apical patients against mid septal (34.4±17.2 vs. 54.3±19.1 P<0.05) - no difference with those electrode on the free wall. No difference was noted in the pre-aortic ejection time ( P=0.9).

          Conclusion

          Apical pacing showed a lower interventricular conduction delay when compared to medial septum site. Our findings suggest that apical pacing dyssynchrony is not ubiquitous, as previously thought, and that it should remain an option for lead placement.

          Related collections

          Most cited references28

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node 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.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction.

            Right ventricular pacing restores an adequate heart rate in patients with atrioventricular block, but high percentages of right ventricular apical pacing may promote left ventricular systolic dysfunction. We evaluated whether biventricular pacing might reduce mortality, morbidity, and adverse left ventricular remodeling in such patients. We enrolled patients who had indications for pacing with atrioventricular block; New York Heart Association (NYHA) class I, II, or III heart failure; and a left ventricular ejection fraction of 50% or less. Patients received a cardiac-resynchronization pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (the latter if the patient had an indication for defibrillation therapy) and were randomly assigned to standard right ventricular pacing or biventricular pacing. The primary outcome was the time to death from any cause, an urgent care visit for heart failure that required intravenous therapy, or a 15% or more increase in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index. Of 918 patients enrolled, 691 underwent randomization and were followed for an average of 37 months. The primary outcome occurred in 190 of 342 patients (55.6%) in the right-ventricular-pacing group, as compared with 160 of 349 (45.8%) in the biventricular-pacing group. Patients randomly assigned to biventricular pacing had a significantly lower incidence of the primary outcome over time than did those assigned to right ventricular pacing (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% credible interval, 0.60 to 0.90); results were similar in the pacemaker and ICD groups. Left ventricular lead-related complications occurred in 6.4% of patients. Biventricular pacing was superior to conventional right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block and left ventricular systolic dysfunction with NYHA class I, II, or III heart failure. (Funded by Medtronic; BLOCK HF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00267098.).
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator: the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial.

              Implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy with backup ventricular pacing increases survival in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias. Most currently implanted ICD devices provide dual-chamber pacing therapy. The most common comorbid cause for mortality in this population is congestive heart failure. To determine the efficacy of dual-chamber pacing compared with backup ventricular pacing in patients with standard indications for ICD implantation but without indications for antibradycardia pacing. The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial, a single-blind, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial. A total of 506 patients with indications for ICD therapy were enrolled between October 2000 and September 2002 at 37 US centers. All patients had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40% or less, no indication for antibradycardia pacemaker therapy, and no persistent atrial arrhythmias. All patients had an ICD with dual-chamber, rate-responsive pacing capability implanted. Patients were randomly assigned to have the ICDs programmed to ventricular backup pacing at 40/min (VVI-40; n = 256) or dual-chamber rate-responsive pacing at 70/min (DDDR-70; n = 250). Maximal tolerated medical therapy for left ventricular dysfunction, including angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and beta-blockers, was prescribed to all patients. Composite end point of time to death or first hospitalization for congestive heart failure. One-year survival free of the composite end point was 83.9% for patients treated with VVI-40 compared with 73.3% for patients treated with DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06-2.44). The components of the composite end point, mortality of 6.5% for VVI-40 vs 10.1% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.61; 95% CI, 0.84-3.09) and hospitalization for congestive heart failure of 13.3% for VVI-40 vs 22.6% for DDDR-70 (relative hazard, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.97-2.46), also trended in favor of VVI-40 programming. For patients with standard indications for ICD therapy, no indication for cardiac pacing, and an LVEF of 40% or less, dual-chamber pacing offers no clinical advantage over ventricular backup pacing and may be detrimental by increasing the combined end point of death or hospitalization for heart failure.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Braz J Cardiovasc Surg
                Braz J Cardiovasc Surg
                rbccv
                Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery
                Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular
                0102-7638
                1678-9741
                Oct-Dec 2017
                Oct-Dec 2017
                : 32
                : 6
                : 492-497
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Programa de Pós-graduação do Instituto de Cardiologia do Rio Grande do Sul/Fundação Universitária de Cardiologia, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
                [2 ] Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio Grande do Sul (PUCRS), Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil.
                Author notes
                Correspondence Address: Stefan Warpechowski Neto, Instituto de Cardiologia do Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Princesa Isabel, 395, Santana - Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil, Zipcode: 90620-000. E-mail: swneto@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                10.21470/1678-9741-2017-0056
                5731315
                a96a6153-4d62-412b-9d4f-218ba12c5952

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

                History
                : 18 March 2017
                : 08 June 2017
                Categories
                Original Article

                pacemaker, artificial,ventricular dysfunction,heart failure,stroke volume

                Comments

                Comment on this article