Abstract

Chronic right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) has been associated with negative hemodynamic and clinical effects. The aim of the present study was to compare RVAP with right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) in terms of echocardiographic features and clinical outcomes. A total of 93 patients without structural heart disease and with an indication for a permanent pacemaker were randomly assigned to receive a screw-in lead either in the RV apex (n = 46) or in the RV mid-septum (n = 47). The patients were divided into 3 subgroups according to the percentage of ventricular pacing: control group (n = 21, percentage of ventricular pacing < or =10%), RVAP group (n = 28), or RVSP group (n = 32; both latter groups had a percentage of ventricular pacing >10%). The RVAP group had more intraventricular dyssynchrony and a trend toward a worse left ventricular ejection fraction compared to the RVSP and control groups at 12 months of follow-up (maximal delay to peak systolic velocity between any of the 6 left ventricular basal segments was 57.8 +/- 38.2, 35.5 +/- 20.6, and 36.5 +/- 17.8 ms for RVAP, RVSP, and control group, respectively; p = 0.006; mean left ventricular ejection fraction 62.9 +/- 7.9%, 66.5 +/- 7.2%, and 66.6 +/- 7.2%, respectively, p = 0.14). Up to 48.1% of the RVAP patients showed significant intraventricular dyssynchrony compared to 19.4% of the RVSP patients and 23.8% of the controls (p = 0.04). However, no overt clinical benefits from RVSP were found. In conclusion, RVAP was associated with increased dyssynchrony compared to the RVSP and control patients. RVSP could represent an alternative pacing site in selected patients to reduce the harmful effects of traditional RVAP.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.