Right ventricular lead positioning does not influence the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Aims

Little is known about the optimal right ventricular (RV) pacing site in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study compares bi-ventricular pacing at the left ventricular (LV) free wall combined with two different RV stimulation sites: RV outflow tract (RVOT+LV) vs. RV-apex (RVA+LV).

Methods and results

Thirty-three patients (32 males) with chronic heart failure, NYHA class III–IV, optimal drug therapy, QRS-duration ≥150 ms, and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) received CRT with two different RV leads, in the apex (RVA) or outflow tract (RVOT), together with an LV lead, all connected to a bi-ventricular pacemaker. Randomization to pacing in RVOT+LV or RVA+LV was made 1 month after implantation and cross-over to the alternate pacing configuration occurred after 3 months. The median age of patients was 69 ± 10 years, the mean QRS was 179 ± 23 ms, and 58% of patients had ischaemic heart disease. Seven patients had pacemaker rhythm at inclusion and 60% were treated with atrioventricular-junctional ablation before randomization. In the RVA+LV and RVOT+LV pacing modes, 67 and 63% (nonsignificant) responded symptomatically with a decrease of at least 10 points in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score. The secondary end-points (6-min walk test, peak oxygen uptake, N-Terminal fragment of B-type Natriuretic Peptide, and left ventricular ejection fraction) showed significant improvement between baseline and CRT, but not between RVOT+LV and RVA+LV.

Conclusion

In this randomized controlled study, the exact RV pacing site, either apex or outflow tract, did not influence the benefits of CRT in a group of patients with chronic heart failure and AF.

Conclusion

ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00457834.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles