Right ventricular septal pacing as alternative for failed left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates

M Hafez A Alhous, Gary R Small, Andrew Hannah, Graham S Hillis, Michael Frenneaux, Paul A Broadhurst

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

AIMS: To compare the effects on left ventricular (LV) function of right ventricular (RV) septal pacing vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with an indication for the latter. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an effective therapy in patients with drug-refractory heart failure. Despite advances in implantation techniques, LV lead placement can be impossible in up to 10% of cases. We, therefore, assessed the effects of RV septal pacing from mid septum (RVmIVS) and outflow tract (RVOT) on cardiac performance, in comparison with CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two patients scheduled for CRT underwent dual-chamber temporary pacing. The ventricular lead was placed at the RV apex (RVA), RVmIVS, and RVOT in random order. Comprehensive echocardiography was performed in a baseline AAI mode and then at each RV position in dual chamber pacemaker function (D pacing, D sensing, D dual responses) mode and repeated on the next day following CRT implantation. Right ventricular apex pacing did not change any of the assessed echocardiography parameters. Both RVmIVS and RVOT pacing increased LV ejection fraction (EF): 29 ± 7% at baseline vs. 32 ± 6% (P = 0.02) and 32 ± 5% (P = 0.04) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Similarly, the dyssynchrony index (Ts-SD) decreased: 50 ± 19 ms at baseline vs. 39 ± 17 ms (P = 0.04) and 37 ± 17 ms (P = 0.006) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Cardiac resynchronization therapy further improved LVEF and Ts-SD to 36 ± 7% and 34 ± 15 ms, respectively, however, only LVEF was significantly higher compared with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing (P = 0.03 and P = 0.01 respectively). There were no significant differences in either LVEF or Ts-SD between RVmIVS and RVOT.

CONCLUSION: Right ventricular septal pacing from mid septum or RVOT pacing improves LVEF and LV synchrony in CRT candidates. Further improvement in LVEF was achieved by CRT, which remains the 'gold standard' therapy in these patients. However, RV septal pacing is worthy of further study as an alternative strategy when LV lead implantation fails.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)94-100
Number of pages7
JournalEuropace
Volume17
Issue number1
Early online date30 Oct 2014
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2015

Fingerprint

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
Echocardiography
Lead
Left Ventricular Function
Stroke Volume
Heart Failure
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)
  • Right ventricular outflow tract pacing
  • Heart failure
  • Left ventricular dyssynchrony
  • Left ventricular systolic function

Cite this

Right ventricular septal pacing as alternative for failed left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates. / Alhous, M Hafez A; Small, Gary R; Hannah, Andrew; Hillis, Graham S; Frenneaux, Michael; Broadhurst, Paul A.

In: Europace, Vol. 17, No. 1, 01.2015, p. 94-100.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4316118e5617484eb13bd7d30bbef440,
title = "Right ventricular septal pacing as alternative for failed left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates",
abstract = "AIMS: To compare the effects on left ventricular (LV) function of right ventricular (RV) septal pacing vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with an indication for the latter. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an effective therapy in patients with drug-refractory heart failure. Despite advances in implantation techniques, LV lead placement can be impossible in up to 10{\%} of cases. We, therefore, assessed the effects of RV septal pacing from mid septum (RVmIVS) and outflow tract (RVOT) on cardiac performance, in comparison with CRT.METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two patients scheduled for CRT underwent dual-chamber temporary pacing. The ventricular lead was placed at the RV apex (RVA), RVmIVS, and RVOT in random order. Comprehensive echocardiography was performed in a baseline AAI mode and then at each RV position in dual chamber pacemaker function (D pacing, D sensing, D dual responses) mode and repeated on the next day following CRT implantation. Right ventricular apex pacing did not change any of the assessed echocardiography parameters. Both RVmIVS and RVOT pacing increased LV ejection fraction (EF): 29 ± 7{\%} at baseline vs. 32 ± 6{\%} (P = 0.02) and 32 ± 5{\%} (P = 0.04) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Similarly, the dyssynchrony index (Ts-SD) decreased: 50 ± 19 ms at baseline vs. 39 ± 17 ms (P = 0.04) and 37 ± 17 ms (P = 0.006) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Cardiac resynchronization therapy further improved LVEF and Ts-SD to 36 ± 7{\%} and 34 ± 15 ms, respectively, however, only LVEF was significantly higher compared with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing (P = 0.03 and P = 0.01 respectively). There were no significant differences in either LVEF or Ts-SD between RVmIVS and RVOT.CONCLUSION: Right ventricular septal pacing from mid septum or RVOT pacing improves LVEF and LV synchrony in CRT candidates. Further improvement in LVEF was achieved by CRT, which remains the 'gold standard' therapy in these patients. However, RV septal pacing is worthy of further study as an alternative strategy when LV lead implantation fails.",
keywords = "Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), Right ventricular outflow tract pacing , Heart failure , Left ventricular dyssynchrony , Left ventricular systolic function",
author = "Alhous, {M Hafez A} and Small, {Gary R} and Andrew Hannah and Hillis, {Graham S} and Michael Frenneaux and Broadhurst, {Paul A}",
note = "Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. {\circledC} The Author 2014. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1093/europace/euu259",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "94--100",
journal = "Europace",
issn = "1099-5129",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Right ventricular septal pacing as alternative for failed left ventricular lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates

AU - Alhous, M Hafez A

AU - Small, Gary R

AU - Hannah, Andrew

AU - Hillis, Graham S

AU - Frenneaux, Michael

AU - Broadhurst, Paul A

N1 - Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2014. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.

PY - 2015/1

Y1 - 2015/1

N2 - AIMS: To compare the effects on left ventricular (LV) function of right ventricular (RV) septal pacing vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with an indication for the latter. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an effective therapy in patients with drug-refractory heart failure. Despite advances in implantation techniques, LV lead placement can be impossible in up to 10% of cases. We, therefore, assessed the effects of RV septal pacing from mid septum (RVmIVS) and outflow tract (RVOT) on cardiac performance, in comparison with CRT.METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two patients scheduled for CRT underwent dual-chamber temporary pacing. The ventricular lead was placed at the RV apex (RVA), RVmIVS, and RVOT in random order. Comprehensive echocardiography was performed in a baseline AAI mode and then at each RV position in dual chamber pacemaker function (D pacing, D sensing, D dual responses) mode and repeated on the next day following CRT implantation. Right ventricular apex pacing did not change any of the assessed echocardiography parameters. Both RVmIVS and RVOT pacing increased LV ejection fraction (EF): 29 ± 7% at baseline vs. 32 ± 6% (P = 0.02) and 32 ± 5% (P = 0.04) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Similarly, the dyssynchrony index (Ts-SD) decreased: 50 ± 19 ms at baseline vs. 39 ± 17 ms (P = 0.04) and 37 ± 17 ms (P = 0.006) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Cardiac resynchronization therapy further improved LVEF and Ts-SD to 36 ± 7% and 34 ± 15 ms, respectively, however, only LVEF was significantly higher compared with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing (P = 0.03 and P = 0.01 respectively). There were no significant differences in either LVEF or Ts-SD between RVmIVS and RVOT.CONCLUSION: Right ventricular septal pacing from mid septum or RVOT pacing improves LVEF and LV synchrony in CRT candidates. Further improvement in LVEF was achieved by CRT, which remains the 'gold standard' therapy in these patients. However, RV septal pacing is worthy of further study as an alternative strategy when LV lead implantation fails.

AB - AIMS: To compare the effects on left ventricular (LV) function of right ventricular (RV) septal pacing vs. cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with an indication for the latter. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an effective therapy in patients with drug-refractory heart failure. Despite advances in implantation techniques, LV lead placement can be impossible in up to 10% of cases. We, therefore, assessed the effects of RV septal pacing from mid septum (RVmIVS) and outflow tract (RVOT) on cardiac performance, in comparison with CRT.METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-two patients scheduled for CRT underwent dual-chamber temporary pacing. The ventricular lead was placed at the RV apex (RVA), RVmIVS, and RVOT in random order. Comprehensive echocardiography was performed in a baseline AAI mode and then at each RV position in dual chamber pacemaker function (D pacing, D sensing, D dual responses) mode and repeated on the next day following CRT implantation. Right ventricular apex pacing did not change any of the assessed echocardiography parameters. Both RVmIVS and RVOT pacing increased LV ejection fraction (EF): 29 ± 7% at baseline vs. 32 ± 6% (P = 0.02) and 32 ± 5% (P = 0.04) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Similarly, the dyssynchrony index (Ts-SD) decreased: 50 ± 19 ms at baseline vs. 39 ± 17 ms (P = 0.04) and 37 ± 17 ms (P = 0.006) with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing, respectively. Cardiac resynchronization therapy further improved LVEF and Ts-SD to 36 ± 7% and 34 ± 15 ms, respectively, however, only LVEF was significantly higher compared with RVmIVS and RVOT pacing (P = 0.03 and P = 0.01 respectively). There were no significant differences in either LVEF or Ts-SD between RVmIVS and RVOT.CONCLUSION: Right ventricular septal pacing from mid septum or RVOT pacing improves LVEF and LV synchrony in CRT candidates. Further improvement in LVEF was achieved by CRT, which remains the 'gold standard' therapy in these patients. However, RV septal pacing is worthy of further study as an alternative strategy when LV lead implantation fails.

KW - Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)

KW - Right ventricular outflow tract pacing

KW - Heart failure

KW - Left ventricular dyssynchrony

KW - Left ventricular systolic function

U2 - 10.1093/europace/euu259

DO - 10.1093/europace/euu259

M3 - Article

C2 - 25359384

VL - 17

SP - 94

EP - 100

JO - Europace

JF - Europace

SN - 1099-5129

IS - 1

ER -