BACKGROUND: Biventricular (BiV) and left ventricular (LV) pacing similarly augment systolic function in left bundle-branch block (LBBB)-failing hearts despite different electrical activation. We tested whether electrical synchrony is required to achieve mechanical synchronization and functional benefit from pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Epicardial mapping, tagged MRI, and hemodynamics were obtained in dogs with LBBB-failing hearts during right atrial, LV, and BiV stimulation. BiV and LV both significantly improved chamber hemodynamics (eg, 25% increase in dP/dt(max) and aortic pulse pressure) compared with atrial pacing-LBBB, and this improvement correlated with mechanical resynchronization. Electrical dispersion, however, decreased 13% with BiV but increased 23% with LV pacing (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Improved mechanical synchrony and function do not require electrical synchrony. Mechanical coordination plays the dominant role in global systolic improvement with either pacing approach.
BACKGROUND: Biventricular (BiV) and left ventricular (LV) pacing similarly augment systolic function in left bundle-branch block (LBBB)-failing hearts despite different electrical activation. We tested whether electrical synchrony is required to achieve mechanical synchronization and functional benefit from pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Epicardial mapping, tagged MRI, and hemodynamics were obtained in dogs with LBBB-failing hearts during right atrial, LV, and BiV stimulation. BiV and LV both significantly improved chamber hemodynamics (eg, 25% increase in dP/dt(max) and aortic pulse pressure) compared with atrial pacing-LBBB, and this improvement correlated with mechanical resynchronization. Electrical dispersion, however, decreased 13% with BiV but increased 23% with LV pacing (P<0.01). CONCLUSION: Improved mechanical synchrony and function do not require electrical synchrony. Mechanical coordination plays the dominant role in global systolic improvement with either pacing approach.
Authors: Jonathan S Steinberg; Parimal B Maniar; Steven L Higgins; Sherie L Whiting; David B Meyer; Sergio Dubner; Abrar H Shah; David T Huang; Leslie A Saxon Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Owen P Faris; Frank J Evans; Alexander J Dick; Venkatesh K Raman; Daniel B Ennis; David A Kass; Elliot R McVeigh Journal: Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol Date: 2003-07-10 Impact factor: 4.733
Authors: Syed Y Ahsan; Matthew W Fittall; Aerakondal B Gopalamurugan; James W McCready; Laurence Nunn; Anthony W Chow Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2011-09-21 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Kenneth C Bilchick; Sujith Kuruvilla; Yasmin S Hamirani; Raghav Ramachandran; Samantha A Clarke; Katherine M Parker; George J Stukenborg; Pamela Mason; John D Ferguson; J Randall Moorman; Rohit Malhotra; J Michael Mangrum; Andrew E Darby; John Dimarco; Jeffrey W Holmes; Michael Salerno; Christopher M Kramer; Frederick H Epstein Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2014-03-05 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Takeshi Aiba; Geoffrey G Hesketh; Andreas S Barth; Ting Liu; Samantapudi Daya; Khalid Chakir; Veronica Lea Dimaano; Theodore P Abraham; Brian O'Rourke; Fadi G Akar; David A Kass; Gordon F Tomaselli Journal: Circulation Date: 2009-02-23 Impact factor: 29.690