Antonis S Manolis1. 1. First Department of Cardiology, Evagelismos General Hospital of Athens, Athens, Greece. asm@otenet.gr
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this article is to critically review the data accumulated to date from studies evaluating the hemodynamic and clinical effects of right ventricular apical pacing during conventional permanent cardiac pacing. The data from studies comparing the effects of right ventricular apical pacing and alternate site ventricular pacing are also reviewed. METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE and journal search of English-language reports published in the last decade and searched relevant papers. RESULTS: Although intraventricular conduction delay in the form of left bundle branch block (LBBB) has traditionally been viewed as an electrophysiologic abnormality, it has now become abundantly clear that it has profound hemodynamic effects due to ventricular dyssynchrony, especially in patients with heart failure. These deleterious effects can be significantly ameliorated by cardiac resynchronization therapy effected by biventricular or left ventricular pacing. However, not only is spontaneous LBBB harmful, but the iatrogenic variety produced by right ventricular apical pacing in patients with permanent pacemakers may be equally deleterious. In this review new evidence from recent studies is presented, which strongly suggests a harmful effect of our long-standing practice of producing an iatrogenic LBBB by conventional right ventricular apical pacing in patients receiving permanent pacemakers. This emerging strong new evidence about the adverse hemodynamic and clinical effects of right ventricular apical pacing would dictate a reassessment of our traditional approach to permanent cardiac pacing and direct our attention to alternate sites of pacing, such as the left ventricle and/or the right ventricular outflow tract or septum, if not for all patients, at least for those with left ventricular dysfunction. Indeed, current convincing data on alternate site ventricular pacing are encouraging and this approach should be actively pursued and further investigated in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: Not only is spontaneous permanent LBBB harmful to our patients, but the iatrogenic variety produced by right ventricular apical pacing during conventional permanent pacing may also be deleterious to some patients. The compelling evidence presented herein cannot be ignored; it may dictate a change of attitude toward right ventricular apical pacing directing our attention to alternate sites of ventricular pacing and avoidance of the right ventricular apex.
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this article is to critically review the data accumulated to date from studies evaluating the hemodynamic and clinical effects of right ventricular apical pacing during conventional permanent cardiac pacing. The data from studies comparing the effects of right ventricular apical pacing and alternate site ventricular pacing are also reviewed. METHODS: We conducted a MEDLINE and journal search of English-language reports published in the last decade and searched relevant papers. RESULTS: Although intraventricular conduction delay in the form of left bundle branch block (LBBB) has traditionally been viewed as an electrophysiologic abnormality, it has now become abundantly clear that it has profound hemodynamic effects due to ventricular dyssynchrony, especially in patients with heart failure. These deleterious effects can be significantly ameliorated by cardiac resynchronization therapy effected by biventricular or left ventricular pacing. However, not only is spontaneous LBBB harmful, but the iatrogenic variety produced by right ventricular apical pacing in patients with permanent pacemakers may be equally deleterious. In this review new evidence from recent studies is presented, which strongly suggests a harmful effect of our long-standing practice of producing an iatrogenic LBBB by conventional right ventricular apical pacing in patients receiving permanent pacemakers. This emerging strong new evidence about the adverse hemodynamic and clinical effects of right ventricular apical pacing would dictate a reassessment of our traditional approach to permanent cardiac pacing and direct our attention to alternate sites of pacing, such as the left ventricle and/or the right ventricular outflow tract or septum, if not for all patients, at least for those with left ventricular dysfunction. Indeed, current convincing data on alternate site ventricular pacing are encouraging and this approach should be actively pursued and further investigated in future studies. CONCLUSIONS: Not only is spontaneous permanent LBBB harmful to our patients, but the iatrogenic variety produced by right ventricular apical pacing during conventional permanent pacing may also be deleterious to some patients. The compelling evidence presented herein cannot be ignored; it may dictate a change of attitude toward right ventricular apical pacing directing our attention to alternate sites of ventricular pacing and avoidance of the right ventricular apex.