Literature DB >> 16824846

Comparison of 1-year effects of left ventricular and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure who have ventricular arrhythmias and left bundle-branch block: the Bi vs Left Ventricular Pacing: an International Pilot Evaluation on Heart Failure Patients with Ventricular Arrhythmias (BELIEVE) multicenter prospective randomized pilot study.

Maurizio Gasparini1, Mario Bocchiardo, Maurizio Lunati, Pier Antonio Ravazzi, Massimo Santini, Marco Zardini, Silvia Signorelli, Micaela Passardi, Catherine Klersy.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known on the chronic effects of left ventricular pacing (LV) in heart failure.
METHODS: Seventy-four patients with LBBB, QRS >130 milliseconds, New York Heart Association class (Bradley DJ, Bradley EA, Braughman KL, et al. Cardiac resynchronization and death from progressive heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 2003;289:730-40.) II, LV ejection fraction (LVEF) <35%, and a class I cardioverter/defibrillator indication were implanted with CRT-D devices and were randomized to either LV or biventricular (BiV) pacing. Response (defined as increases of >5 points increase of LVEF and/or > or = 10% 6-minute walking test [6MWT]) between LV and BiV pacing were compared in an attempt to define the number of patients needed to claim noninferiority of LV pacing. In addition, absolute change in LVEF at 12 months in heart failure patients treated with LV pacing was evaluated. The safety of LV pacing was assessed comparing the total number of ventricular arrhythmia episodes, of hospitalizations, and of deaths between the two pacing modes.
RESULTS: The percentage of responders was comparable for both groups (LV = 75%, BiV = 70%, P = .788); based on the 95% CI of the difference between the groups, 1100 patients would be needed to claim noninferiority of LV pacing (with a 5% CI lower limit). LV pacing induced siginificant LVEF increase (5.2%, P = .002). These results remained unchanged after performing adjustment analyses. There were no differences in the numbers of ventricular arrhythmias, hospitalizations, and death events between the 2 pacing modes.
CONCLUSIONS: At 12 months, percentage of responders to LV pacing was similar to BIV pacing. Furthermore, LV pacing achieved a significant increase of ejection fraction. LV pacing is both safe and feasible.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 16824846     DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2006.04.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Heart J        ISSN: 0002-8703            Impact factor:   4.749


  15 in total

1.  Left ventricular pacing should be considered when biventricular pacing worsens heart failure: left ventricular pacing instead of biventricular pacing?

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

Review 2.  New concepts in physiologic cardiac pacing.

Authors:  Dwight W Reynolds; Christina M Murray
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2007-09       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 3.  Effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on ventricular remodeling.

Authors:  Hind W Rahmouni; James N Kirkpatrick; Martin G St John Sutton
Journal:  Curr Heart Fail Rep       Date:  2008-03

4.  Single- and dual-site ventricular pacing entirely through the coronary sinus for patients with prior tricuspid valve surgery.

Authors:  Chin C Lee; Khuyen Do; Sati Patel; Steven K Carlson; Tomas Konecny; Philip M Chang; Rahul N Doshi
Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 1.900

5.  Atrial synchronous left ventricular only pacing with VDD pacemaker system - a cost effective alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Arun Gopi; Gomathi Sundar; Sachin Yelagudri; Krishnamohan Lalukota; C Sridevi; Calambur Narasimhan
Journal:  Indian Heart J       Date:  2014-12-22

6.  Comparative electromechanical and hemodynamic effects of left ventricular and biventricular pacing in dyssynchronous heart failure: electrical resynchronization versus left-right ventricular interaction.

Authors:  Joost Lumens; Sylvain Ploux; Marc Strik; John Gorcsan; Hubert Cochet; Nicolas Derval; Maria Strom; Charu Ramanathan; Philippe Ritter; Michel Haïssaguerre; Pierre Jaïs; Theo Arts; Tammo Delhaas; Frits W Prinzen; Pierre Bordachar
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 24.094

7.  Efficacy of isolated left ventricular and biventricular pacing is differentially associated with baseline QRS duration in chronic heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Junyu Chen; Xiaodong Zhuang; Lizhen Liao; Xinxue Liao; Lichun Wang
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.214

8.  Optimal Strategies on Avoiding CRT Nonresponse.

Authors:  Pierre Bordachar; Romain Eschalier; Joost Lumens; Sylvain Ploux
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Cardiovasc Med       Date:  2014-05

9.  Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy or MitraClip® Implantation for Patients with Severe Mitral Regurgitation and Left Bundle Branch Block?

Authors:  Jens Kienemund; Karl-Heinz Kuck; Christian Frerker
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2014-11-29

10.  Fusion beat in patients with heart failure treated with left ventricular pacing: may ECG morphology relate to mechanical synchrony? A pilot study.

Authors:  Lorella Gianfranchi; Katia Bettiol; Biagio Sassone; Roberto Verlato; Giorgio Corbucci; Paolo Alboni
Journal:  Cardiovasc Ultrasound       Date:  2008-01-01       Impact factor: 2.062

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.