Literature DB >> 21613427

Preventing ventricular dysfunction in pacemaker patients without advanced heart failure: results from a multicentre international randomized trial (PREVENT-HF).

Martin Stockburger1, Juan José Gómez-Doblas, Gervasio Lamas, Javier Alzueta, Ignacio Fernández-Lozano, Erik Cobo, Uwe Wiegand, Joaquín Fernández de la Concha, Xavier Navarro, Francisco Navarro-López, Eduardo de Teresa.   

Abstract

AIMS: Previous experimental and clinical studies have consistently suggested that right ventricular (RV) apical pacing has important adverse effects. Ventricular pacing (VP), however, is required, and cannot be reduced in many patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. The PREVENT-HF study was an international randomized trial that explored differences in left ventricular (LV) remodelling during RV apical vs. biventricular (BIV) pacing in patients with AV block. METHODS AND
RESULTS: Patients with an expected VP prevalence ≥80% were assigned to RV apical or BIV pacing. The primary endpoint was the change in LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) >12 months. Secondary endpoints were LV end-systolic volume (ESV), LV ejection fraction (EF), mitral regurgitation (MR), and a combination of heart failure (HF) events and cardiovascular hospitalizations. Overall, 108 patients were randomized (RV: 58; BIV: 50). Intention to treat and on-treatment analyses revealed no significant differences in any of the outcomes. Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) difference for treatment according to randomization (in mL): LVEDV -3.92 (-18.71 to 10.85), P= 0.6; LVESV -1.38 (-12.07 to 9.31), P= 0.80; LVEF 2.47 (-3.00 to 7.94), P= 0.37. Analysis of covariance difference for the on-treatment analysis: LVEDV -4.90 (-20.02 to 10.22, PP= 0.52; LVESV -6.45 (-17.28 to 4.38), P= 0.24, LVEF 2.18 (-3.37 to 7.73), P= 0.44. Furthermore, secondary endpoints did not differ significantly.
CONCLUSION: This study did not demonstrate significant LV volume differences >12 months between RV apical and BIV pacing for AV block. Thus, BIV pacing cannot be recommended as a routine treatment for AV block in these patients. However, the results encourage and inform the design of subsequent larger trials with higher power for detecting small volume changes. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00170326.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21613427     DOI: 10.1093/eurjhf/hfr041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Heart Fail        ISSN: 1388-9842            Impact factor:   15.534


  14 in total

Review 1.  Right ventricular pacing, mechanical dyssynchrony, and heart failure.

Authors:  Alan J Bank; Ryan M Gage; Kevin V Burns
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Transl Res       Date:  2011-12-22       Impact factor: 4.132

2.  Arrhythmias: Changing indications for biventricular pacing in bradycardia.

Authors:  S Serge Barold
Journal:  Nat Rev Cardiol       Date:  2013-06-11       Impact factor: 32.419

Review 3.  The changing landscape of cardiac pacing.

Authors:  S Serge Barold; Carsten W Israel
Journal:  Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol       Date:  2015-03

Review 4.  The role of biventricular pacing in the prevention and therapy of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy.

Authors:  Maya Guglin; S Serge Barold
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2015-01-06       Impact factor: 1.468

Review 5.  Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves left ventricular remodeling and function compared with right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block.

Authors:  Dasheng Lu; Hao Zhang; Hongxiang Zhang
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.214

6.  Expanding indications for resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Christophe Leclercq; Nathalie Behar; Philippe Mabo; Jean-Claude Daubert
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 7.  Co-Morbidities and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: When Should They Modify Patient Selection?

Authors:  Martin H Ruwald
Journal:  J Atr Fibrillation       Date:  2015-06-30

Review 8.  Clinical outcomes with biventricular versus right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular conduction defects.

Authors:  Dasheng Lu; Hongxiang Zhang; Chu Chen; Kai Wang; Qijun Shan
Journal:  Heart Fail Rev       Date:  2018-11       Impact factor: 4.214

9.  Pacemaker implantation after TAVI: predictors of AV block persistence.

Authors:  Luise Gaede; Won-Keun Kim; Christoph Liebetrau; Oliver Dörr; Johannes Sperzel; Johannes Blumenstein; Alexander Berkowitsch; Thomas Walther; Christian Hamm; Albrecht Elsässer; Holger Nef; Helge Möllmann
Journal:  Clin Res Cardiol       Date:  2017-09-29       Impact factor: 5.460

Review 10.  Future research prioritization in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Authors:  Marat Fudim; Frederik Dalgaard; Sana M Al-Khatib; Daniel J Friedman; Kathryn Lallinger; William T Abraham; John G F Cleland; Anne B Curtis; Michael R Gold; Valentina Kutyifa; Cecilia Linde; Daniel E Schaber; Anthony Tang; Fatima Ali-Ahmed; Sarah A Goldstein; Brystana Kaufman; Robyn Fortman; J Kelly Davis; Lurdes Y T Inoue; Gillian D Sanders
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2020-02-21       Impact factor: 4.749

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.