AIMS: Right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) may be deleterious, determining abnormal left ventricular (LV) electrical activation and progressive LV dysfunction. Permanent His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been proposed to prevent this detrimental effect. The aim of our study was to compare the long-term effects of HBP on LV synchrony and systolic performance with those of RVAP in the same group of patients. METHODS: Our analysis included 26 patients who received both an HBP lead and an RVAP lead, as backup, in our electrophysiology laboratory between 2004 and 2007. After implantation, all devices were programmed to obtain HBP. An intra-patient comparison of the effects of HBP and RVAP on LV dyssynchrony and function was performed at the last available follow-up examination. RESULTS: After a mean of 34.6 ± 11 months, the pacing modality was temporarily switched to RVAP. During RVAP, LV ejection fraction significantly decreased (50.1 ± 8.8% vs. 57.3 ± 8.5%, P < 0.001), mitral regurgitation significantly increased (22.5 ± 10.9% vs.16.3 ± 12.4%; P = 0.018), and inter-ventricular delay significantly worsened (33.4 ± 19.5 ms vs. 7.1 ± 4.7 ms, P = 0.003) in comparison with HBP. However, the myocardial performance index was not statistically different between the two pacing modalities (P = 0.779). No asynchrony was revealed by tissue Doppler imaging during HBP, while during RVAP the asynchrony index was significantly higher in both the four-chamber (125.8 ± 63.9 ms; P = 0.035 vs. HBP) and two-chamber (126 ± 86.5 ms; P = 0.037 vs. HBP) apical views. CONCLUSION: His-bundle pacing has long-term positive effects on inter- and intra-ventricular synchrony and ventricular contractile performance in comparison with RVAP. It prevents asynchronous pacing-induced LV ejection fraction depression and mitral regurgitation.
AIMS: Right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) may be deleterious, determining abnormal left ventricular (LV) electrical activation and progressive LV dysfunction. Permanent His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been proposed to prevent this detrimental effect. The aim of our study was to compare the long-term effects of HBP on LV synchrony and systolic performance with those of RVAP in the same group of patients. METHODS: Our analysis included 26 patients who received both an HBP lead and an RVAP lead, as backup, in our electrophysiology laboratory between 2004 and 2007. After implantation, all devices were programmed to obtain HBP. An intra-patient comparison of the effects of HBP and RVAP on LV dyssynchrony and function was performed at the last available follow-up examination. RESULTS: After a mean of 34.6 ± 11 months, the pacing modality was temporarily switched to RVAP. During RVAP, LV ejection fraction significantly decreased (50.1 ± 8.8% vs. 57.3 ± 8.5%, P < 0.001), mitral regurgitation significantly increased (22.5 ± 10.9% vs.16.3 ± 12.4%; P = 0.018), and inter-ventricular delay significantly worsened (33.4 ± 19.5 ms vs. 7.1 ± 4.7 ms, P = 0.003) in comparison with HBP. However, the myocardial performance index was not statistically different between the two pacing modalities (P = 0.779). No asynchrony was revealed by tissue Doppler imaging during HBP, while during RVAP the asynchrony index was significantly higher in both the four-chamber (125.8 ± 63.9 ms; P = 0.035 vs. HBP) and two-chamber (126 ± 86.5 ms; P = 0.037 vs. HBP) apical views. CONCLUSION:His-bundle pacing has long-term positive effects on inter- and intra-ventricular synchrony and ventricular contractile performance in comparison with RVAP. It prevents asynchronous pacing-induced LV ejection fraction depression and mitral regurgitation.
Authors: Nadine Ali; Daniel Keene; Ahran Arnold; Matthew Shun-Shin; Zachary I Whinnett; S M Afzal Sohaib Journal: Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev Date: 2018-06