Literature DB >> 31363943

Incidence and predictors of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy with comparison between apical and non-apical right ventricular pacing sites.

Raghav Bansal1, Neeraj Parakh2, Anunay Gupta1, Rajnish Juneja1, Nitish Naik1, Rakesh Yadav1, Gautam Sharma1, Ambuj Roy1, Sunil Kumar Verma1, Vinay Kumar Bahl1.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Asynchronous activation of left ventricle (LV) due to chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing has been known to predispose to LV dysfunction. The predictors of LV dysfunction remain to be prospectively studied. This study was designed to follow up patients with RV pacing to look for development of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCMP), identify its predictors and draw comparison between apical vs non-apical RV pacing sites.
METHODS: Three hundred sixty-three patients undergoing dual-chamber and single-chamber ventricular implants were enrolled and followed up. Baseline clinical parameters; paced QRS duration and axis; RV lead position by fluoroscopy; LV ejection fraction (LVEF) by Simpson's method on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE); intraventricular dyssynchrony (septal-posterior wall contraction delay) and interventricular dyssynchrony (aortopulmonary ejection delay) on TTE were recorded. The patients were followed up at 6-12 monthly interval with estimation of LVEF and pacemaker interrogation at each visit. Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCMP) was defined as a fall in ejection fraction of 10% as compared to the baseline LVEF. Patients developing PiCMP were compared to other patients to identify predictors.
RESULTS: The mean age of study population was 59.8 years, 68.3% being males. Fifty-one percent and 49% patients underwent VVIR and DDDR pacemaker implantation, respectively. After attrition, 254 patients were analysed. PiCMP developed in 35 patients (13.8%) over a mean follow-up of 14.5 months. After multivariate analysis, burden of ventricular pacing > 60% [HR 4.26, p = 0.004] and interventricular dyssynchrony (aortopulmonary ejection delay > 40 msec) [HR 3.15, p = 0.002] were identified as predictors for PiCMP in patients undergoing chronic RV pacing. There was no effect of RV pacing site (apical vs non-apical) on incidence of PiCMP [HR 1.44, p = 0.353).
CONCLUSIONS: Incidence of PiCMP with RV pacing was found to be 13.8% over a mean follow-up of 14.5 months. Burden of right ventricular pacing and interventricular dyssynchrony were identified as the most important predictors for the development of PiCMP. Non-apical RV pacing site did not offer any benefit in terms of incidence of PiCMP over apical lead position.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Apical lead position; Left ventricular dysfunction; Non-apical lead position; Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy; Right ventricular pacing

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31363943     DOI: 10.1007/s10840-019-00602-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Interv Card Electrophysiol        ISSN: 1383-875X            Impact factor:   1.900


  22 in total

1.  Heart failure during cardiac pacing.

Authors:  Michael O Sweeney; Anne S Hellkamp
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2006-04-24       Impact factor: 29.690

Review 2.  Comparison of the haemodynamic effects of right ventricular outflow-tract pacing with right ventricular apex pacing: a quantitative review.

Authors:  C C de Cock; M C Giudici; J W Twisk
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2003-07       Impact factor: 5.214

3.  Biventricular versus conventional right ventricular stimulation for patients with standard pacing indication and left ventricular dysfunction: the Homburg Biventricular Pacing Evaluation (HOBIPACE).

Authors:  Michael Kindermann; Benno Hennen; Jens Jung; Jürgen Geisel; Michael Böhm; Gerd Fröhlig
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2006-04-24       Impact factor: 24.094

Review 4.  Beneficial effects of right ventricular non-apical vs. apical pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials.

Authors:  Avi Shimony; Mark J Eisenberg; Kristian B Filion; Guy Amit
Journal:  Europace       Date:  2011-07-27       Impact factor: 5.214

5.  Conventional versus biventricular pacing in heart failure and bradyarrhythmia: the COMBAT study.

Authors:  Martino Martinelli Filho; Sérgio Freitas de Siqueira; Roberto Costa; Oswaldo T Greco; Luiz Felipe Moreira; Andre D'avila; E Kevin Heist
Journal:  J Card Fail       Date:  2010-02-04       Impact factor: 5.712

6.  A comparison of ventricular function during high right ventricular septal and apical pacing after his-bundle ablation for refractory atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  F Mera; D B DeLurgio; R E Patterson; J D Merlino; M E Wade; A R León
Journal:  Pacing Clin Electrophysiol       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 1.976

7.  A randomized comparison of atrial and dual-chamber pacing in 177 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome: echocardiographic and clinical outcome.

Authors:  Jens C Nielsen; Lene Kristensen; Henning R Andersen; Peter T Mortensen; Ole L Pedersen; Anders K Pedersen
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2003-08-20       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  Right ventricular outflow versus apical pacing in pacemaker patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation.

Authors:  Bruce S Stambler; KennethA Ellenbogen; Xiaozheng Zhang; Thomas R Porter; Feng Xie; Rajesh Malik; Roy Small; Martin Burke; Andrew Kaplan; Lawrence Nair; Michael Belz; Charles Fuenzalida; Michael Gold; Charles Love; Arjun Sharma; Russell Silverman; Felix Sogade; Bruce Van Natta; Bruce L Wilkoff
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2003-11

9.  Biventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and normal ejection fraction.

Authors:  Cheuk-Man Yu; Joseph Yat-Sun Chan; Qing Zhang; Razali Omar; Gabriel Wai-Kwok Yip; Azlan Hussin; Fang Fang; Kai Huat Lam; Hamish Chi-Kin Chan; Jeffrey Wing-Hong Fung
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2009-11-15       Impact factor: 91.245

10.  Functional abnormalities in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing: the effect of sites of electrical stimulation.

Authors:  Hung Fat Tse; Cannas Yu; Kwong Kuen Wong; Vella Tsang; Yim Lung Leung; Wai Yin Ho; Chu Pak Lau
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2002-10-16       Impact factor: 24.094

View more
  8 in total

Review 1.  Understanding Pacemaker-Induced Cardiomyopathy Incidence and Predictors in Patients with Right Ventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Sidhi Laksono; Budhi Setianto; Mohammad Iqbal; Ananta Siddhi Prawara
Journal:  Int J Angiol       Date:  2021-10-01

2.  A network meta-analysis and systematic review of change in QRS duration after left bundle branch pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing, or right ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacemaker.

Authors:  Nithi Tokavanich; Narut Prasitlumkum; Wimwipa Mongkonsritragoon; Wisit Cheungpasitporn; Charat Thongprayoon; Saraschandra Vallabhajosyula; Ronpichai Chokesuwattanaskul
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-09       Impact factor: 4.379

3.  Predictors of Pacemaker-Induced Cardiomyopathy and Importance of Nutritional Status and Prognostic Nutritional Index.

Authors:  Mehmet Balli; Mustafa Çetin; Fatma Koksal; Fazilet Erturk Sag; Fahrettin Katkat; Esra Erturk Tekin; Bahar Aydinli; Veysel Kutay Vurgun
Journal:  Acta Cardiol Sin       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 2.672

4.  Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with atrioventricular block.

Authors:  Shigeng Zhang; Junfang Guo; Aibin Tao; Baowei Zhang; Zhonghua Bao; Guohui Zhang
Journal:  Clin Cardiol       Date:  2021-03-11       Impact factor: 2.882

5.  Permanent His-bundle pacing in the right atrium in a patient with a Mobitz II atrioventricular block: a case presentation.

Authors:  Zai-Qiang Zhang; Jia-Wang Ding
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2022-01-08       Impact factor: 1.637

6.  Tricuspid insufficiency after cardiac-implantable electronic device placement.

Authors:  Nismat Javed; Raafe Iqbal; Jahanzeb Malik; Ghazanfar Rana; Waheed Akhtar; Syed Muhammad Jawad Zaidi
Journal:  J Community Hosp Intern Med Perspect       Date:  2021-11-15

Review 7.  Ventricular Dyssynchrony and Pacing-induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with Pacemakers, the Utility of Ultra-high-frequency ECG and Other Dyssynchrony Assessment Tools.

Authors:  Jan Mizner; Pavel Jurak; Hana Linkova; Radovan Smisek; Karol Curila
Journal:  Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev       Date:  2022-04

8.  Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in pacemaker-dependent patients is lower with leadless pacemakers compared to transvenous pacemakers.

Authors:  Reynaldo Sanchez; Anish Nadkarni; Benjamin Buck; Georges Daoud; Tanner Koppert; Toshimasa Okabe; Mahmoud Houmsse; Raul Weiss; Ralph Augostini; John D Hummel; Steven Kalbfleisch; Emile G Daoud; Muhammad R Afzal
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol       Date:  2020-11-25
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.