These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Biventricular versus conventional right ventricular stimulation for patients with standard pacing indication and left ventricular dysfunction: the Homburg Biventricular Pacing Evaluation (HOBIPACE).
    Author: Kindermann M, Hennen B, Jung J, Geisel J, Böhm M, Fröhlig G.
    Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol; 2006 May 16; 47(10):1927-37. PubMed ID: 16697307.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: The Homburg Biventricular Pacing Evaluation (HOBIPACE) is the first randomized controlled study that compares the biventricular (BV) pacing approach with conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing in patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and a standard indication for antibradycardia pacing in the ventricle. BACKGROUND: In patients with LV dysfunction and atrioventricular block, conventional RV pacing may yield a detrimental effect on LV function. METHODS: Thirty patients with standard indication for permanent ventricular pacing and LV dysfunction defined by an LV end-diastolic diameter > or =60 mm and an ejection fraction < or =40% were included. Using a prospective, randomized crossover design, three months of RV pacing were compared with three months of BV pacing with regard to LV function, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) serum concentration, exercise capacity, and quality of life. RESULTS: When compared with RV pacing, BV stimulation reduced LV end-diastolic (-9.0%, p = 0.022) and end-systolic volumes (-16.9%, p < 0.001), NT-proBNP level (-31.0%, p < 0.002), and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score (-18.9%, p = 0.01). Left ventricular ejection fraction (+22.1%), peak oxygen consumption (+12.0%), oxygen uptake at the ventilatory threshold (+12.5%), and peak circulatory power (+21.0%) were higher (p < 0.0002) with BV pacing. The benefit of BV over RV pacing was similar for patients with (n = 9) and without (n = 21) atrial fibrillation. Right ventricular function was not affected by BV pacing. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LV dysfunction who need permanent ventricular pacing support, BV stimulation is superior to conventional RV pacing with regard to LV function, quality of life, and maximal as well as submaximal exercise capacity.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]