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 Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients Supported With LVAD.
    Author: Chung BB, Grinstein JS, Imamura T, Kruse E, Nguyen AB, Narang N, Holzhauser LH, Burkhoff D, Lang RM, Sayer GT, Uriel NY.
    Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol; 2021 Aug; 7(8):1003-1009. PubMed ID: 34217657.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate the effects of right ventricular (RV) pacing versus biventricular (BiV) pacing on quality of life, functional status, and arrhythmias in LVAD patients. BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) independently improve outcomes in heart failure patients, but the effects of combining these therapies remains unknown. We present the first prospective randomized study evaluating the effects of RV versus BiV pacing on quality of life, functional status, and arrhythmias in LVAD patients. METHODS: In this prospective randomized crossover study, LVAD patients with prior CRT devices were alternated on RV and BiV pacing for planned 7-14-day periods. Ambulatory step count, 6-minute walk test distance, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire scores, arrhythmia burden, CRT lead function, and echocardiographic data were collected with each pacing mode. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled, with a median age of 65 years, 67% male, and mean duration of LVAD support of 309 days. Compared with BiV pacing, RV-only pacing resulted in 29% higher mean daily step count, 11% higher 6-minute walk test distance, and 7% improved KCCQ-12 score (all p < 0.03). LV end-diastolic volume was significantly lower with RV pacing (220 vs. 250 mL; p = 0.03). Fewer patients had ventricular tachyarrhythmia episodes during RV pacing (p = 0.03). RV lead impedance was lower with RV pacing (p = 0.047), but no significant differences were observed in impedance across other CRT leads. CONCLUSIONS: In the first prospective randomized study comparing variable pacing in LVAD patients, RV pacing was associated with significantly improved functional status, quality of life, fewer ventricular tachyarrhythmias, and stable lead impedance compared with BiV pacing. This study supports turning off LV lead pacing in LVAD patients with CRT.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]