Left ventricular versus simultaneous biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and a QRS complex ≥120 milliseconds
- PMID: 22104549
- DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.032904
Left ventricular versus simultaneous biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and a QRS complex ≥120 milliseconds
Abstract
Background: Left ventricular (LV) pacing alone may theoretically avoid deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing.
Methods and results: In a multicenter, double-blind, crossover trial, we compared the effects of LV and biventricular (BiV) pacing on exercise tolerance and LV remodeling in patients with an LV ejection fraction ≤35%, QRS ≥120 milliseconds, and symptoms of heart failure. A total of 211 patients were recruited from 11 centers. After a run-in period of 2 to 8 weeks, 121 qualifying patients were randomized to LV followed by BiV pacing or vice versa for consecutive 6-month periods. The greatest improvement in New York Heart Association class and 6-minute walk test occurred during the run-in phase before randomization. Exercise duration at 75% of peak Vo(2) (primary outcome) increased from 9.3±6.4 to 14.0±11.9 and 14.3±12.5 minutes with LV and BiV pacing, respectively, with no difference between groups (P=0.4327). LV ejection fraction improved from 24.4±6.3% to 31.9±10.8% and 30.9±9.8% with LV and BiV pacing, respectively, with no difference between groups (P=0.4530). Reductions in LV end-systolic volume were likewise similar (P=0.6788). The proportion of clinical responders (≥20% increase in exercise duration) to LV and BiV pacing was 48.0% and 55.1% (P=0.1615). Positive remodeling responses (≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume) were observed in 46.7% and 55.4% (P=0.0881). Overall, 30.6% of LV nonresponders improved with BiV and 17.1% of BiV nonresponders improved with LV pacing.
Conclusion: LV pacing is not superior to BiV pacing. However, nonresponders to BiV pacing may respond favorably to LV pacing, suggesting a potential role as tiered therapy.
Clinical trial registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00901212.
Comment in
-
Left ventricular versus biventricular for cardiac resynchronization therapy: comparable but not equal.Circulation. 2011 Dec 20;124(25):2803-4. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.070763. Circulation. 2011. PMID: 22184041 No abstract available.
-
Letter by van Gelder and Bracke regarding article, "Left ventricular versus simultaneous biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and a QRS complex >120 milliseconds".Circulation. 2012 Oct 9;126(15):e238; author reply e239. doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.112.096792. Circulation. 2012. PMID: 23044613 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Left Ventricular Reverse Remodeling With Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block and Heart Failure in the BLOCK HF Trial.Circ Heart Fail. 2015 May;8(3):510-8. doi: 10.1161/CIRCHEARTFAILURE.114.001626. Epub 2015 Feb 19. Circ Heart Fail. 2015. PMID: 25697851 Clinical Trial.
-
Impact of Left Ventricular vs Biventricular Pacing on Reverse Remodelling: Insights From the Evaluation of Resynchronization Therapy for Heart Failure (EARTH) Trial.Can J Cardiol. 2017 Oct;33(10):1274-1282. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2017.07.478. Epub 2017 Jul 31. Can J Cardiol. 2017. PMID: 28941607 Clinical Trial.
-
A randomized double-blind comparison of biventricular versus left ventricular stimulation for cardiac resynchronization therapy: the Biventricular versus Left Univentricular Pacing with ICD Back-up in Heart Failure Patients (B-LEFT HF) trial.Am Heart J. 2010 Jun;159(6):1052-1058.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.ahj.2010.03.008. Am Heart J. 2010. PMID: 20569719 Clinical Trial.
-
Comparison of permanent left ventricular and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation: a prospective hemodynamic study.Card Electrophysiol Rev. 2003 Dec;7(4):315-24. doi: 10.1023/B:CEPR.0000023167.11038.8f. Card Electrophysiol Rev. 2003. PMID: 15071245 Review.
-
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing isolated left ventricular and biventricular pacing in patients with chronic heart failure.Am J Cardiol. 2011 Oct 15;108(8):1160-5. doi: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.018. Epub 2011 Aug 1. Am J Cardiol. 2011. PMID: 21813108 Review.
Cited by
-
Acute echocardiographic and electrocardiographic effects of triggered left ventricular pacing.PLoS One. 2022 Dec 6;17(12):e0278531. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0278531. eCollection 2022. PLoS One. 2022. PMID: 36472975 Free PMC article.
-
Fusion Pacing with Biventricular, Left Ventricular-only and Multipoint Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: Latest Evidence and Strategies for Use.Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2021 Jul;10(2):91-100. doi: 10.15420/aer.2020.49. Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev. 2021. PMID: 34401181 Free PMC article. Review.
-
2015 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/SOLAECE expert consensus statement on optimal implantable cardioverter-defibrillator programming and testing.J Arrhythm. 2016 Feb;32(1):1-28. doi: 10.1016/j.joa.2015.12.001. Epub 2016 Feb 1. J Arrhythm. 2016. PMID: 26949427 Free PMC article. No abstract available.
-
Rationale and design of the AdaptResponse trial: a prospective randomized study of cardiac resynchronization therapy with preferential adaptive left ventricular-only pacing.Eur J Heart Fail. 2017 Jul;19(7):950-957. doi: 10.1002/ejhf.895. Eur J Heart Fail. 2017. PMID: 28708290 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Electrocardiographic imaging of heart rhythm disorders: from bench to bedside.Card Electrophysiol Clin. 2015 Mar;7(1):17-35. doi: 10.1016/j.ccep.2014.11.013. Card Electrophysiol Clin. 2015. PMID: 25722753 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Associated data
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources
Medical