Efficacy, Safety, and Performance of Isolated Left vs. Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with Bradyarrhythmias: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Carregando...
Imagem de Miniatura
Citações na Scopus
4
Tipo de produção
article
Data de publicação
2019
Título da Revista
ISSN da Revista
Título do Volume
Editora
ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS CARDIOLOGIA
Citação
ARQUIVOS BRASILEIROS DE CARDIOLOGIA, v.112, n.4, p.410-420, 2019
Projetos de Pesquisa
Unidades Organizacionais
Fascículo
Resumo
Background: Considering the potential deleterious effects of right ventricular (RV) pacing, the hypothesis of this study is that isolated left ventricular (LV) pacing through the coronary sinus is safe and may provide better clinical and echocardiographic benefits to patients with bradyarrhythmias and normal ventricular function requiring heart rate correction alone. Objective: To assess the safety, efficacy, and effects of LV pacing using an active-fixation coronary sinus lead in comparison with RV pacing, in patients eligible for conventional pacemaker (PM) implantation. Methods: Randomized, controlled, and single-blinded clinical trial in adult patients submitted to PM implantation due to bradyarrhythmias and systolic ventricular function >= 0.40. Randomization (RV vs. LV) occurred before PM implantation. The main results of the study were procedural success, safety, and efficacy. Secondary results were clinical and echocardiographic changes. Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test were used, considering a significance level of 5%. Results: From June 2012 to January 2014, 91 patients were included, 36 in the RV Group and 55 in the LV Group. Baseline characteristics of patients in both groups were similar. PM implantation was performed successfully and without any complications in all patients in the RV group. Of the 55 patients initially allocated into the LV group, active-fixation coronary sinus lead implantation was not possible in 20 (36.4%) patients. The most frequent complication was phrenic nerve stimulation, detected in 9 (25.7%) patients in the LV group. During the follow-up period, there were no hospitalizations due to heart failure. Reductions of more than 10% in left ventricular ejection fraction were observed in 23.5% of patients in the RV group and 20.6% of those in the LV group (p = 0.767). Tissue Doppler analysis showed that 91.2% of subjects in the RV group and 68.8% of those in the LV group had interventricular dyssynchrony (p = 0.022). Conclusion: The procedural success rate of LV implant was low, and the safety of the procedure was influenced mainly by the high rate of phrenic nerve stimulation in the postoperative period.
Palavras-chave
Cardiac Pacing, Artificial, Bradycardia, Arrhythmias, Cardiac, Pacemaker, Artificial, Ventricular remodeling
Referências
  1. Ben Johnson W, 2009, PACE, V32, P1111, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2009.02451.x
  2. Biffi M, 2011, CURR OPIN CARDIOL, V26, P12, DOI 10.1097/HCO.0b013e3283413838
  3. Bordachar P, 2003, HEART, V89, P1401, DOI 10.1136/heart.89.12.1401
  4. Brignole M, 2013, EUROPACE, V15, P1070, DOI 10.1093/europace/eut206
  5. Crossley GH, 2010, HEART RHYTHM, V7, P472, DOI 10.1016/j.hrthm.2010.01.007
  6. Curtis AB, 2016, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V67, P2148, DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.02.051
  7. Curtis AB, 2013, NEW ENGL J MED, V368, P1585, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa1210356
  8. da Silva KR, 2013, PLOS ONE, V8, DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0071090
  9. Epstein AE, 2013, CIRCULATION, V127, pE283, DOI 10.1161/CIR.0b013e318276ce9b
  10. Fang F, 2013, INT J CARDIOL, V168, P723, DOI 10.1016/j.ijcard.2012.08.005
  11. Fang F, 2010, EUR J ECHOCARDIOGR, V11, P109, DOI 10.1093/ejechocard/jep171
  12. Funck RC, 2014, EUROPACE, V16, P354, DOI 10.1093/europace/eut343
  13. Harris PA, 2009, J BIOMED INFORM, V42, P377, DOI 10.1016/j.jbi.2008.08.010
  14. Hoijer CJ, 2006, EUROPACE, V8, P51, DOI 10.1093/europace/euj014
  15. Horwich T, 2004, J CARDIOVASC ELECTR, V15, P1284, DOI 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2004.04279.x
  16. Khurshid S, 2014, HEART RHYTHM, V11, P1619, DOI 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.05.040
  17. Kindermann M, 2006, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V47, P1927, DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2005.12.056
  18. Lamas GA, 2002, NEW ENGL J MED, V346, P1854, DOI 10.1056/NEJMoa013040
  19. Leon AR, 2002, J AM COLL CARDIOL, V39, P1258, DOI 10.1016/S0735-1097(02)01779-5
  20. Liang YX, 2011, AM J CARDIOL, V108, P1160, DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.06.018
  21. Lin AC, 2018, PACING CLIN ELECTROP
  22. Mair H, 2005, EUR J CARDIO-THORAC, V27, P235, DOI 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.09.029
  23. Martinelli M, 2010, J CARD FAIL, V16, P293, DOI 10.1016/j.cardfail.2009.12.008
  24. Martinelli FM, 2007, ARQ BRAS CARDIOL, V89, pe210, DOI 10.1590/S0066-782X2007001800011
  25. Ministerio da Saude, DATASUS SECR EX
  26. Mond HG, 2011, PACE, V34, P1013, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2011.03150.x
  27. Moubarak G, 2014, J INTERV CARD ELECTR, V41, P15, DOI 10.1007/s10840-014-9917-8
  28. Pastore G, 2008, PACE, V31, P1456, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-8159.2008.01209.x
  29. Rossillo A, 2004, J CARDIOVASC ELECTR, V15, P1120, DOI 10.1046/j.1540-8167.2004.04089.x
  30. Saito M, 2015, AM J CARDIOL, V116, P1875, DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.09.041
  31. Silva RT, 2007, ARQ BRAS CARDIOL, V88, P152, DOI 10.1590/S0066-782X2007000200004
  32. Silva Rodrigo Tavares, 2008, Arq Bras Cardiol, V90, P138
  33. Singh JP, 2011, CIRCULATION, V123, P1159, DOI 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.110.000646
  34. Tamaki WT, 2007, REBLAMPA, V20, P7
  35. van Everdingen Wouter M, 2015, JACC Clin Electrophysiol, V1, P225, DOI 10.1016/j.jacep.2015.07.004
  36. Vatankulu MA, 2009, AM J CARDIOL, V103, P1280, DOI 10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.01.023
  37. Zhang XH, 2008, J CARDIOVASC ELECTR, V19, P136, DOI 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2007.01014.x