Bifocal right ventricular pacing: an alternative way to achieve resynchronization when left ventricular lead insertion is unsuccessful

Dual-site right ventricular pacing in patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy: Results of a multicenter propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

Dual-site right ventricular pacing (Dual RV) has been proposed as an alternative for patients with heart failure undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with a failure to deliver a coronary sinus (CS) lead. Only short-term hemodynamic and echocardiographic results of Dual RV are available. We aimed to assess the long-term results of Dual RV and its impact on survival.

METHODS

Multicenter retrospective assessment of all CRT implants during a 12-year period. Patients with failed CS lead implantation, treated with Dual RV, were followed and assessed for the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality and/or heart transplant. A control group was obtained from contemporary patients using propensity matching for all available baseline variables.

RESULTS

Ninety-three patients were implanted with Dual RV devices and compared with 93 matched controls. During a median of 1,273 days (interquartile range 557-2,218), intention-to-treat analysis showed that all-cause mortality and/or heart transplant was higher in the Dual RV group (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.66, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.12-2.47, P = 0.012). As-treated analysis yielded similar results (HR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.31-2.96, P = 0.001). Cardiac device-related infections occurred seven times more frequently in the Dual RV site group (HR = 7.60, 95% CI 1.51-38.33, P = 0.014). Among Dual RV nonresponders, four had their apical leads switched off, five required an epicardial LV lead insertion, a transseptal LV lead was implanted in two, and in nine patients, after reviewing the CS venogram, a new CS lead insertion was successfully attempted.

CONCLUSION

Dual RV pacing is associated with worse clinical outcomes and higher complication rates than conventional CRT.