Chronic Apical and Nonapical Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with High-Grade Atrioventricular Block: Results of the Right Pace Study.
BIOMED RESEARCH INTERNATIONAL 2018;
2018:1404659. [PMID:
29951525 PMCID:
PMC5987304 DOI:
10.1155/2018/1404659]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2017] [Revised: 01/24/2018] [Accepted: 03/06/2018] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Objective
The aim of the study was to compare the two approaches to chronic right ventricular pacing currently adopted in clinical practice: right ventricular apical (RVA) and non-RVA pacing.
Background
Chronic RVA pacing is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, morbidity, and even mortality. Non-RVA pacing may yield more physiologic ventricular activation and provide potential long-term benefits and has recently been adopted as standard procedure at many implanting centers.
Methods
The Right Pace study was a multicenter, prospective, single-blind, nonrandomized trial involving 437 patients indicated for dual-chamber pacemaker implantation with a high percentage of RV pacing.
Results
RV lead-tip target location was the apex or the interventricular septum. RVA (274) and non-RVA patients (163) did not differ in baseline characteristics. During a median follow-up of 19 months (25th–75th percentiles, 13–25), 17 patients died. The rates of the primary outcome of death due to any cause or hospitalization for heart failure were comparable between the groups (log-rank test, p = 0.609), as were the rates of the composite of death due to any cause, hospitalization for heart failure, or an increase in left ventricular end-systolic volume ≥ 15% as compared with the baseline evaluation (secondary outcome, p = 0.703). After central adjudication of X-rays, comparison between adjudicated RVA (239 patients) and non-RVA (170 patients) confirmed the absence of difference in the rates of primary (p = 0.402) and secondary (p = 0.941) outcome.
Conclusions
In patients with indications for dual-chamber pacemaker who require a high percentage of ventricular stimulation, RVA or non-RVA pacing resulted in comparable outcomes. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01647490).
Collapse