+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Is right ventricular mid-septal pacing superior to apical pacing in patients with high degree atrio-ventricular block and moderately depressed left ventricular function?



Is right ventricular mid-septal pacing superior to apical pacing in patients with high degree atrio-ventricular block and moderately depressed left ventricular function?



Journal of Zhejiang University. Science. B 15(6): 507-514



We are aimed to investigate whether right ventricular mid-septal pacing (RVMSP) is superior to conventional right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) in improving clinical functional capacity and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) for patients with high-degree atrio-ventricular block and moderately depressed left ventricle (LV) function. Ninety-two patients with high-degree atrio-ventricular block and moderately reduced LVEF (ranging from 35% to 50%) were randomly allocated to RVMSP (n=45) and RVAP (n=47). New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, echocardiographic LVEF, and distance during a 6-min walk test (6MWT) were determined at 18 months after pacemaker implantation. Serum levels of N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) were measured using an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) kit. Compared with baseline, NYHA functional class remained unchanged at 18 months, distance during 6MWT (485 m vs. 517 m) and LVEF (36.7% vs. 41.8%) were increased, but BNP levels were reduced (2352 pg/ml vs. 710 pg/ml) in the RVMSP group compared with those in the RVAP group, especially in patients with LVEF 35%-40% (for all comparisons, P<0.05). However, clinical function capacity and LV function measurements were not significantly changed in patients with RVAP, despite the pacing measurements being similar in both groups, such as R-wave amplitude and capture threshold. RVMSP provides a better clinical utility, compared with RVAP, in patients with high-degree atrioventricular block and moderately depressed LV function whose LVEF levels ranged from 35% to 40%.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 053997920

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 24903987

DOI: 10.1631/jzus.b1400034


Related references

Long-term impact of right ventricular septal versus apical pacing on left ventricular synchrony and function in patients with second- or third-degree heart block. American Journal of Cardiology 103(8): 1096-1101, 2009

Differences in left ventricular dyssynchrony between high septal pacing and apical pacing in patients with normal left ventricular systolic function. Journal of Cardiology 56(1): 44-50, 2010

Effect of Right Ventricular Pacing on Right Ventricular Mechanics and Tricuspid Regurgitation in Patients With High-Grade Atrioventricular Block and Sinus Rhythm (from the Protection of Left Ventricular Function During Right Ventricular Pacing Study). American Journal of Cardiology 116(12): 1875-1882, 2016

Upgrading pacemaker patients with right ventricular apical pacing to right ventricular septal pacing improves left ventricular performance and functional capacity. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 20(8): 901-905, 2010

Deterioration of left ventricular function following atrio-ventricular node ablation and right ventricular apical pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Europace 2(Suppl. 1): A10-A10, 2010

Deterioration of left ventricular function following atrio-ventricular node ablation and right ventricular apical pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Europace 4(1): 61-65, 2002

Biventricular pacing preserves left ventricular performance in patients with high-grade atrio-ventricular block: a randomized comparison with DDD(R) pacing in 50 consecutive patients. Europace 10(3): 314-320, 2008

Survival analysis in patients with preserved left ventricular function and standard indications for permanent cardiac pacing randomized to right ventricular apical or septal outflow tract pacing. Circulation Journal 73(10): 1812-1819, 2009

Right ventricular septal pacing preserves long-term left ventricular function via minimizing pacing-induced left ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with normal baseline QRS duration. Circulation Journal 73(10): 1829-1835, 2009

Is right ventricular septal pacing superior to conventional right ventricular apical pacing in chronically implanted patients? A prospective randomized crossover comparison. Journal of the American College of Cardiology 37(2 Suppl. A): 128A, 2001

Right ventricular septal pacing preserves global left ventricular longitudinal function in comparison with apical pacing: analysis of speckle tracking echocardiography. Circulation Journal 75(7): 1609-1615, 2012

Impacts of ventricular rate regularization pacing at right ventricular apical vs. septal sites on left ventricular function and exercise capacity in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation. Europace 11(5): 594-600, 2009

New-onset heart failure after permanent right ventricular apical pacing in patients with acquired high-grade atrioventricular block and normal left ventricular function. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 19(2): 136-141, 2007

Right ventricular outflow tract pacing may improve cardiac index to a greater degree in patients with depressed left ventricular function. Circulation 92(8 SUPPL ): I201-I202, 1995

Haemodynamic effects of dual-chamber pacing versus ventricular pacing during a walk test in patients with depressed or normal left ventricular function. European Journal of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging 32(9): 1075-1080, 2005