Characteristics of bifocal pacing: right ventricular apex versus outflow tract. An interim analysis

Bifocal RIGHT ventricular stimulation (BRIGHT) is an ongoing, randomized, single-blind, crossover study of atrial synchronized bi-right ventricular (RV) pacing in patients in New York Heart Association heart failure functional class III, a left ventricular ejection fraction <35%, left bundle branch block and QRS complexes >/=120 ms. This analysis compared the electrical and handling characteristics, and the complications of pacing at the RV apex (Ap) with passive, versus RV outflow tract (OT) with active fixation leads. A mean of 1.6 +/- 0.9 and 2.2 +/- 2.0 attempts were needed to position the Ap and OT leads, respectively (ns). R-wave amplitudes at Ap versus OT were 23 +/- 13 mV versus 14 +/- 8 mV (n = 36, P < 0.001). R-wave amplitudes at the Ap remained stable between implant and M7. R-wave amplitudes at the OT could not be measured after implantation. In two patients, atrioventricular block occurred during active fixation at the OT. Conduction recovered spontaneously within 4 months. Ventricular fibrillation was induced in one patient during manipulation of an Ap lead in the RV. Marked differences were found between leads positioned in the OT versus Ap, partly related to the difference in lead design. Mean R-wave amplitude was higher at the Ap that at the OT. Ease and success rate of lead implant was similar in both positions.     

Is Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Pacing an Alternative to Left Ventricular/Biventricular Pacing?

The right ventricular apex has been used as the traditional pacing site since the development of transvenous pacing in 1959. Some studies suggest that pacing the right ventricular apex may cause remodeling and is harmful. In the past decade, there have been a multitude of studies of the hemodynamic, electrophysiological, electrocardiographic, and clinical effects of ventricular pacing at other sites. Pacing of the left ventricle singly or with biventricular pacing has emerged as an effective and safe therapy for moderate to severe congestive heart failure in patients with prolonged QRS complexes. Studies of alternate right ventricular sites, like the right ventricular outflow tract, have given mixed results. Not all patients can be treated with left ventricular pacing, which is a time-consuming and difficult procedure. Right ventricular pacing is easier and less expensive than left ventricular pacing and further study of additional right ventricular sites seems warranted. (PACE 2004; 27[Pt. II]:871–877)     

Hemodynamic Benefits of Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Pacing: Comparison with Right Ventricular Apex Pacing

To assess optimal hemodynamics in relation to stimulation site during right ventricular pacing, 17 consecutive patients who underwent cardiac catheterization were studied. In all patients, right ventricular apex and right ventricular outflow tract stimulation was performed at 85, 100, and 120 beats/min. Cardiac index at both pacing sites was compared using the left ventricular outflow tract continuous wave Doppler technique. Comparison of the two stimulation sites demonstrated that right ventricular outflow tract pacing resulted in a higher cardiac index at 85 beats/min (2.42 ± 1.2 vs 2.04 ±1.0 L/min per m², P < 0.002) at 100 beats/min (2.78 ± 1.4 vs 2.35 ± 1.1 L/min perm², P < 0.001) and 120 beats/min (3.00 ± 1.5 vs 2.61 ± 0.9 L/min perm², P < 0.001). From a total of 51 paired observations, 45 showed an increase in cardiac index during outflow tract pacing as compared to apex pacing. Right ventricular outflow tract pacing at 120 beats/min resulted in a lower cardiac index than right ventricular apex pacing in patients with significant coronary artery disease and/or impaired left ventricular function (ejection fraction ≤ 50%), whereas right ventricular outflow tract pacing produced higher cardiac indices in the absence of these abnormalities. Right ventricular outflow tract pacing resulted in higher cardiac indices as compared to apex pacing in all other subgroups at all other pacing sites tested. It is concluded that stimulation of the right ventricular outflow tract offers a significant hemodynamic benefit during single chamber pacing as compared to conventional apex pacing, particularly in the absence of significant coronary artery disease and/or left ventricular dysfunction.     

Selective Site Pacing:

Animal data and recent findings in humans have questioned the appropriateness of pacing the heart from the right ventricular apex. Numerous, mostly small sized, studies have evaluated alternative sites within the right ventricle. There is now sufficient evidence that right ventricular apical pacing in patients with left ventricular dysfunction with or without heart failure is detrimental. Pacing from the right side of the heart as an attempt at nonpharmacological therapy for heart failure, turns out to be obsolete. In antibradycardia pacing with the need for continuous ventricular support, the interest in preserving left ventricular function drives the ongoing search for the most favorable pacing site within the right ventricle. Results, so far, are conflicting which may be attributed to the inhomogeneity of patient groups, the small cohorts studied, the differing protocols used, and the lack of accepted definitions of right ventricular lead positions. Larger studies are needed to evaluate intraoperative criteria for optimal lead placement and the potential benefit of nonapical right ventricular pacing. (PACE 2004; 27[Pt. II]:855–861)     

Right Ventricular Septal Pacing: A Comparative Study of Outflow Tract and Mid Ventricular Sites

Background: Prolonged right ventricle (RV) apical pacing is associated with left ventricle (LV) dysfunction due to dysynchronous ventricular activation and contraction. Alternative RV pacing sites with a narrower QRS compared to RV pacing might reflect a more physiological and synchronous LV activation. The purpose of this study was to compare the QRS morphology, duration, and suitability of RV outflow tract (RVOT) septal and mid‐RV septal pacing. Methods: Seventeen consecutive patients with indication for dual‐chamber pacing were enrolled in the study. Two standard 58‐cm active fixation leads were passed to the RV and positioned in the RVOT septum and mid‐RV septum using a commercially available septal stylet (model 4140, St. Jude Medical, St. Paul, MN, USA). QRS duration, morphology, and pacing parameters were compared at the two sites. The RV lead with less‐satisfactory electrical parameters was withdrawn and deployed in the right atrium. Results: Successful positioning of the pacing leads at the RVOT septum and mid‐RV septum was achieved in 15 patients (88.2%). There were no significant differences in the mean stimulation threshold, R‐wave sensing, and lead impedance between the two sites. The QRS duration in the RVOT septum was 151 ± 14 ms and in the mid‐RV septum 145 ± 13 ms (P = 0.150). Conclusions: This prospective observational study shows that septal pacing can be reliably achieved both in the RVOT and mid‐RV with active fixation leads using a specifically shaped stylet. There are no preferences in regard to acute lead performance or paced QRS duration with either position. (PACE 2010; 33:1169–1173)     

Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Septal Pacing: Long-Term Follow-Up of Ventricular Lead Performance

Background: The detrimental effects of right ventricular apical pacing on left ventricular function has driven interest in selective site pacing, predominantly on the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) septum. There is currently no information on long-term ventricular lead electrical performance from this site.
Methods: A total of 100 patients with ventricular lead placement on the RVOT septum undergoing pacemaker implantation for bradycardia indications were analyzed retrospectively. Lead positioning was confirmed with the use of fluoroscopy. Long-term (1 year) follow-up was obtained in 92 patients. Information on stimulation threshold, R-wave sensing, lead impedance, and lead complications were collected.
Results: Lead performance at the RVOT septal position was stable in the long term. Ventricular electrical parameters were acceptable with stable long-term stimulation thresholds, sensing, and impedance for all lead types. One-year results demonstrated mean stimulation threshold of 0.71 ± 0.25 V, mean R wave of 12.4 ± 6.05 mV, and mean impedance values of 520 ± 127 Ω. There were no cases of high pacing thresholds or inadequate sensing.
Conclusions: This study confirms satisfactory long-term performance with leads placed on the RVOT septum, comparable to traditional pacing sites. It is now time to undertake studies to examine the long-term hemodynamic effects of RVOT septal pacing.     

Alternatives When Coronary Sinus Pacing Is Not Possible

VLAY, S.C.: Alternatives When Coronary Sinus Pacing Is Not Possible. Biventricular pacing via a branch vein of the coronary sinus is not always possible due to anatomical reasons including phrenic nerve stimulation, scarred myocardium unable to sense or pace, and distorted anatomy prohibiting entry into the coronary sinus. Three patients are described in which alternative site pacing with an electrode in the right ventricular outflow tract alone or as a part of biventricular pacing system in the right ventricle provided a major improvement in dyspnea, congestive heart failure, New York Heart Association functional class, and ability to ambulate. (PACE 2003; 26[Pt. I]:4–7)     

The Right Ventricular Outflow Tract as an Alternative Permanent Pacing Site: Long-Term Follow-Up

The long-term characteristics of the right ventricular outflow tract have been assessed as an alternative permanent pacing site to the right ventricular apex. Thirty-three consecutive patients requiring ventricular pacing were randomized to be paced from one of the two sites. Pacing was performed using a screw-in lead, and a programmable pacemaker was used to facilitate threshold testing. There was no significant difference in the lead positioning time or any acute implant measurement (e.g., threshold at 0.5 msec 0.4 +/- 0.2 V for both sites, P = 0.99). Chronic measurements were also comparable during follow-up (mean 73 months) with a mean threshold at most recent follow-up of 0.15 +/- 0.2 msec (apex) and 0.13 +/- 0.21 msec (outflow tract) at 5 V, P = 0.81. There was only one pacing related complication, a lead dislodgment (outflow tract) in a pacemaker twiddler. Overall, both sites were highly satisfactory.     

The right ventricular outflow tract: a comparative study of septal, anterior wall, and free wall pacing

BACKGROUND: There is marked heterogeneity in right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) pacemaker lead placement using conventional leads. As a result, we have sought to identify a reproducible way of placing a ventricular lead onto the RVOT septum. METHODS AND RESULTS: A major determinant is the shape of the stylet used to deliver the active-fixation lead. We compared stylet shapes and configurations in patients who initially had a ventricular lead placed onto the anterior or free wall of the RVOT and then had the lead repositioned onto the septum. All leads were loaded with a stylet fashioned with a distal primary curve to facilitate delivery of the lead to the pulmonary artery, then using a pullback technique the lead was retracted to the RVOT. All lead placements were confirmed by fluoroscopy and electrocardiography. Anterior or free wall placement was achieved by the stylet having either the standard curve or an added distal anterior angulation. In contrast, septal lead positioning was uniformly achieved by a distal posterior angulation of the curved stylet. This difference in tip shape was highly predictive for septal placement (P < 0.001). With septal pacing, a narrower QRS duration was noted, compared to anterior or free wall pacing (136 vs 155 ms, P < 0.001). All pacing parameters were within acceptable limits. CONCLUSION: Using appropriately shaped stylets, pacing leads can now be placed into specific positions within the RVOT and in particular septal pacing can be reliably and reproducibly achieved. This is an important step in the standardization of lead placement in the RVOT.     

Right ventricular outflow tract pacing: practical and beneficial. A 9-year experience of 460 consecutive implants

BACKGROUND: Pacing from the right ventricular apex (RVA) in patients with ventricular dysfunction has been identified as a possible contributor to deterioration of ventricular function. Therefore, alternative pacing sites such as the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) are receiving intensified scrutiny. An unresolved question is whether technical, procedural, and stability issues are comparable for the RVA and the RVOT. METHODS: This report details 460 consecutive ventricular pacing lead implants with the primary intended site in the RVOT. Patients were evaluated for success, complication rates, and followed-up for stability of pacing parameters. The total patient implant population included 300 male and 170 female patients with a mean age of 70.6 years. Ten patients were excluded from the analysis, since there was a primary indication and intention to implant in the RVA, leaving a total of 460 patients for analysis. The indications for pacing were symptomatic bradycardia due to any cause and/or Mobitz II or complete heart block. There was no clinical evidence of heart failure in 420 patients. In 40 patients with heart failure, the indication for pacing was cardiac resynchronization therapy using the RVOT as an alternate site when pacing from a branch vein of the coronary sinus was not possible. Outcome information was obtained from the implanter's clinic. RESULTS: The overall success rate in the RVOT was 84% over the total 9-year period with a 92% success rate in the last 4(1/2) years, using the RVOT technique described. At 20 months in a subgroup comparison of RVOT and RVA implants, there was no significant difference in pacing threshold, R-wave sensing, or pacing lead impedance. Dislodgment occurred in only 1 of 460 patients. Reasons for failure to implant in the RVOT include inability to find a stable position with adequate pacing and sensing thresholds (related to anatomy, scarred myocardium, pulmonary hypertension, tricuspid regurgitation), hemodynamic instability limiting time for implant, and a learning curve. Long-term stability and lead performance were excellent, and certain acute and chronic complications of RV pacing did not occur.     

Physiologic Pacing: New Modalities and Pacing Sites

Right ventricular (RV) apical pacing impairs left ventricular function by inducing dyssynchronous contraction and relaxation. Chronic RV apical pacing is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, morbidity, and even mortality. These observations have raised questions regarding the appropriate pacing mode and site, leading to the introduction of algorithms and new pacing modes to reduce the ventricular pacing burden in dual chamber devices, and a shift of the pacing site away from the RV apex. However, further investigations are required to assess the long-term results of pacing from alternative sites in the right ventricle, because long-term results so far are equivocal. The potential benefit of prophylactic biventricular, monochamber left ventricular, and bifocal RV pacing should be explored in selected patients with a narrow QRS complex, especially those with impaired left ventricular function. His bundle pacing is a promising and evolving technique that requires improvements in lead technology.     

Right ventricular outflow tract placement of defibrillation leads: five year experience

Over a 5-year period, 112 patients (89 male/23 female, mean age 65 years) underwent right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) placement of permanent active-fixation transvenous pacing/defibrillating leads. At implantation, the pacing threshold was 0.6 +/- 0.3 V at 0.5 ms pulse duration and R wave amplitude was 10.9 +/- 4.9 mV. The defibrillation threshold (DFT) of right-sided implants was 17.7 +/- 3.4 J while that of left-sided implants was 16.1 +/- 3.3 J. Patients were followed at 1 and 3 month postimplant and at six-month intervals thereafter. At mean follow-up of 22.5 +/- 17.5 months (range 1-47 months) there were no lead dislodgments, unsuccessful shock therapies, or failure to sense or pace for bradycardia or tachycardia. Death was not sudden in the 17 patients who died. We conclude that RVOT pacing-defibrillation lead implantation is safe, efficacious, and potentially attractive because preliminary evidence suggests that it may not be associated with the adverse hemodynamic effects of pacing at the right ventricular apex.     

Long‐Term Effects of Upgrading to Biventricular Pacing: Differences with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy as Primary Indication

Background: Few studies have assessed the long‐term effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with advanced heart failure (HF) and previously right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP). Aims: To assess the clinical and hemodynamic impact of upgrading to biventricular pacing in patients with severe HF and permanent RVAP in comparison with patients who had CRT implantation as initial therapy. Methods and Results: Thirty‐nine patients with RVAP, advanced HF (New York Heart Association [NYHA] III–IV), and severe depression of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were upgraded to biventricular pacing (group A). Mean duration of RVAP before upgrading was 41.8 ± 13.3 months. Clinical and echocardiographic results were compared to those obtained in a group of 43 patients with left bundle branch block and similar clinical characteristics undergoing “primary” CRT (group B). Mean follow‐up was 35 ± 10 months in patients of group A and 38 ± 12 months in group B. NYHA class significantly improved in groups A and B. LVEF increased from 0.23 ± 0.07 to 0.36 ± 0.09 (P < 0.001) and from 0.26 ± 0.02 to 0.34 ± 0.10 (P < 0.001), respectively. Hospitalizations were reduced by 81% and 77% (P < 0.001). Similar improvements in echocardiographic signs of ventricular desynchronization were also observed. Conclusion: Patients upgraded to CRT exhibit long‐term clinical and hemodynamic benefits that are similar to those observed in patients treated with CRT as initial strategy. (PACE 2010; 841–849)     

Right Ventricular Tachycardia with Left Bundle Branch Block and Inferior Axis Morphology: Clinical and Arrhythmological Characteristics in 15 Patients

Fifteen patients (mean age 30) presenting with right ventricular tachycardia (VT) of the outflow tract type (left bundle branch block with inferior axis morphology), in the absence of obvious organic heart disease, were studied. Seven patients had palpitations, one presyncope and seven were asymptomatic. The echo and/or angiographic findings were normal in 11 patients (73%), suggesting arrhythmogenic right ventricular dysplasia (ARVD) in three (20%) and dubious in one (7%). The VT was sustained in three patients (20%), nonsustained (11 +/- 6 beats) in twelve (80%), inducible during exercise in two out of 15 patients (13%) and with ventricular stimulation in one out of eight (12.5%). Four patients were treated with sotalol, three with Class IC drugs and one with amiodarone. At follow-up of 36 +/- 30 months, only three patients had VT recurrences due to drug withdrawal. In conclusion: (1) abnormal echo and/or angiographic findings suggested that ARVD was observed in a minority of the patients (22%); (2) the low inducibility of VT and the good response to sotalol suggested a possible mechanism of abnormal automaticity; and (3) at a 3-year follow-up the prognosis appeared to be good in both patients with or without echo-angiographic signs suggestive of right ventricular dysplasia.     

实时三维超声心动图评价右室不同部位起搏对左室收缩功能及收缩同步性的影响

目的:应用实时三维超声心动图评价右室不同部位起搏对左室收缩功能及收缩同步性的影响。方法:将行双腔起搏器植入术的20例房室传导阻滞患者按起搏部位的不同分为右室心尖部起搏组(RVA组)和右室流出道起搏组(RVOT组)。两组患者均于术前及术后3个月应用二维及三维超声心动图检查左室容积、射血分数、LV区域壁运动,并比较两组患者的左室收缩功能及收缩同步性指标。结果:术后两组16节段、12节段、6节段达到最小容积时间的最大差值和标准差(Tmsv-dif,Tmsv-dif%,Tmsv-sd,Tmsv-sd%),差异无统计学意义(P0.05),但RVOT组左室收缩同步性高于RVA组(P0.05);两组常规二维超声参数及左室整体收缩功能差异无统计学意义(P0.05)。结论:短期内,右室不同部位起搏不影响左室整体收缩功能和左室收缩同步性。     

右室不同部位起搏对左室重构及脑钠肽的影响

目的 比较右室流出道间隔部(RVS)与右室心尖部(RVA)起搏对左室重构及脑钠肽的影响.方法 60例具备起搏器植入指征的患者,随机分为RVA组与RVS组,分别于治疗前及治疗后6、12、24个月采血应用夹心酶联免疫吸附法检测血浆脑钠肽(BNP)水平,超声测量左心室舒张末期内径(LVEDD)、左室舒张末期容积(INEDV)和左室射血分数(LVEF),观察2组患者起搏前后心室重构指标及BNP的变化.结果 RVA组起搏术后各个时间点BNP水平显著升高[术后6、12、24个月分别为(108.2±29.8)、(190.3±46.7)、(308.2±56.5)ng/L],与术前[(60.2±15.7)ng/L]比较差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05);RVS组起搏术后仅24个月时BNP水平较术前升高[(75.2±15.8)ng/L与(63.9±15.1)ng/L],差异有统计学意义(P<0.05).RVA起搏组随着起搏时间的延长,与术前相比,12个月时LVEDD、LVEDV增加,LVEF下降,差异均有统计学意义(P均<0.05).而RVS组LVEDD无明显增大,LVEDV轻度增加,LVEF呈下降趋势,差异均无统计学意义(P均>0.05).结论 RVS起搏较RVA起搏能改善心肌重构,改善左室功能.减轻神经内分泌激活.     

Early Results of AV Sequential Pacing on Left Ventricular Outflow Obstruction after Senning Procedure

Dual chamber pacing was shown to decrease left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) obstruction in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy 30 years ago. We report early results of AV sequential pacing from the LV apex in a patient with transposition of the great arteries who is post-Senning procedure. LVOT obstruction resulted from septal deviation and systolic anterior motion of the mitral valve. Pacing was indicated for sinus node dysfunction. AV sequential pacing with a short optimal A V interval of 60 ms demonstrated a 45% reduction in the degree of LVOT obstruction. This article suggests that LVOT obstruction after the Senning procedure can be palliated by asynchronous septal contraction induced by A V sequential pacing, even if the activation is from LV apex, and avoid or postpone surgery in selected situations.