右室双部位起搏与双室同步起搏的急性血液动力学对比研究

比较右室双部位 (RV Bi)起搏和双室 (BiV)同步起搏对血液动力学的影响 ,并与右室心尖部 (RVA)、右室流出道 (RVOT)、左室基底部 (LVB)起搏相比较 ,明确双部位起搏是否优于单部位起搏。 15例患者中病窦综合征 8例、Ⅲ度房室阻滞 7例。分别行RVA、RVOT、LVB、RV Bi、BiV起搏 (VVI,6 0～ 90次 /分 ) ,测定心输出量 (CO)和心脏指数(CI)、肺毛细血管嵌顿压 (PCWP)和QRS波时限 (QRSd)。结果 :①与RVA起搏相比 ,RVOT、LVB、RV Bi、BiV起搏CI分别增加了 7.5 %、11.3%、15 .5 %和 17.2 % ,PCWP分别降低了 14.9%、10 .3%、2 1.7%和 2 0 .0 % (P均 <0 .0 1)。②RV Bi、BiV起搏较RVOT、LVB起搏的CO、CI增高而PCWP降低 (P均 <0 .0 5 )。③RV Bi与BiV起搏、RVOT与LVB起搏之间CO、CI和PCWP无显著差异。④RVOT、RV Bi、BiV起搏的QRSd(分别为 12 8± 11,111± 16 ,10 3± 13ms)较RVA起搏 (146± 18ms)时显著缩短 (P≤ 0 .0 0 1) ,而LVB起搏 (142± 15ms)与RVOT、RVA起搏时无显著差异。结论 :RV Bi起搏和BiV同步起搏的急性血液动力学效果无明显差异 ,但双部位起搏的效果明显优于单部位起搏 ;双部位起搏的QRSd也比单部位起搏明显缩短     

右心室双部位起搏治疗心力衰竭的疗效和安全性

目的评价右心室双部位(RV-Bi)起搏治疗慢性充血性心力衰竭的疗效。方法 3例心肌病合并心力衰竭患者和3例起搏器综合征患者接受了RV-Bi起搏治疗。比较术前及术后3个月,在RV-Bi起搏、右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏和右心室流出道(RVOT)起搏模式下,患者QRS宽度(QRSd)、QRS电轴(QRSa)和心功能的变化。结果 RV-Bi起搏与RVOT起搏比较,QRSa差异无统计学意义,但与RVA起搏比较,QRSa的差异具有统计学意义;RV-Bi起搏的平均QRSd(143ms)最窄,较RVA起搏(177ms)缩短34ms,较RVOT起搏(155ms)缩短12ms。RV-Bi起搏时心功能优于RVA和RVOT起搏。RV-Bi起博时射血分数(50.4%±3.6%)、每搏量[(65±14)ml]和心输出量[(5.77±0.69)L/min]均较术前射血分数(38.5%±6.2%)、每搏量[(50±18)ml]、心输出量[(4.16±0.55)L/min]及RVA起搏射血分数(34.2%±7.4%)、每搏量[(48±15)ml]、心输出量[(4.12±0.51)L/min]和RVOT起搏时射血分数(45.4%±5.6%)、每搏量[(62±16)ml]、心输出量(5.42±0.63 L/min)显著提高(均为P<0.05)。结论 RV-Bi起搏可改善心室的激动顺序和同步性,可用于慢性心力衰竭和起搏器综合征的治疗,此项技术可作为双室同步起搏技术的替代选择,并具有手术简便和价格低廉的优点。     

右心室间隔部起搏的核素心室显像位相分析及心电图研究

目的 :观察右心室间隔部 (RVS)起搏时的心室激动顺序和双心室同步性 ;评估在接受心室起搏的患者中心电图的演变。　　方法 :慢性心房颤动伴长RR间歇或缓慢心室率需植入永久起搏器患者 10例 ,男性 7例 ,女性 3例 ,平均年龄(64 2 0± 12 61)岁 ,均采用抑制型按需心室起搏 (VVI)模式先后顺序进行右心室心尖部 (RVA)和RVS。记录术前心电图、术中RVA和RVS起搏心电图 ;术后进行核素心室显像位相分析 ,对比自身心律与RVA和RVS起搏时心室激动顺序和双心室同步性的差异。　　结果 :核素心室显像位相分析证实RVA起搏造成心室激动顺序异常和双心室失同步 ;RVS起搏时心室激动顺序、双心室同步性与正常基本一致。RVA起搏时QRS波群较术前自身增宽 [(173 0 0± 14 94)msvs (74 5 0± 7 62 )ms ,P <0 0 0 1] ,差异有非常显著性 ;RVS起搏的QRS波群宽度较RVA起搏缩窄 [(13 6 0 0± 13 5 0 )msvs (173 0 0± 14 94)ms ,P <0 0 0 1) ] ,差异有非常显著性。　　结论 :RVS起搏时心室激动顺序、双心室同步性与正常基本一致 ;与RVA起搏相比RVS起搏时心电轴、QRS波群与正常心电图相似或接近。     

右室双部位起搏的急性血流动力学研究

目的 :比较右室双部位 (RV Bi)起搏与右室心尖部 (RVA)、右室流出道 (RVOT)起搏对急性血流动力学的影响。方法 :对 15例患者 (其中病态窦房结综合征 8例 ;三度房室传导阻滞 7例 )。分别行RVA、RVOT、RV Bi起搏 (VVI ,6 0～ 90次 /min) ,测定心排血量 (CO)和心排血指数 (CI)、平均肺动脉压 (mPAP)和肺毛细血管嵌顿压 (PCWP) ,QRS宽度 (QRSd)和电轴 (QRSa)。结果 :RV Bi起搏较RVOT、RVA起搏CO、CI明显增加 ,均P<0 .0 1;PCWP显著降低 ,为P <0 .0 5～ 0 .0 1;3个不同部位起搏mPAP无明显变化 ;RV Bi起搏较RVOT起搏的QRS波时限平均缩短 17ms,较RVA平均缩短了 35ms ,均P <0 .0 1。结论 :RV Bi起搏的急性血流动力学效果明显优于RVOT ,RVA等单部位起搏。     

电极导线在右室心尖部和右室流出道起搏的随访观察

目的评价螺旋电极导线行右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏的可行性。方法连续入组195例具有植入起搏器适应证患者,术前随机分为螺旋主动固定电极导线的RVOT间隔起搏组(A组)和翼状被动固定电极导线的右室心尖部(RVA)起搏组(B组),两组中每例入选患者均分别行RVA和RVOT两个部位起搏测试,最后固定于相应的位置。比较两组术中手术时间、起搏参数、起搏QRS波宽度、手术成功率及起搏3个月、1年和2年后电极导线参数的变化。结果 A组99例,B组96例。两组起搏后QRS波宽度明显大于起搏前,B组起搏QRS波时限长于A组(176.46±24.54 ms vs 165.45±22.78 ms,P=0.001)。用于固定RVOT间隔部的曝光时间长于RVA。两组术中及术后并发症相似,R波振幅术后2年内及两组间无差别。术中A组起搏阈值高于B组(0.71±0.30 V vs0.56±0.19 V),术后2年内起搏阈值两组内及组间无差异。术后3个月时阻抗下降,A组的阻抗低于B组并持续整个随访期间。术后2年内超声心动图参数组内及组间无差别。结论采用螺旋主动固定电极导线进行RVOT起搏是安全可行的。     

右室流入道间隔部起搏对心脏血流动力学和心室激动顺序的影响

目的通过与右室心尖部(RVA)和右室流出道(RVOT)起搏比较,探讨右室流入道间隔部(RVIS)起搏对血流动力学和心室激动顺序的影响。方法选择24例阵发性室上性心动过速需行射频导管消融术(RFCA)且心功能正常和无室内传导阻滞的患者。在RFCA成功后,置入漂浮导管行血流动力学监测,用心室起搏电极以同一频率随机顺序起搏RVIS、RVOT和RVA,分别测定和比较各部位起搏时的心输出量(CO)、心脏指数(CI)、平均肺动脉压(mPAP)、肺毛细血管楔嵌压(PCWP)以及体表心电图上QRS波时限、JTc间期(经心率校正后的JT间期)和额面平均心电轴的变化。结果①RVIS、RVOT和RVA起搏时CO、CI、mPAP和PCWP等血流动力学指标均无差异(P>0.05)。②与正常窦性心律时QRS波时限比较,各部位起搏时QRS波时限均延长(P均<0.001),其中RVIS起搏时QRS波时限延长程度最小,RVA起搏时延长程度最大,各部位两两比较P均<0.05;JTc间期的变化有类似趋势,但各起搏部位之间比较无显著差异(P>0.05);与正常窦性心律时的额面平均心电轴比较,RVIS起搏时接近正常,RVOT起搏时电轴呈右偏趋势,RVA起搏时呈左偏趋势。结论①对心功能正常者RVIS起搏较RVOT和RVA起搏未表现出更佳的急性血流动力学效应。②RVIS起搏与RVOT和RVA起搏相比,能够保持相对正常的心室激动顺序。     

右室单双部位起搏对心功能和QRS宽度的影响

目的 :比较右室双部位 （RV- Bi）起搏与右室心尖部 （RVA ）、右室流出道 （RVOT）起搏对心功能的影响及 RQS宽度的变化。方法 :患者 15 （男 10 ,女 5 ）例 ,年龄 66± 6岁 ,其中病态窦房结综合征 （SSS） 8例 ,三度房室阻滞 （ °AVB） 7例。分别行 RVA,RVOT,RV- Bi起搏 (VVI,60～ 90· min- 1 ,测定心排出量 （CO）和心脏指数 （CI）、平均肺动脉压 （m PAP）和肺毛细血管嵌顿压 （RCWP） ,QRS宽度 （QRSd）和电轴 （QRSa）。结果 :1与 RVA起搏 （CO:4.16±0 .5 1L/ min;CI:2 .3 9± 0 .3 4L· min- 1 · m- 2 ;PCWP:17.5± 3 .7mm Hg）相比 ,RVOT起搏 （CO:4.42± 0 .63 L/min;CI:2 .5 7± 0 .45 L· min- 1· m- 2 ;PCWP:14.9± 3 .7m m Hg）和 RV- Bi起搏 （CO:4.77± 0 .69L/ min;CI:2 .76± 0 .5 3 L· m in- 1 · m- 2 ;PCWP:13 .7± 3 .1mm Hg） CO,CI显著增加、PCWP明显降低 （P<0 .0 5～ 0 .0 1） ;2 RV - Bi起搏较 RVOT起搏的 CO,CI增高 （P<0 .0 1）而 PCWP降低 （P<0 .0 5 ） ;3 RVOT,RV- Bi起搏的 QRSd（分别为12 8± 11ms;111± 16m s）较 RVA起搏时 （146± 18m s）显著缩短 （P<0 .0 5～ 0 .0 1） ;RV - Bi起搏又比 RVOT起搏明显缩短 （P<0 .0 1）。结论 :右室双部位 （RV- Bi）起搏的心功能明显优于 RVA,RVOT等单部位起搏 ;右室双     

右室流出道间隔部和心尖部起搏对心功能和重构的影响

目的比较右室流出道(RVOT)和右室心尖部(RVA)起搏对心脏做功和重构的影响。方法 83例缓慢心律失常的患者,其中男40例,女43例,随机分为RVOT间隔部起搏组(RVOT组,n=42)和RVA部起搏组(RVA组,n=41),观察两组QRS波时限、新出现心房颤动(简称房颤)的情况、心腔内径及左室射血分数(LVEF)的变化。结果随访11.47±1.67个月,两组术后QRS波时限均较术前明显延长(P<0.01),RVA组明显长于RVOT组(P<0.01);两组的左房内径和左室收缩末径均未见明显变化,RVA组1年后左室舒张末径较术前显著增加(53.53±5.72 mm vs 50.03±6.20 mm,P<0.05),两组1年后LVEF均较术前显著降低(RVOT、RVA比较分别为0.57±0.10 vs 0.62±0.11,0.53±0.08 vs 0.63±0.10,P均<0.01);两组新出现房颤例数亦未见差异。结论 RVOT起搏对心室重构的影响要好于RVA起搏。     

右心室流出道与右心室心尖部起搏对心室收缩同步性和心功能的影响

目的研究右心室流出道(right ventricular outflow tract,RVOT)间隔部和右心室心尖部(right ventricularapex,RVA)起搏对心脏收缩同步性、收缩功能的影响,探讨RVOT间隔部起搏的意义。方法 50例病态窦房结综合征患者分为RVOT组(n=25)和RVA组(n=25),起搏器置入1个月后通过调整房室间期使心室节律全部为起搏节律或房室结自身下传节律,观察起搏参数,并行超声心动图检查。结果RVOT组与RVA组电极导线植入时间、X线曝光时间比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。全部患者未出现植入并发症。两组随访1个月时起搏参数比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。RVOT组和RVA组起搏后的QRS波时限较前明显增宽,差异有统计学意义[RVOT组:(135±8)ms vs.(88±8)ms,P<0.001;RVA组:(154±8)ms vs.(90±6)ms,P<0.001]。RVA组起搏后QRS波时限较RVOT组增宽更为明显,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。两组起搏后室间机械延迟(interventricularmechanical delay,IVMD)和室间隔-左心室后壁收缩运动延迟时间(septal-to-posteriowall motion delay,SPWMD)较起搏前均显著增加,差异有统计学意义(P<0.001)。RVA组起搏后IVMD和SPWMD绝对值较RVOT组显著延长,差异有统计学意义[IVMD:(38±7)ms vs.(24±5)ms,P<0.001;SPWMD:(118±21)ms vs.(60±11)ms,P<0.001]。两组左心室舒张末内径及左心室射血分数比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论右心室起搏会造成心室收缩不同步,RVOT起搏对心室收缩不同步的影响较RVA起搏小,提示RVOT起搏是较为生理的起搏位点。     

右室流出道间隔部应用螺旋电极固定起搏对心功能的影响分析

目的比较右室流出道(RVOT)间隔部起搏和右室心尖部起搏(RVA)对心功能的影响,评估螺旋电极进行右室流出道间隔部起搏技术的可行性与安全性。方法选择有永久起搏器植入适应证的患者21例,分为右室流出道间隔部起搏组(试验组),右心室心尖部起搏组(对照组),以超声心动图(UCG)和心电图评价两组术前、术后血流动力学和QRS波宽度差异。结果术后平均随访6个月,结果显示RVOT起搏血流动力学优于RVA起搏(P<0.05),RVOT起搏QRS波宽度较RVA组缩短,有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论利用螺旋电极进行右室流出道间隔部起搏基本可行且较为安全,右室流出道间隔部起搏的血流动力学参数优于右室心尖部。     

Right ventricular outflow versus apical pacing in pacemaker patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation

INTRODUCTION: Prior studies suggest that right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing has deleterious effects. Whether the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) is a more optimal site for permanent pacing in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) has not been established. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a randomized, cross-over trial to determine whether quality of life (QOL) is better after 3 months of RVOT than RVA pacing in 103 pacemaker recipients with CHF, left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction (LV ejection fraction < or = 40%), and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF). An additional aim was to compare dual-site (RVOT + RVA, 31-ms delay) with single-site RVA and RVOT pacing. QRS duration was shorter during RVOT (167 +/- 45 ms) and dual-site (149 +/- 19 ms) than RVA pacing (180 +/- 58 ms, P < 0.0001). At 6 months, the RVOT group had higher (P = 0.01) role-emotional QOL subscale scores than the RVA group. At 9 months, there were no significant differences in QOL scores between RVOT and RVA groups. Comparing RVOT to RVA pacing within the same patient, mental health subscale scores were better (P = 0.03) during RVOT pacing. After 9 months of follow-up, LVEF was higher (P = 0.04) in those assigned to RVA rather than RVOT pacing between months 6 and 9. After 3 months of dual-site RV pacing, physical functioning was worse (P = 0.04) than during RVA pacing, mental health was worse (P = 0.02) than during RVOT pacing, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class was slightly better (P = 0.03) than during RVOT pacing. There were no other significant differences between RVA, RVOT and dual-site RV pacing in QOL scores, NYHA class, distance walked in 6 minutes, LV ejection fraction, or mitral regurgitation. CONCLUSION: In patients with CHF, LV dysfunction, and chronic AF, RVOT and dual-site RV pacing shorten QRS duration but after 3 months do not consistently improve QOL or other clinical outcomes compared with RVA pacing.     

Functional abnormalities in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing: the effect of sites of electrical stimulation

OBJECTIVES: We sought to evaluate the long-term effects of alternative right ventricular pacing sites on myocardial function and perfusion. BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated that asynchronous ventricular activation due to right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing alters regional myocardial perfusion and functions. METHODS: We randomized 24 patients with complete atrioventricular block to undergo permanent ventricular stimulation either at the RVA (n = 12) or right ventricular outflow (RVOT) (n = 12). All patients underwent dipyridamole thallium myocardial scintigraphy and radionuclide ventriculography at 6 and 18 months after pacemaker implantation. RESULTS: After pacing, the mean QRS duration was significantly longer during RVA pacing than during RVOT pacing (151 +/- 6 vs. 134 +/- 4 ms, p = 0.03). At six months, the incidence of myocardial perfusion defects (50% vs. 25%) and regional wall motion abnormalities (42% vs. 25%) and the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (55 +/- 3% vs. 55 +/- 1%) were similar during RVA pacing and RVOT pacing (p > 0.05). However, at 18 months, the incidence of myocardial perfusion defects (83% vs. 33%) and regional wall motion abnormalities (75% vs. 33%) were higher and LVEF (47 +/- 3 vs. 56 +/- 1%) was lower during RVA pacing than during RVOT pacing (all p < 0.05). Patients with RVA pacing had a significant increase in the incidence of myocardial perfusion defects (p < 0.05) and a decrease in LVEF (p < 0.01) between 6 and 18 months, but patients with RVOT pacing did not (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that preserved synchronous ventricular activation with RVOT pacing prevents the long-term deleterious effects of RVA pacing on myocardial perfusion and function in patients implanted with a permanent pacemaker.     

右心室流出道间隔部起搏对左心室功能的影响

目的比较右心室流出道间隔部(RVOT)起搏与右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏的血流动力学差异;评估RVOT起搏技术的可行性与安全性。方法选择有永久起搏器置入适应证的患者75例。根据术者建议和患者意愿分为RVOT组(40例)和RVA组(35例)。所有房室传导阻滞及病窦综合征合并一度房室传导阻滞患者采用双腔起搏双腔感知触发抑制型起搏模式,心房颤动伴长间歇患者采用抑制型心室按需起搏模式。比较2组的血流动力学差异。结果 RVOT组的QRS波宽度较RVA组缩窄(23.2±28.7)ms,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。与RVA组比较,RVOT组LVEF、左心室短轴缩短率明显升高,左心室舒张末容积明显下降(P<0.05,P<0.01)。与术前比较,RVA组LVEF、左心室短轴缩短率明显下降,左心室舒张末容积明显升高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论利用螺旋电极进行RVOT起搏可行且较为安全。RVOT起搏的血流动力学参数优于RVA。     

Acute Changes in Cardiac Synchrony and Output According to RV Pacing Sites in Koreans with Normal Cardiac Function

Introduction: The synchrony of the pacing heart can be affected by the right ventricular (RV) pacing site and is crucial to cardiac function in pacemaker recipients. We evaluated the acute changes in cardiac synchrony according to the RV pacing sites in normal systolic functioning subjects with normal QRS. Methods: We conducted this study with 30 patients with the pacing in the RV apex (RVA), RV septum (RVS), and RV outflow tract (RVOT) in a sequential manner . Transthoracic echocardiography was conducted at rest and during pacing in order to measure interventricular and intraventricular dyssynchrony in all patients. Results: QRS duration (148.1 ± 12.8 ms) of RVA pacing was significantly shorter than that of RVS pacing (154.4 ± 14.1 ms, P < 0.01) and RVOT pacing (160.6 ± 15.7 ms, P < 0.001). We noted no statistically significant difference in cardiac output according to the pacing sites. The interventricular dyssynchrony with M-mode and Doppler echocardiography in RVOT pacing was increased to an insignificant degree as compared with those with RVS pacing or RVA pacing. The intraventricular dyssynchrony with tissue Doppler echocardiography in RVA pacing was reduced significantly as compared with that of RVS pacing or RVOT (RVA = 60.3 ± 32.7 ms, RVS = 82.1 ± 33.8 ms, RVOT = 79.1 ± 33.3 ms; RVA vs RVS = P < 0.05, RVA vs RVOT = P < 0.01, RVS vs RVOT = P = NS). Conclusion: RVA pacing is superior to RVS and RVOT pacing with regard to intraventricular synchrony in normal systolic functioning subjects with normal QRS. Cardiac output at RVA pacing is not inferior to other sites.     

右心室心尖部起搏与右心室流出道起搏的临床研究

目的利用超声多普勒优化房室间期后,比较右心室心尖部（RVA）起搏与右心室流出道（RVOT）起搏对左、右心室间收缩同步性的差别。方法（1）共入选45例三度房室阻滞患者,其中男16例,女29例。RVA组31例,RVOT组14例,出院前进行程控。（2）将感知的房室间期（SAV）由70～170ms递增,每次递增20ms,分别行超声心动图检查,测定心肌做功指数（MPI）,将MPI最小时的SAV确定为最适SAV。比较不同起搏部位所测最适SAV的差异。（3）应用组织多普勒同步图（TSI）技术分别测量左、右心室侧壁基底部心肌收缩达峰时问,二者之差用ATs表示,代表室间不同步程度。比较不同起搏部位ATs的差异。结果（1）RVA与RVOT起搏的最适SAV分别为（80．0±9．8）ms对（92±18）ms,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01）。（2）RVA与RVOT组室间隔与左心室侧壁收缩达峰时间差分别为（89．5±25．7）ms对（27．94-10．5）ms（P〈0．001）,左、右心室侧壁基底部收缩达峰时间之差分别为（88．3±23．4）ms对（29．54-16．7）ms,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．001）。结论与RVA起搏比较,RVOT起搏对心室收缩同步性影响较小,分析其效果与RVOT起搏部位有关。     

右心室不同部位起搏对心脏收缩同步性及心功能的影响

目的比较右心室流出道（right ventricular outflow tract,RVOT）起搏与右心窀心尖部（riht ventficular apex,RVA）起搏对心脏收缩同步性指标及收缩功能的影响。方法2004年1月至2005年1月在我院植入VVL／VVIR,DDD／DDDR起搏器的患者,随机接受RVA起搏和RVOT起搏。植入前检查12导联体表心电罔及超声心动图,记录QRS时限、左心室舒张末内径（LVEDD）、左心房内径（LAD）、左心事射血分数（LVEF）。植入后记录心室起搏状态下的QRS时限。随访时间为2年,随访内容包括LVEDD、LAD、LVEF,同时应用脉冲组织多普勒技术测定心室问激动延迟（IVMD）以及左心室内收缩同步性指标（Ts-SD）。结果共随访30例患者,其中RVA起搏17例,RVOT起搏13例,两组患者间年龄、性别及心血管疾病等基本情况筹异无统计学意义。植入前两组患者问QRS时限、LVEDD、LAD及LVEF差异无统计学意义,植入后RVOT起搏状态下QRS时限较RVA起搏明显缩短[（140．15±11．36）ms对（160．76±23．68）ms,P=0．033],植入后两组间IVMD[（25．7±9．1）mS对（36．7±10．0）ms,P=0．076]比较差异无统计学意义,两组问Ts—SD（13．34ms对42．96ms,P=0．001）比较差异有统计学意义;植入后随访两年,两组患者间LAD差异无统计学意义[（43±6）ms对（42±9）ms,P=0．759],同RVA组相比,RVOT组LVEDD缩小[（5．10±0．76）mm对（5．28±0．40）mm,P=0．048],LVEF明显增加（0．56±0．04对0．52±0．02,P=0．001）。结论同右心窄流出道起搏相比,右心室心尖部起搏对患者心功能呈负性影响,且加重左心室内不同步收缩。     

Comparison of the Acute Hemodynamic Effect of Right Ventricular Apex,Outflow Tract,and Dual‐Site Right Ventricular Pacing

Background: We studied the acute effect of pacing at the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), right ventricular apex (RVA) and simultaneous RVA and RVOT—dual‐site right ventricular pacing (DuRV) in random order on systolic function using impedance cardiography. Methods: Seventy‐three patients (46 males), aged 52–89 years (mean 71.4 years) subjected to routine dual chamber pacemaker implantation with symptomatic chronic II or atrioventricular block, were included to the study. Results: DuRV pacing resulted in significantly higher cardiac index (CI) in comparison to RVOT and RVA and CI at RVOT was higher than at RVA pacing (2.46 vs 2.35 vs 2.28; P < 0.001). In patients with ejection fraction >50% significantly higher CI was observed during DuRV pacing when compared to RVOT and RVA pacing and there was no difference of CI between RVOT and RVA pacing (2.53 vs 2.41 vs 2.37; P < 0.001). In patients with ejection fraction <50%, DuRV and RVOT pacing resulted in significantly higher CI in comparison to RVA pacing while no difference in CI was observed between RVOT and DuRV pacing (2.28 vs 2.21 vs 2.09; P < 0.001). Conclusion: Dual‐site right ventricular pacing in comparison to RVA pacing improved cardiac systolic function. RVOT appeared to be more advantageous than RVA pacing in patients with impaired, but not in those with preserved left ventricular function. No clear hemodynamic benefit of DuRV in comparison to RVOT pacing in patients with impaired systolic function was observed. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol 2010;15(4):353‐359