What are the atrioventricular delays in right ventricular apical and septal pacing for optimal hemodynamics in patients with normal left ventricular function?

INTRODUCTION: There is a surge of interest in alternate site pacing to prevent pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction. However, little is known regarding the appropriate atrioventricular (AV) delay between right ventricular (RV) septal and RV apical pacing for optimal hemodynamic benefit. OBJECTIVES: To determine the programmed values of atrial sensed and atrial paced AV delays in basal RV septal and apical RV pacing that results in the maximum delivered stroke volume (SV). METHODS: We calculated the Doppler-derived SV at various sensed and paced AV delays in 50 patients with complete AV block implanted with a dual-chamber pacemaker (group A: 25 RV apical pacing; group B: 25 RV septal pacing). The hemodynamic difference in terms of the SV between sensed and paced AV delay, corresponding to the site of RV pacing was then compared for statistical significance. RESULTS: In group A, maximal SV was derived at a sensed AV delay of 123.2 ± 11 ms and paced AV delay of 129.2 ± 10 ms, and in group B, at a sensed AV delay of 123.6 ± 8 ms and paced AV delay of and 132.8 ± 7 ms. At these intervals, there was no difference in the SV between septal and apical RV pacing (P = .28 and .22, respectively). CONCLUSION: The atrial sensed and atrial paced AV delays for septal and apical RV pacing for optimal hemodynamics are similar. For optimal hemodynamics, the atrial paced AV delay is longer than the atrial sensed AV delay.

Differential effect with septal and apical RV pacing on ventricular activation in patients with left bundle branch block assessed by non-invasive electrical imaging and in silico modelling.

PURPOSE: It is uncertain whether right ventricular (RV) lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy impacts response. There has been little detailed analysis of the activation patterns in RV septal pacing (RVSP), especially in the CRT population. We compare left bundle branch block (LBBB) activation patterns with RV pacing (RVP) within the same patients with further comparison between RV apical pacing (RVAP) and RVSP. METHODS: Body surface mapping was undertaken in 14 LBBB patients after CRT implantation. Nine patients had RVAP, 5 patients had RVSP. Activation parameters included left ventricular total activation time (LVtat), biventricular total activation time (VVtat), interventricular electrical synchronicity (VVsync), and dispersion of left ventricular activation times (LVdisp). The direction of activation wave front was also compared in each patient (wave front angle (WFA)). In silico computer modelling was applied to assess the effect of RVAP and RVSP in order to validate the clinical results. RESULTS: Patients were aged 64.6 ± 12.2 years, 12 were male, 8 were ischemic. Baseline QRS durations were 157 ± 18 ms. There was no difference in VVtat between RVP and LBBB but a longer LVtat in RVP (102.8 ± 19.6 vs. 87.4 ± 21.1 ms, p = 0.046). VVsync was significantly greater in LBBB (45.1 ± 20.2 vs. 35.9 ± 17.1 ms, p = 0.01) but LVdisp was greater in RVP (33.4 ± 5.9 vs. 27.6 ± 6.9 ms, p = 0.025). WFA did rotate clockwise with RVP vs. LBBB (82.5 ± 25.2 vs. 62.1 ± 31.7 op = 0.026). None of the measurements were different to LBBB with RVSP; however, the differences were preserved with RVAP for VVsync, LVdisp, and WFA. In silico modelling corroborated these results. CONCLUSIONS: RVAP activation differs from LBBB where RVSP appears similar. TRIAL REGISTRATION: (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01831518).

Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analyses regarding right ventricular septal pacing: Data from Japanese pacemaker cohort.

The presented data were obtained from 982 consecutive patients receiving their first pacemaker implantation with right ventricular (RV) lead placement between January 2008 and December 2013 at two centers in Japan. Patients were divided into RV apical and septal pacing groups. Data of Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox regression analysis are presented. Refer to the research article "Implications of right ventricular septal pacing for medium-term prognosis: propensity-matched analysis" (Mizukami et al., in press) [1] for further interpretation and discussion.

Implications of right ventricular septal pacing for medium-term prognosis: Propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The effect of right ventricular (RV) septal pacing as opposed to RV apical pacing on prognosis in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation remains controversial. This study was performed to examine the clinical efficacy of RV septal pacing in a large cohort with medium-term follow-up and propensity-matched analysis. METHODS: A total of 982 consecutive patients with first pacemaker implantation between 2008 and 2013 at two centers in Japan (51.4% male, age 76.1±10.6years, 64.3% septal pacing, 94% preserved ejection fraction [EF]) were enrolled. Propensity matching successfully matched 446 patients into RV septal and apical pacing groups. The primary endpoint, a combination of all-cause death and hospitalization due to heart failure, was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In the propensity-matched cohort, the primary endpoint was observed in 61 patients (13.7%) over a median follow-up period of 2.1years (interquartile range, 1.1-3.5years). The effects of septal pacing on prognosis were not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR]=1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.60-2.04, P=0.752). No significant benefit of septal pacing was observed on all-cause death (HR=1.86, 95%CI=0.74-4.66, P=0.187) and heart failure hospitalization (HR=0.93, 95%CI=0.44-1.98, P=0.847) when assessed separately. CONCLUSION: Septal pacing did not show medium-term advantages in prognosis in this large-scale retrospective cohort study with propensity matching of patients with predominantly preserved EF.