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.

AIMS: We aimed to investigate whether biventricular (BiV) pacing minimizes left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony and preserves LV ejection fraction (LVEF) as compared with standard dual-chamber DDD(R) pacing in consecutive patients with high-grade atrio-ventricular (AV) block. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty patients were randomized to DDD(R) pacing or BiV pacing. LVEF was measured using three-dimensional echocardiography. Tissue-Doppler imaging was used to quantify LV dyssynchrony in terms of number of segments with delayed longitudinal contraction (DLC). LVEF was not different between groups after 12 months (P = 0.18). In the DDD(R) group LVEF decreased significantly from 59.7(57.4-61.4)% at baseline to 57.2(52.1-60.6)% at 12 months of follow-up (P = 0.03), whereas LVEF remained unchanged in the BiV group [58.9(47.1-61.7)% at baseline vs. 60.1(55.2-63.3)% after 12 months (P = 0.15)]. Dyssynchrony was more prominent in the DDD(R) group than in the BiV group at baseline (2.2 +/- 2.2 vs. 1.4 +/- 1.3 segments with DLC per patient, P = 0.10); and at 12 month follow-up (1.8 +/- 1.9 vs. 0.8 +/- 0.9 segments with DLC per patient, P = 0.02). NT-proBNP was unchanged in the DDD(R) group during follow-up (122 +/- 178 pmol/L vs. 91 +/- 166 pmol/L, NS) but decreased significantly in the BiV-group (from 198 +/- 505 pmol/L to 86 +/- 95 pmol/L after 12 months, P = 0.02). CONCLUSION: BiV pacing minimizes LV dyssynchrony, preserves LV function, and reduces NT-proBNP in contrast to DDD(R) pacing in patients with high-grade AV block.

Effectiveness of structured, hospital-based, nurse-led atrial fibrillation clinics: a comparison between a real-world population and a clinical trial population.

OBJECTIVE: A previous randomised trial showed that structured, nurse-led atrial fibrillation (AF) care is superior to conventional AF care, although further research is needed to determine the outcomes of such care in a real-world setting. We compared the outcomes of patients in real-world, nurse-led, structured hospital AF clinics with the outcomes of a randomised trial of the efficacy of a nurse-led AF clinic, with respect to a composite outcome of cardiovascular-related hospitalisation and death. METHODS: All patients were referred to the AF nurse specialist by cardiologists. The AF nurse specialist provided patient education, risk-factor control and stimulated empowerment and compliance. During follow-up, treatment was adjusted according to clinical guidelines. Patient education was repeated, and compliance with medical treatment was controlled. The study size was powered as a non-inferiority study. Outcome measures were adjudicated by the same principles in both cohorts. RESULTS: A total of 596 patients from the real world and 356 patients from a clinical trial were included in this study. No significant difference between groups with respect to age, type of AF or CHA2DS2VASc score was found. The composite primary end point occurred with an incidence rate of 8.0 (95% CI 6.1 to 10.4) per 100 person-years in the real-world population and 8.3 (95% CI 6.3 to 10.9) per 100 person-years in the clinical trial, with a crude HR of 0.83 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.23). CONCLUSIONS: Structured, nurse-led, hospital-based AF care appears to be effective, and patient outcomes in an actual, hospital-based, structured AF care are as least as good as those in trial settings.