Pacing of the interventricular septum versus the right ventricular apex: a prospective, randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular (LV) function may be impaired by right ventricular (RV) apical pacing. The interventricular septum is an alternative pacing site, but randomized data are limited. Our aim was to compare ejection fraction (EF) resulting from pacing the interventricular septum versus the RV apex. METHODS: RV lead implantation was randomized to the apex or the mid-septum. LVEF and RVEF were determined at baseline and after 1 and 4 years by radionuclide angiography. RESULTS: We enrolled 59 patients, of whom 28 were randomized to the apical group and 31 to the septal group, with follow-up available in 47 patients at 1 year and 33 patients at 4 years. LVEF in the apical and in the septal groups was 55 ± 8% vs. 46 ± 15% (p=0.021) at 1 year and 53 ± 12% vs. 47 ± 15% (p=0.20) at 4 years. Echocardiography confirmed a mid-septal lead position in only 54% of patients in the septal group, with an anterior position in the remaining patients. In the septal group, LVEF decreased significantly in patients with an anterior RV lead (-10.0 ± 7.7%, p=0.003 at 1 year and -8.0 ± 9.5%, p=0.035 at 4 years), but not in patients who had a mid-septal lead. Left intraventricular dyssynchrony was significantly increased in case of an anterior RV lead. RVEF was not significantly impaired by RV pacing, regardless of RV lead position. CONCLUSIONS: Pacing at the RV septum confers no advantage in terms of ventricular function compared to the apex. Furthermore, inadvertent placement of the RV lead in an anterior position instead of the mid-septum results in reduced LV function.

QRS pattern and improvement in right and left ventricular function after cardiac resynchronization therapy: a radionuclide study.

BACKGROUND: Predicting response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains a challenge. We evaluated the role of baseline QRS pattern to predict response in terms of improvement in biventricular ejection fraction (EF). METHODS: Consecutive patients (pts) undergoing CRT implantation underwent radionuclide angiography at baseline and at mid-term follow-up. The relationship between baseline QRS pattern and mechanical dyssynchrony using phase analysis was evaluated. Changes in left and right ventricular EF (LVEF and RVEF) were analyzed with regard to baseline QRS pattern. RESULTS: We enrolled 56 pts, 32 with left bundle branch block (LBBB), 4 with right bundle branch block (RBBB) and 20 with non-specific intraventricular conduction disturbance (IVCD). A total of 48 pts completed follow-up. LBBB pts had significantly greater improvement in LVEF compared to RBBB or non-specific IVCD pts (+9.6 ± 10.9% vs. +2.6 ± 7.6%, p = 0.003). Response (defined as ≥ 5% increase in LVEF) was observed in 68% of LBBB vs. 24% of non-specific IVCD pts (p = 0.006). None of the RBBB pts were responders. RVEF was significantly improved in LBBB (+5.0 ± 9.0%, p = 0.007), but not in non-specific IVCD and RBBB pts (+0.4 ± 5.8%, p = 0.76). At multivariate analysis, LBBB was the only predictor of LVEF response (OR, 7.45; 95% CI 1.80-30.94; p = 0.006), but not QRS duration or extent of mechanical dyssynchrony. CONCLUSIONS: Presence of a LBBB is a marker of a positive response to CRT in terms of biventricular improvement. Pts with non-LBBB pattern show significantly less benefit from CRT than those with LBBB.