RESUMO
AIMS: Previous studies showed unfavourable effects of right ventricular (RV) pacing. Ventricular pacing (VP), however, is required in many patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. The PREVENT-HF study explored left ventricular (LV) remodelling during RV vs. biventricular (BIV) pacing in AV block without advanced heart failure. The pre-specified PREVENT-HF German Substudy examined exercise capacity and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with expected VP ≥80% were randomized to RV or BIV pacing. Endpoints were peak oxygen uptake (pVO2), oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold (VO2AT), ventilatory efficiency (VE/VCO2), and logNT-proBNP. Considering crossover, intention to treat (ITT), and on-treatment (OT) analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) were performed. For exercise testing 44 (RV: 25, BIV: 19), and for NT-proBNP 53 patients (RV: 29, BIV: 24) were included. The ITT analysis revealed significant differences in pVO2 [ANCOVA effect 2.83 mL/kg/min, confidence interval (CI) 0.83-4.91, P = 0.007], VO2AT (ANCOVA effect 2.14 mL/min/k, CI 0.14-4.15, P = 0.03), and VE/VCO2 (ANCOVA effect -5.46, CI -10.79 to -0.13, P = 0.04) favouring BIV randomization. The significant advantage in pVO2 persisted in OT analysis, while VO2AT and VE/VCO2 showed trends favouring BIV pacing. LogNT-proBNP did not differ between groups. (ITT: ANCOVA effect 0.008, CI -0.40 to +0.41, P = 0.97; OT: ANCOVA effect -0.03, CI -0.44 to 0.30, P = 0.90). CONCLUSION: Our study suggests that BIV pacing produces better exercise capacity over 1 year compared with RV pacing in patients without advanced heart failure and AV block. In contrast, we observed no significant changes of NT-proBNP. Larger trials will allow appraising the clinical usefulness of BIV pacing in AV block. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT00170326.
