umu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Right ventricular lead positioning does not influence the benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Cardiology. (Kardiologi)
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Cardiology. (Kardiologi)
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgical and Perioperative Sciences, Clinical Physiology.
Umeå University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Cardiology. (Kardiologi)
Show others and affiliations
2011 (English)In: Europace, ISSN 1099-5129, E-ISSN 1532-2092, Vol. 13, no 12, 1747-1752 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Aims Little is known about the optimal right ventricular (RV) pacing site in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study compares bi-ventricular pacing at the left ventricular (LV) free wall combined with two different RV stimulation sites: RV outflow tract (RVOT+LV) vs. RV-apex (RVA+LV). Methods and results Thirty-three patients (32 males) with chronic heart failure, NYHA class III-IV, optimal drug therapy, QRS-duration ≥150 ms, and chronic atrial fibrillation (AF) received CRT with two different RV leads, in the apex (RVA) or outflow tract (RVOT), together with an LV lead, all connected to a bi-ventricular pacemaker. Randomization to pacing in RVOT+LV or RVA+LV was made 1 month after implantation and cross-over to the alternate pacing configuration occurred after 3 months. The median age of patients was 69 ± 10 years, the mean QRS was 179 ± 23 ms, and 58% of patients had ischaemic heart disease. Seven patients had pacemaker rhythm at inclusion and 60% were treated with atrioventricular-junctional ablation before randomization. In the RVA+LV and RVOT+LV pacing modes, 67 and 63% (nonsignificant) responded symptomatically with a decrease of at least 10 points in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score. The secondary end-points (6-min walk test, peak oxygen uptake, N-Terminal fragment of B-type Natriuretic Peptide, and left ventricular ejection fraction) showed significant improvement between baseline and CRT, but not between RVOT+LV and RVA+LV. Conclusion In this randomized controlled study, the exact RV pacing site, either apex or outflow tract, did not influence the benefits of CRT in a group of patients with chronic heart failure and AF. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT00457834.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Oxford University Press, 2011. Vol. 13, no 12, 1747-1752 p.
Keyword [en]
Congestive heart failure, Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Lead placement, Atrial fibrillation, Right ventricular pacing configurations, Cardiac resynchronization, Biventricular pacing, Left ventricular pacing, Right ventricular pacing
National Category
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:umu:diva-49358DOI: 10.1093/europace/eur193PubMedID: 21712261OAI: oai:DiVA.org:umu-49358DiVA: diva2:455372
Available from: 2011-11-09 Created: 2011-11-09 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full textPubMed

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Rönn, FolkeKesek, MilosKarp, KjellHenein, MichaelJensen, Steen M
By organisation
CardiologyClinical Physiology
In the same journal
Europace
Cardiac and Cardiovascular Systems

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
pubmed
urn-nbn
Total: 107 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf