Effect of Right Ventricular Pacing Lead on Left Ventricular Dyssynchrony in Patients Receiving Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

• Published in: The American journal of cardiology 2009-03, Vol.103 (5), p.695-700
• Main Authors: Sade, Leyla Elif, MD, Demir, Özlem, MD, Atar, İlyas, MD, Müderrisoğlu, Haldun, MD, Özin, Bülent, MD
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aged; Biological and medical sciences; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods; Cardiology; Cardiology. Vascular system; Cardiovascular; Echocardiography; Electrocardiography; Female; Heart; Heart failure; Heart Rate; Heart Ventricles; Humans; Male; Medical sciences; Middle Aged; Pacemaker, Artificial; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects); Stroke Volume; Studies; Therapy; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - diagnostic imaging; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - physiopathology; Ventricular Dysfunction, Left - therapy
• ISSN: 0002-9149; 1879-1913
• DOI: 10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.11.027

Right ventricular (RV) pacing-induced left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony can be 1 reason of nonresponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by potentially interfering with spontaneous dyssynchrony. We investigated the effect of the RV pacing lead on LV dyssynchrony in patients receiving CRT. LV radial dyssynchrony was assessed in a 16-segment model by using the novel speckle-tracking imaging before CRT and after the procedure, when the device was randomized to biventricular and RV pacing with crossover after 48 hours. LV lead tip was localized under fluoroscopic guidance. Of 43 patients, 30 (70%) acutely responded to CRT by a decrease in end-systolic volume >10%. RV pacing did not significantly increase the magnitude but altered the pattern of intraventricular dyssynchrony in the overall study group. During RV pacing, major shifts in the latest activated region occurred in 20 patients. However, LV radial dyssynchrony during spontaneous rhythm, but not the 1 induced by RV pacing, predicted response to CRT. When lead localization was optimal according to spontaneous dyssynchrony, response rate was 89% compared with 50% when lead localization was not optimal (p = 0.01). In contrast, when lead localization was optimal according to RV pacing-induced dyssynchrony, response rate was 81% compared with 67% when lead localization was not optimal (p = NS). In conclusion, RV apical pacing can alter the pattern of spontaneous LV dyssynchrony in patients receiving CRT. However, this alteration does not detract from the value of assessing LV dyssynchrony during spontaneous rhythm to predict responders to CRT.