Article

Developments in Conventional Pacing - Harmful Effects of Pacing the Right Ventricular Apex and Strategies to Avoid it

Register or Login to View PDF Permissions
Permissions× For commercial reprint enquiries please contact Springer Healthcare: ReprintsWarehouse@springernature.com.

For permissions and non-commercial reprint enquiries, please visit Copyright.com to start a request.

For author reprints, please email rob.barclay@radcliffe-group.com.
Average (ratings)
No ratings
Your rating

DOI:https://doi.org/10.15420/ecr.2006.0.2.1g

Copyright Statement:

The copyright in this work belongs to Radcliffe Medical Media. Only articles clearly marked with the CC BY-NC logo are published with the Creative Commons by Attribution Licence. The CC BY-NC option was not available for Radcliffe journals before 1 January 2019. Articles marked ‘Open Access’ but not marked ‘CC BY-NC’ are made freely accessible at the time of publication but are subject to standard copyright law regarding reproduction and distribution. Permission is required for reuse of this content.

Introduction

Since the inception of cardiac pacing, the favoured site has been the right ventricular apex (RVA). The RVA is popular as it is usually straightforward, provides stable lead position and is associated with few complications.

A critical re-evaluation of this practice is occurring, however. There is accumulating evidence that RVA pacing causes adverse effects on left ventricular (LV) function,1,2-4 and is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation (AF)5,6 and death.7

This review will explore what is known about the mechanisms underlying the adverse effects of RVA pacing and discuss potential solutions to the problem.

Evidence for Adverse Clinical Effects of RVA Pacing

Multiple studies have shown adverse effects of RVA pacing. Left bundle branch block (LBBB), the electrocardiographic consequence of RVA pacing, has been demonstrated to be an independent predictor of cardiac morbidity and mortality in those with structural heart disease.8

Long-term follow-up of younger patients, usually with structurally normal hearts, has demonstrated deterioration in cardiac function. Twenty-four patients (mean age 19.5 years) paced from the RVA and followed for a mean of 9.5 years, had poorer LV function than unpaced controls,3 with a correlation between paced QRS duration and degree of LV dysfunction. A similar study showed lower resting cardiac output (CO) and poorer exercise performance in paced patients compared with controls.2

A registry study of patients with conventional pacing indications corroborates this data. After >10 years of RVA pacing, the prevalence of heart failure (HF) increases from 24-38% and of AF from 26-45%.9

Evidence is also available from comparisons of atrial versus ventricular pacing (VP). In the Danish study,7 patients with sinus node disease (SND) had improved survival and reduced HF when AAI rather than VVI paced. To eliminate concerns over loss of AV synchrony during VVI pacing, the Danish II study compared AAI and DDD (using RVA pacing) in a similar cohort of patients.5 There was a 30% reduction in overall mortality in the AAI paced group. Although this was not statistically significant, there were significant reductions in HF and AF.

The Mode Selection Trial (MOST) sub-study6 highlighted the importance of cumulative RV apical pacing time (%VP) on the development of AF and HF. In this study, patients with SND were randomised to VVIR/DDDR RVA pacing. The risk of HF hospitalisation and AF were directly related to the %VP (see Figure 1). Patients with >40% VP had a 2.6-fold increase in HF and there was a 1% increase in AF incidence for every 1% increase in %VP (see Figure 2).

The MOST data was confirmed by the larger Madit II sub-study10 and the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) study.4 Clinical HF incidence was higher in these studies than in the MOST sub-study, suggesting that the negative effects of RVA pacing are more pronounced in patients with pre-existing LV dysfunction.

The accumulation of data relating to RVA pacing led the American Heart Association (AHA) to publish an advisory in 2005, which stated 'For patients who need a dual chamber pacemaker, efforts should be made to minimise the amount of VP when atrioventricular conduction is intactÔÇÖ.11

Mechanistic Insights

Normal cardiac electrical activation occurs via specialised conduction tissue (His-Purkinje system), where impulse propagation from the His bundle to the entire ventricular myocardium takes <55ms.12 Pacing ventricular myocardium results instead in activation via ventricular muscle. In patients paced from the RVA, ventricular activation frequently takes >150ms.13 Additionally, ventricular activation occurs from apex to base with late activation of the lateral LV wall.14 LBBB arising from RVA pacing causes slow, dyssynchronous LV activation with adverse haemodynamic consequences;3,15 typically LV impairment,14 increased myocardial oxygen demand16 and local changes in myocardial perfusion.17,18

The initial reduction in LV ejection fraction (LVEF) due to pacing-induced LBBB is compounded in the longer term by LV remodeling.19 Ventricular dilatation and asymmetric LV hypertrophy LVH occur20,21 and at the tissue level, there is localised cellular degeneration, myofibrillar disarray and disorganisation of mitochondria.22

In crossover studies, patients have significantly higher cardiac output,23 better LVEF,23 lower pulmonary wedge pressure24 and higher maximal oxygen uptake (V02Max)25 when paced in AAI mode than in DDD mode.

Strategies to Avoid RVA Pacing

Strategies to avoid deleterious effects may be divided into two broad categories: avoiding unnecessary VP, and pacing the ventricle from a site other than the RVA. For patients with intact AV conduction, manipulation of pacing modes may reduce %VP. In patients in whom VP is inevitable (e.g. AF with bradycardia, complete heart block), alternate pacing sites may provide a solution (see Table 1).

Alternative Pacing Modes to Reduce RV Pacing
AAI(R) Pacing

This is the most straightforward way to reduce VP. 37% of patients26 are paced for sinus node disease alone, making them suitable for AAI(R) pacing. A concern of AAI(R) pacing is that the patient is unprotected should they develop AV block. Estimates of the incidence of AV block range to 4.5% per annum, but the mean figure is only 0.6% in a meta-analysis.27 Overall the rate is likely to be acceptably low with careful patient selection but clinicians seem unwilling to leave the patient without the 'protection' of a ventricular lead-rates of AAI(R) pacing range from less than 1-12%.

DDD(R) Pacing with Long AV Delay

A long AV delay theoretically yields functional AAI(R) pacing while protecting from AV block.5,28 In practice this causes significant difficulties in achieving proper pacing function at faster heart rates. Furthermore, programming the AV delay to above the resting PR interval still results in 88% of patients with %VP >50% due to PR prolongation on exercise.29 Programming a long, fixed AV delay of 300ms still leaves half of patients with %VP >40%.5

Automatic AV Interval Prolongation Algorithms

Several pacemaker manufacturers have developed algorithms that periodically extend the AV interval to establish whether intrinsic AV conduction occurs. They reduce the percentage of RVA pacing to 15-20%,30 a considerable improvement on manually programmed AV delays, but still higher than is desirable.

New Pacing Programming Modalities

The expectation that every atrial event is followed by a ventricular event within a relatively short time-frame is inherent in conventional dual chamber pacing algorithms. Marked first-degree AV block or 'physiological' second-degree AV block (e.g. Wenkebach during sleep) result in V pacing and an increased %VP.

Some device manufacturers have developed algorithms which operate in AAI(R) mode, permitting first degree or Mobitz type-I heart block to occur. AAISafeR31 (ELA) and Managed VP32 (MVP-Medtronic) permit a significant reduction in %VP in patients with intermittent high-grade AV block or persistent first-degree AV block. These devices operate by 'mode switching' from AAI pacing to DDD pacing if high-grade AV block develops. They periodically check for intrinsic AV conduction and, if appropriate, revert to AAI mode. These algorithms reduce %VP to <1% in selected patients,32 but clinical outcome data, specifically reductions in AF and HF, are not yet available. Several on-going clinical trials will hopefully address this issue; the MVP trial will compare MVP-based pacing with DDDR pacing32 and SAVE PACe will compare MVP with an older AV prolonging algorithm.33

Alternative Pacing Sites

Although pacing algorithms other than DDD(R) may reduce %VP in selected patients, VP is sometimes unavoidable. Alternative site pacing has been developed in an attempt to overcome the deleterious effects of RVA pacing. Potential sites include RV septal or outflow tract pacing, direct His bundle pacing and bi-VP.

RV Septal Pacing

Pacing from a high midseptal or RV outflow site activates the ventricles in a more physiological manner. While activation does not occur via the His Purkinje system (as in His bundle pacing) or as rapidly as with bi-VP, it avoids their complexities. Initial concerns over increased lead instability and higher pacing thresholds have proved unfounded.34 Most studies have examined the acute haemodynamic effects of RV septal pacing. Fewer have assessed longer-term effects on LV function. To date, only one study has examined effects on clinical HF.

Acute Haemodynamic Effects of RV Septal Versus RV Apical Pacing

RV septal pacing normalises QRS axis and causes earlier LV activation35 than RVA pacing but may not shorten QRS duration.1 Three studies have demonstrated shortening of the QRS duration19,36,37 whereas others have shown no difference.38-45

Studies evaluating the haemodynamic effects of septal pacing have largely shown no acute improvement in cardiac index (CI) or LV function,38-40,43,45,46 but two have demonstrated superior LV systolic function compared with RVA pacing.44,47 Three studies48,49,50 showed improvement in CI of around 20%.

Trial data regarding the acute haemodynamic effects of RV septal pacing is conflicting. Overall, there is proven non-inferiority of RV septal pacing over RVA pacing but no clear acute haemodynamic advantage.

Longer-term Studies of RV Septal Pacing

RVA pacing promotes ventricular remodelling in the longer-term;2-7 RV septal pacing may prevent this.5 studies have prospectively assessed RV septal versus RVA pacing in the medium- to long-term.19,36,37,41,42 Only two demonstrated any benefit of RV septal over RVA pacing. Mera et al.36 found in a randomised study of 12 patients with AF that RV septal pacing was associated with higher resting EF (RV septum 51% versus RVA 43%, p<0.01) although exercise EF was similar in both groups.

Tse et al.19 randomised 24 patients with complete heart block to VP of the RV septum or RVA. They found that RV septal pacing was associated with a shorter QRS duration and improved LVEF (RV septum 56% versus RVA 47%, p<0.001). Importantly, this study had an extended follow-up period of 18 months; at six months there was no difference between the groups. The time taken for RV apical pacing induced LV dysfunction to develop may explain negative results in shorter studies.

Randomised Studies with Clinical Outcome Data

The only published randomised study utilising clinical outcome data and comparing RV septal with RVA pacing is the ROVA study.37 This assessed quality of life (QOL) after three months of RVA or RV septal pacing in patients with HF, chronic AF and LVEF <40%. Although RV septal pacing shortened QRS duration, it did not improve QOL. The relatively short follow-up in this study may explain the negative result.

On-going Studies

It is noteworthy that <400 patients have been studied in clinical trials of RV septal versus RVA pacing, of which <200 have been involved in chronic studies.1 Although currently published data does not support routine RV septal pacing, there are several on-going studies of alternative site pacing that will provide more definitive data. These include the BRIGHT study of multisite pacing,34 the Biopace study of RVA pacing versus CRT,51 Block HF, DAVID II and INTRINSIC.

Direct His Pacing

Direct pacing of the His bundle is an attractive concept as ventricular activation should be entirely physiological. The practicalities of the procedure mean that it has not gained widespread acceptance. Problems often occur with lead positioning and stability as well as high pacing thresholds.13 Even in the largest series, direct His pacing is achieved in only 70%.52

Many patients have conducting system disease distal to the His bundle and in this situation, His pacing does not overcome AV block.

Bi-VP

Although there is plentiful evidence that bi-VP is beneficial in patients with impaired LV function, refractory HF and LBBB,53-55 there is much less data in patients without these indications. Left VP alone and bi-VP lead to better acute haemo-dynamics than RVA pacing56,57 but still induce dyssynchrony58 and reduce LV function59 compared with intrinsic conduction. Only those patients with impaired LV function undergoing AV node ablation for poorly controlled AF have been shown to benefit from bi-VP.60

Conclusion

There is very strong evidence that RVA pacing has negative effects on acute haemodynamics, ventricular remodelling and clinical outcomes. Alternative strategies have been developed and are being embraced by the pacing community, but clinical outcome data to support these strategies is scarce. The results of on-going larger and longer-term clinical trials will be pivotal in providing the basis for a rational approach to pacing in the future.

References

  1. McGavigan AD, Mond HG, Selective site ventricular pacing , Curr Opin Cardiol (2006);21(1): pp. 7-14.
    Crossref | PubMed
  2. Thambo JB, Bordachar P, Garrigue S, Lafitte S, Sanders P, et al., Detrimental ventricular remodeling in patients with congenital complete heart block and chronic right ventricular apical pacing , Circulation (2004);110(25): pp. 3766-3772.
    Crossref | PubMed
  3. Tantengco MV, Thomas RL, Karpawich PP, Left ventricular dysfunction after long-term right ventricular apical pacing in the young , J Am Coll Cardiol (2001);37(8): pp. 2093-2100.
    Crossref | PubMed
  4. Wilkoff BL, Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator trial investigators, The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial: rationale, design, results, clinical implications and lessons for future trials , Card Electrophysiol Rev (2003);7(4): pp. 468-472.
    Crossref | PubMed
  5. Nielsen JC, Kristensen L, Andersen HR, et al., A randomized comparison of atrial and dual-chamber pacing in 177 consecutive patients with sick sinus syndrome: echocardiographic and clinical outcome , J Am Coll Cardiol (2003);42(4): pp. 614-623.
    Crossref | PubMed
  6. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, et al., Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction , Circulation (2003);107(23): pp. 2932-2937.
    Crossref | PubMed
  7. Andersen HR, Nielsen JC, Thomsen PE, et al., Long-term follow-up of patients from a randomised trial of atrial versus ventricular pacing for sick-sinus syndrome , Lancet (1997);350(9086): pp. 1210-1216.
    Crossref | PubMed
  8. Schneider JF, Thomas HE, Kreger BE, et al., Newly acquired left bundle-branch block: the Framingham study , Ann Intern Med (1979);90(3): pp. 303-310.
    Crossref | PubMed
  9. Thackray SD, Witte KK, Nikitin NP, et al., The prevalence of heart failure and asymptomatic left ventricular systolic dysfunction in a typical regional pacemaker population , Eur Heart J (2003);24(12): pp. 1143-1152.
    Crossref | PubMed
  10. Steinberg JS, Fischer A, Wang P, et al., The clinical implications of cumulative right ventricular pacing in the multicenter automatic defibrillator trial II , J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2005);16(4): pp. 359-365.
    Crossref | PubMed
  11. Knight BP, Gersh BJ, Carlson MD, et al., Role of permanent pacing to prevent atrial fibrillation: science advisory from the American Heart Association Council on Clinical Cardiology (Subcommittee on Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias) and the Quality of Care and Outcomes Research Interdisciplinary Working Group, in collaboration with the Heart Rhythm Society , Circulation (2005);111(2): pp. 240-243.
    Crossref | PubMed
  12. Josephson ME, Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology, 3rd Edition. Philadephia: Lippincott, Williams and Williams (2002).
  13. Manolis AS, The deleterious consequences of right ventricular apical pacing: time to seek alternate site pacing , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2006);29(3): pp. 298-315.
    Crossref | PubMed
  14. Prinzen FW, Peschar M, Relation between the pacing induced sequence of activation and left ventricular pump function in animals , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2002);25(4 Pt 1): pp. 484-498.
    Crossref | PubMed
  15. Nahlawi M, Waligora M, Spies SM, et al., Left ventricular function during and after right ventricular pacing , J Am Coll Cardiol (2004);44(9): pp. 1883-1888.
    Crossref | PubMed
  16. Baller D, Wolpers HG, Zipfel J, et al., Comparison of the effects of right atrial, right ventricular apex and atrioventricular sequential pacing on myocardial oxygen consumption and cardiac efficiency: a laboratory investigation , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1988);11(4): pp. 394-403.
    Crossref | PubMed
  17. Prinzen FW, Augustijn CH, Arts T, et al., Redistribution of myocardial fiber strain and blood flow by asynchronous activation , Am J Physiol (1990);259(2 Pt 2): H300-308.
    PubMed
  18. Lee MA, Dae MW, Langberg JJ, et al., Effects of long-term right ventricular apical pacing on left ventricular perfusion, innervation, function and histology , J Am Coll Cardiol (1994);24(1): pp. 225-232.
    Crossref | PubMed
  19. Tse HF, Yu C, Wong KK, et al., Functional abnormalities in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing: the effect of sites of electrical stimulation , J Am Coll Cardiol (2002);40(8): pp. 1451-1458.
    Crossref | PubMed
  20. Prinzen FW, Cheriex EC, Delhaas T, et al., Asymmetric thickness of the left ventricular wall resulting from asynchronous electric activation: a study in dogs with ventricular pacing and in patients with left bundle branch block , Am Heart J (1995);130(5): pp. 1045-1053.
    Crossref | PubMed
  21. van Oosterhout MF, Prinzen FW, Arts T, et al., Asynchronous electrical activation induces asymmetrical hypertrophy of the left ventricular wall , Circulation (1998);98(6): pp. 588-595.
    Crossref | PubMed
  22. Karpawich PP, Justice CD, Cavitt DL, Chang CH, Developmental sequelae of fixed-rate ventricular pacing in the immature canine heart: an electrophysiologic, hemodynamic, and histopathologic evaluation , Am Heart J (1990);119(5): pp. 1077-1083.
    Crossref | PubMed
  23. Rosenqvist M, Isaaz K, Botvinick EH, et al., Relative importance of activation sequence compared to atrioventricular synchrony in left ventricular function , Am J Cardiol (1991);67(2): pp. 148-156.
    Crossref | PubMed
  24. Leclercq C, Gras D, Le Helloco A, Hemodynamic importance of preserving the normal sequence of ventricular activation in permanent cardiac pacing , Am Heart J (1995);129(6): pp. 1133-1141.
    Crossref | PubMed
  25. Harper GR, Pina IL, Kutalek SP, Intrinsic conduction maximizes cardiopulmonary performance in patients with dual chamber pacemakers , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1991);14(11 Pt 2): pp. 1787-1791.
    Crossref | PubMed
  26. Mond HG, Irwin M, Morillo C, Ector H, The world survey of cardiac pacing and cardioverter defibrillators: calendar year 2001 , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2004);27(7): pp. 955-964.
    Crossref | PubMed
  27. Rosenqvist M, Obel IW, Atrial pacing and the risk for AV block: is there a time for change in attitude? , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1989);12(1 Pt 1): pp. 97-101.
    PubMed
  28. Nielsen JC, Pedersen AK, Mortensen PT, Andersen HR, Programming a fixed long atrioventricular delay is not effective in preventing ventricular pacing in patients with sick sinus syndrome , Europace (1999);1(2): pp. 113-120.
    Crossref
  29. Sgarbossa E, Maloney JD, Pacing and atrioventricular block , Curr Opin Cardiol (1992);7(1): pp. 15-22.
    PubMed
  30. Melzer C, Sowelam S, Sheldon TJ, et al., Reduction of right ventricular pacing in patients with sinus node dysfunction using an enhanced search AV algorithm , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2005);28(6): pp. 521-527.
    Crossref | PubMed
  31. de Cock CC, Kamp O, Meijer A, Identifying patients for rate responsive atrial pacing: a new method for patient selection and pacemaker programming , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol, (1992);15(11 Pt 2): pp. 1792-1797.
    Crossref | PubMed
  32. Sweeney MO, Ellenbogen KA, Casavant D, et al., Multicenter, prospective, randomized safety and efficacy study of a new atrial-based managed ventricular pacing mode (MVP) in dual chamber ICDs , J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2005);16(8): pp. 811-817.
    Crossref | PubMed
  33. Hussein SJ, Hennekens CH, Lamas GA, An update on clinical trials in pacing: is dual chamber pacing better? , Curr Opin Cardiol (2004);19(1): pp. 12-18.
    Crossref | PubMed
  34. Res JC, Bokern MJ, Vos DH, Characteristics of bifocal pacing: right ventricular apex versus outflow tract. An interim analysis , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2005);28 Suppl 1: pp. S36-38.
    Crossref | PubMed
  35. Rosenqvist M, Bergfeldt L, Haga Y, et al., The effect of ventricular activation sequence on cardiac performance during pacing , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1996);19(9): pp. 1279-1286.
    Crossref | PubMed
  36. Mera F, DeLurgio DB, Patterson RE, et al., A comparison of ventricular function during high right ventricular septal and apical pacing after his-bundle ablation for refractory atrial fibrillation , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1999);22(8): pp. 1234-1239.
    Crossref | PubMed
  37. Stambler BS, Ellenbogen K, Zhang X, et al., Right ventricular outflow versus apical pacing in pacemaker patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation , J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2003);14(11): pp. 1180-1186.
    Crossref | PubMed
  38. Alboni P, Scarf S, Fucá G, et al., Short-term hemodynamic effects of DDD pacing from ventricular apex, right ventricular outflow tract and proximal septum , G Ital Cardiol (1998);28(3): pp. 237-241.
    PubMed
  39. Buckingham TA, Candinas R, Schläpfer J, et al., Acute hemodynamic effects of atrioventricular pacing at differing sites in the right ventricle individually and simultaneously , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1997);20(4 Pt 1): pp. 909-915.
    Crossref | PubMed
  40. Buckingham TA, Candinas R, Attenhofer C, et al., Systolic and diastolic function with alternate and combined site pacing in the right ventricle , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1998);21(5): pp. 1077-1084.
    Crossref | PubMed
  41. Victor F, Leclercq C, Mabo P, et al., Optimal right ventricular pacing site in chronically implanted patients: a prospective randomized crossover comparison of apical and outflow tract pacing , J Am Coll Cardiol (1999);33(2): pp. 311-316.
    Crossref | PubMed
  42. Bourke JP, Hawkins T, Keavey P, et al., Evolution of ventricular function during permanent pacing from either right ventricular apex or outflow tract following AV-junctional ablation for atrial fibrillation , Europace (2002);4(3): pp. 219-228.
    Crossref | PubMed
  43. Gold MR, Brockman R, Peters RW, et al., Acute hemodynamic effects of right ventricular pacing site and pacing mode in patients with congestive heart failure secondary to either ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy , Am J Cardiol (2000);85(9): pp. 1106-1109.
    Crossref | PubMed
  44. Kolettis TM, Kyriakides ZS, Tsiapras D, et al., Improved left ventricular relaxation during short-term right ventricular outflow tract compared to apical pacing , Chest (2000);117(1): pp. 60-64.
    Crossref | PubMed
  45. Schwaab B, FrÂhlig G, Alexander C, et al., Influence of right ventricular stimulation site on left ventricular function in atrial synchronous ventricular pacing , J Am Coll Cardiol (1999);33(2): pp. 317-323.
    Crossref | PubMed
  46. Buckingham TA, Candinas R, Duru F, et al., Acute hemodynamic effects of alternate and combined site pacing in patients after cardiac surgery , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1999);22(6 Pt 1): pp. 887-893.
    Crossref | PubMed
  47. Karpawich PP, Mital S, Comparative left ventricular function following atrial, septal, and apical single chamber heart pacing in the young , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1997);20(8 Pt 1): pp. 1983-1988.
    Crossref | PubMed
  48. Giudici MC, Thornburg GA, Buck DL, et al., Comparison of right ventricular outflow tract and apical lead permanent pacing on cardiac output , Am J Cardiol (1997);79(2): pp. 209-212.
    Crossref | PubMed
  49. Cowell R, Morris-Thurgood J, Ilsley C, Paul V, Septal short atrioventricular delay pacing: additional hemodynamic improvements in heart failure , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1994);17(11 Pt 2): pp. 1980-1983.
    Crossref | PubMed
  50. de Cock CC, Meyer A, Kamp O, Visser CA, Hemodynamic benefits of right ventricular outflow tract pacing: comparison with right ventricular apex pacing , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (1998);21(3): pp. 536-541.
    Crossref | PubMed
  51. Funck RC, Blanc JJ, Mueller HH, et al., Biventricular stimulation to prevent cardiac desynchronization: rationale, design, and endpoints of the 'Biventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block to Prevent Cardiac Desynchronization (BioPace)' study , Europace (2006);8(8): pp. 629-635.
    Crossref | PubMed
  52. Deshmukh PM, Romanyshyn M, Direct His-bundle pacing: present and future , Pacing Clin Electrophysiol (2004);27(6 Pt 2): pp. 862-870.
    Crossref | PubMed
  53. Cleland JG, Daubert JC, Erdmann E, et al., The effect of cardiac resynchronization on morbidity and mortality in heart failure , N Engl J Med (2005);352(15): pp. 1539-1549.
    Crossref | PubMed
  54. Bristow MR, Feldman AM, Saxon LA, Heart failure management using implantable devices for ventricular resynchronization: Comparison of Medical Therapy, Pacing, and Defibrillation in Chronic Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial. COMPANION Steering Committee and COMPANION Clinical Investigators , J Card Fail (2000);6(3): pp. 276-285.
    Crossref | PubMed
  55. Carson P, Anand I, O'Connor C, et al., Mode of death in advanced heart failure: the Comparison of Medical, Pacing, and Defibrillation Therapies in Heart Failure (COMPANION) trial , J Am Coll Cardiol (2005);46(12): pp. 2329-2334.
    Crossref | PubMed
  56. Kass DA, Chen CH, Curry C, et al., Improved left ventricular mechanics from acute VDD pacing in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and ventricular conduction delay , Circulation (1999);99(12): pp. 1567-1573.
    Crossref | PubMed
  57. Yu CM, Lin H, Fung WH, et al., Comparison of acute changes in left ventricular volume, systolic and diastolic functions, and intraventricular synchronicity after biventricular and right ventricular pacing for heart failure , Am Heart J (2003);145(5): E18.
    Crossref | PubMed
  58. Wyman BT, Hunter WC, Prinzen FW, et al., Effects of single- and biventricular pacing on temporal and spatial dynamics of ventricular contraction , Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol (2002);282(1): pp. H372-379.
    PubMed
  59. Yu Y, Kramer A, Spinelli J, et al., Biventricular mechanical asynchrony predicts hemodynamic effect of uni- and biventricular pacing , Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol (2003);285(6): pp. H2788-2796.
    Crossref | PubMed
  60. Doshi RN, Daoud EG, Fellows C, et al., Left ventricular-based cardiac stimulation post AV nodal ablation evaluation (the PAVE study) , J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol (2005);16(11): pp. 1160-1165.
    Crossref | PubMed
Previous Volume Article Next Volume Article