Bansal Raghav, Parakh Neeraj, Gupta Anunay, Juneja Rajnish, Naik Nitish, Yadav Rakesh, Sharma Gautam, Roy Ambuj, Verma Sunil Kumar, Bahl Vinay Kumar
Department of Cardiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, 7th Floor, Cardiothoracic Sciences Centre, New Delhi, 110029, India.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2019 Oct;56(1):63-70. doi: 10.1007/s10840-019-00602-2. Epub 2019 Jul 30.
Asynchronous activation of left ventricle (LV) due to chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing has been known to predispose to LV dysfunction. The predictors of LV dysfunction remain to be prospectively studied. This study was designed to follow up patients with RV pacing to look for development of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCMP), identify its predictors and draw comparison between apical vs non-apical RV pacing sites.
Three hundred sixty-three patients undergoing dual-chamber and single-chamber ventricular implants were enrolled and followed up. Baseline clinical parameters; paced QRS duration and axis; RV lead position by fluoroscopy; LV ejection fraction (LVEF) by Simpson's method on transthoracic echocardiography (TTE); intraventricular dyssynchrony (septal-posterior wall contraction delay) and interventricular dyssynchrony (aortopulmonary ejection delay) on TTE were recorded. The patients were followed up at 6-12 monthly interval with estimation of LVEF and pacemaker interrogation at each visit. Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCMP) was defined as a fall in ejection fraction of 10% as compared to the baseline LVEF. Patients developing PiCMP were compared to other patients to identify predictors.
The mean age of study population was 59.8 years, 68.3% being males. Fifty-one percent and 49% patients underwent VVIR and DDDR pacemaker implantation, respectively. After attrition, 254 patients were analysed. PiCMP developed in 35 patients (13.8%) over a mean follow-up of 14.5 months. After multivariate analysis, burden of ventricular pacing > 60% [HR 4.26, p = 0.004] and interventricular dyssynchrony (aortopulmonary ejection delay > 40 msec) [HR 3.15, p = 0.002] were identified as predictors for PiCMP in patients undergoing chronic RV pacing. There was no effect of RV pacing site (apical vs non-apical) on incidence of PiCMP [HR 1.44, p = 0.353).
Incidence of PiCMP with RV pacing was found to be 13.8% over a mean follow-up of 14.5 months. Burden of right ventricular pacing and interventricular dyssynchrony were identified as the most important predictors for the development of PiCMP. Non-apical RV pacing site did not offer any benefit in terms of incidence of PiCMP over apical lead position.
慢性右心室起搏导致的左心室异步激活已知会引发左心室功能障碍。左心室功能障碍的预测因素仍有待前瞻性研究。本研究旨在对右心室起搏患者进行随访,以观察起搏诱导性心肌病(PiCMP)的发生情况,确定其预测因素,并比较心尖部与非心尖部右心室起搏部位。
纳入363例接受双腔和单腔心室起搏器植入的患者并进行随访。记录基线临床参数;起搏QRS波时限和电轴;透视下右心室导线位置;经胸超声心动图(TTE)采用Simpson法测量的左心室射血分数(LVEF);TTE测量的室内不同步(室间隔 - 后壁收缩延迟)和室间不同步(主肺动脉射血延迟)。患者每隔6 - 12个月随访一次,每次随访时评估LVEF并进行起搏器程控。起搏器诱导性心肌病(PiCMP)定义为射血分数较基线LVEF下降10%。将发生PiCMP的患者与其他患者进行比较以确定预测因素个体。
研究人群的平均年龄为59.8岁,男性占68.3%。分别有51%和49%的患者接受了VVIR和DDDR起搏器植入。剔除后,对254例患者进行了分析。在平均14.5个月的随访期间,35例患者(13.8%)发生了PiCMP。多因素分析后,心室起搏负担>60%[风险比(HR)4.26,p = 0.004]和室间不同步(主肺动脉射血延迟>40毫秒)[HR 3.15,p = 0.002]被确定为慢性右心室起搏患者发生PiCMP的预测因素。右心室起搏部位(心尖部与非心尖部)对PiCMP的发生率没有影响[HR 1.44,p = 0.353]。
在平均14.5个月的随访期间,右心室起搏患者中PiCMP的发生率为13.8%。右心室起搏负担和室间不同步被确定为PiCMP发生的最重要预测因素。就PiCMP的发生率而言,非心尖部右心室起搏部位并不比心尖部导线位置更具优势。