RESUMEN
The RV lead position, either RVA or RVHS appears to make no difference in the response to CRT but the LV lead placement play a vital role.9,30 The latest activated regions of LV or areas without transmural myocardial scar for an optimal CRT are preferred. Currently, data demonstrate that no significant difference of clinical outcomes in posterior, anterior, and lateral LV lead position was found, while the ideal pacing site of the LV should be avoided in the apex position as suggested in COMPANION trial and MADIT-CRT trial. And dual-site LV CRT, which is a new technique, is also still in progress and we are looking forward to getting more updates from that.
Asunto(s)
Dispositivos de Terapia de Resincronización Cardíaca , Terapia de Resincronización Cardíaca , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Ventrículos Cardíacos , Hemodinámica , Humanos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of VVI (ventricular demand) and DDD (dual-chamber) pacing models on cardiac remodeling and the long-term clinical outcome of patients with symptomatic bradycardia. METHODS: All patients with DDD and VVI pacing models at our hospital from January 1991 to January 2003 were retrospectively analyzed. RESULTS: After a follow-up period of over 8 years in DDD and VVI groups (97 ± 27, 107 ± 44 months), left atrial diameter [(45 ± 12) mm vs (39 ± 12) mm, P < 0.01] and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter [(53 ± 11) mm vs (50 ± 9) mm, P = 0.01] in 57 patients with VVI pacing model were markedly enlarged than those at pre-implantation. And tricuspid regurgitation increased (42.4% vs 16.9%, P < 0.05). But in 59 patients with DDD pacing model, except for increased tricuspid regurgitation (42.1% vs 10.5%, P < 0.01), left atrial diameter [(37 ± 5) mm vs. (35 ± 5) mm, P = 0.07] and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter [(47 ± 7) mm vs (47 ± 5) mm, P = 0.32] were not significantly different. Mitral regurgitation significantly increased only in the VVI group (P < 0.01). The increases of left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (P = 0.04), mitral valve (P = 0.02) and tricuspid regurgitation (P < 0.01) were much more pronounced in the VVI group than those in the DDD group. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) showed no difference with that at pre-implantation (P = 0.11 in DDD group, P = 0.05 in VVI group). But the LVEF value was lower (P = 0.04) while the incidence of thrombosis was higher (P = 0.03) in the VVI group than those in the DDD group at post-implantation. However, the incidence of atrial fibrillation (P = 0.14), hospitalization (P = 0.08) and survival (P = 0.77) showed no significant difference between two groups. CONCLUSION: DDD pacing offers more benefits over VVI pacing through improving cardiac functions and arresting left ventricular remodeling. However, neither groups showed any difference in decreasing mortality rate and hospitalization. Moreover, both pacing modes fail to reverse cardiac electrical and anatomical remodeling. It is imperative to explore more physiological pacing site and rational atrioventricular (AV) interval to improve the prognosis of patients.