Search

Objectives: We compared the effects of triple-site versus dual-site biventricular stimulation in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Background: Conventional biventricular stimulation with a single right ventricular (RV) and a single left ventricular (LV) lead is associated with persistence of cardiac dyssynchrony in up to 30% of patients. Methods: This multicenter, single-blind, crossover study enrolled 40 patients (mean age 70 ± 9 years) with moderate-to-severe heart failure despite optimal drug treatment, a mean LV ejection fraction of 26 ± 11%, and permanent atrial fibrillation requiring cardiac pacing for slow ventricular rate. A cardiac resynchronization therapy device connected to 1 RV and 2 LV leads, inserted in 2 separate coronary sinus tributaries, was successfully implanted in 34 patients. After 3 months of biventricular stimulation, the patients were randomly assigned to stimulation for 3 months with either 1 RV and 2 LV leads (3-V) or to conventional stimulation with 1 RV and 1 LV lead (2-V), then crossed over for 3 months to the alternate configuration. The primary study end point was quality of ventricular resynchronization (Z ratio). Secondary end points included reverse LV remodeling, quality of life, distance covered during 6-min hall walk, and procedure-related morbidity and mortality. Data from the 6- and 9-month visits were combined to compare end points associated with 2-V versus 3-V. Results: Data eligible for protocol-defined analyses were available in 26 patients. No significant difference in Z ratio, quality of life, and 6-min hall walk was observed between 2-V and 3-V. However, a significantly higher LV ejection fraction (27 ± 11% vs. 35 ± 11%; p = 0.001) and smaller LV end-systolic volume (157 ± 69 cm3 vs. 134 ± 75 cm3; p = 0.02) and diameter (57 ± 12 mm vs. 54 ± 10 mm; p = 0.02) were observed with 3-V than with 2-V. There was a single minor procedure-related complication. Conclusions: Cardiac resynchronization therapy with 1 RV and 2 LV leads was safe and associated with significantly more LV reverse remodeling than conventional biventricular stimulation. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: The risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) is high early after myocardial infarction (MI). Current knowledge and guidelines mainly rely on results from older clinical trials and registry studies. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) alone has not been proven a reliable predictor of SCD.Objectives: This study sought to identify the incidence and additional predictors of SCD early after MI in a contemporary nationwide setting.Methods: The authors used data from SWEDEHEART, the Swedish Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Registry, and the Swedish Pacemaker and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator (ICD) Registry. Cases of MI, which had undergone coronary angiography and were discharged alive between 2009 to 2017 without a prior ICD, were followed up to 90 days. Cox regression models were used to assess associations between clinical parameters and out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA).Results: Among 121,379 cases, OHCA occurred in 349 (0.29%) and non-OHCA death in 2,194 (1.8%). A total of 6 variables (male sex, diabetes, estimated glomerular filtration rate <30 ml/min/1.73 m2, Killip class ≥II, new-onset atrial fibrillation/flutter, and impaired LVEF [reference ≥50%] categorized as 40% to 49%, 30% to 39%, and <30%) were identified as independent predictors, were assigned points, and were grouped into 3 categories, where the incidence of OHCA ranged from 0.12% to 2.0% and non-OHCA death from 0.76% to 11.7%. Stratified by LVEF <40% alone, the incidence of OHCA was 0.20% and 0.76% and for non-OHCA death 1.1% and 4.9%.Conclusions: In this nationwide study, the incidence of OHCA within 90 days after MI was <0.3%. A total of 5 clinical parameters in addition to LVEF predicted OHCA and non-OHCA death better than LVEF alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

: ObjectivesWe tested the hypothesis that left ventricular (LV) pacing is superior to right ventricular (RV) apical pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation and pacing for permanent atrial fibrillation.: BackgroundThe potential benefit of LV over RV pacing needs to be evaluated without the confounding effect of other variables that can influence cardiac performance.: MethodsAn acute intrapatient comparison of the QRS width and echocardiographic parameters between RV versus LV pacing was performed within 24 h after ablation in 44 patients. Both modes of pacing were also compared with pre-implantation values.: ResultsCompared with RV pacing, LV pacing caused a 5.7% increase in the ejection fraction (EF) and a 16.7% decrease in the mitral regurgitation (MR) score; the QRS width was 4.8% shorter with LV pacing. Similar results were observed in patients with or without systolic dysfunction and/or native left bundle branch block, except for a greater improvement in MR in the latter group. Compared with pre-ablation measures, the EF increased by 11.2% and 17.6% with RV and LV pacing, respectively; the MR score decreased by 0% and 16.7%; and the diastolic filling time increased by 12.7% and 15.6%.: ConclusionsRhythm regularization achieved with AV junction ablation improved EF with both RV and LV pacing; LV pacing provided an additional modest but favorable hemodynamic effect, as reflected by a further increase of EF and reduction of MR. The effect seems to be equal in patients with both depressed and preserved systolic functions and in those with and without native left bundle branch block. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]