Ventricular Functional Analysis in Congenital Complete Heart Block Using Speckle Tracking: Left Ventricular Epicardial Compared to Right Ventricular Septal Pacing.

Background: Chronic right ventricular (RV) apical pacing in patients with congenital complete atrioventricular block (CCAVB) is associated with left ventricle (LV) dyssynchrony and dysfunction. Hence, alternative pacing sites are advocated. The aim of this study was to compare LV function using STE in selected patients with LV epicardial pacing (LVEp) vs. RV transvenous pacing (RVSp). Methods: This was a single-center, retrospective study in patients with CCAVB who underwent permanent pacemaker implant at age ≤ 18 years. Age- and gender-matched patients with a normal heart anatomy and function served as the control group. LV function was comprehensively assessed by conventional 2D Echocardiography and speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE). Results: We included 24 patients in the pacemaker group [27.6% male, mean age of 17.1 at last follow-up, follow-up duration of 8.7 years, RVSp (n = 9; 62.5%)] compared to 48 matched healthy controls. Shortening fraction (SF) and ejection fraction (EF) were normal and similar between cases and controls. However, STE detected abnormal LV function in the pacemaker group compared to controls. The former demonstrated lower/abnormal, Peak Longitudinal Strain myocardial (PLS Myo) [− 12.0 ± 3.3 vs. − 18.1 ± 1.9, p < 0.001] and Peak Longitudinal Strain endocardial (PLS endo) [− 16.1 ± 4.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.7, p < 0.001]. STE parameters of LV function were significantly more abnormal in LVEp vs. RVSp subgroup as demonstrated by lower values for PLS Myo (− 10.1 ± 3.2 vs. − 13.1 ± 2.9, p = 0.03) and PLS Endo (− 13.8 ± 4.4 vs. − 17.5 ± 3.3, p = 0.03). Conclusion: STE was more sensitive in detecting subtle differences in LV function relative to standard conventional 2D echocardiography (SF and EF) in selected patients with CCAVB and a permanent pacemaker. Furthermore, STE demonstrated that transvenous RV septal pacing was associated with better LV systolic function preservation than LV epicardial pacing for comparable post-implant intervals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]