• Something wrong with this record ?

Biventrikulární stimulace vs.stimulace z hrotu pravé komory
[Biventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and normal ejection fraction]

Yu CM, et al.

Language Czech Country Czech Republic

Document type Comparative Study, Multicenter Study

Observational studies suggest that conventional right ventricular apical pacing may have a deleterious effect on left ventricular function. In this study, we examined whether biventricular pacing is superior to right ventricular apical pacing in preventing deterioration of left ventricular systolic function and cardiac remodeling in patients with bradycardia and a normal ejection fraction. METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, multicenter study, we randomly assigned 177 patients in whom a biventricular pacemaker had been successfully implanted to receive biventricular pacing (89 patients) or right ventricular apical pacing (88 patients). The primary end points were the left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-systolic volume at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in the right-ventricular-pacing group than in the biventricular-pacing group (54.8+/-9.1% vs. 62.2+/-7.0%, P<0.001), with an absolute difference of 7.4 percentage points, whereas the left ventricular end-systolic volume was significantly higher in the right-ventricular-pacing group than in the biventricular-pacing group (35.7+/-16.3 ml vs. 27.6+/-10.4 ml, P<0.001), with a relative difference between the groups in the change from baseline of 25% (P<0.001). The deleterious effect of right ventricular apical pacing occurred in prespecified subgroups, including patients with and patients without preexisting left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. Eight patients in the right-ventricular-pacing group (9%) and one in the biventricular-pacing group (1%) had ejection fractions of less than 45% (P=0.02). There was one death in the right-ventricular-pacing group, and six patients in the right-ventricular-pacing group and five in the biventricular-pacing group were hospitalized for heart failure (P=0.74). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with normal systolic function, conventional right ventricular apical pacing resulted in adverse left ventricular remodeling and in a reduction in the left ventricular ejection fraction; these effects were prevented by biventricular pacing. (Centre for Clinical Trials number, CUHK_CCT00037.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society

Biventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and normal ejection fraction

000      
00000naa 2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc10013580
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20111210175340.0
008      
100607s2010 xr e cze||
009      
AR
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a cze $b eng
044    __
$a xr
100    1_
$a Yu, C. M.
245    10
$a Biventrikulární stimulace vs.stimulace z hrotu pravé komory / $c Yu CM, et al.
246    11
$a Biventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and normal ejection fraction
314    __
$a Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, Prince of Wales Hospital, Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong cmyu@cuhk.edu.hk
520    9_
$a Observational studies suggest that conventional right ventricular apical pacing may have a deleterious effect on left ventricular function. In this study, we examined whether biventricular pacing is superior to right ventricular apical pacing in preventing deterioration of left ventricular systolic function and cardiac remodeling in patients with bradycardia and a normal ejection fraction. METHODS: In this prospective, double-blind, multicenter study, we randomly assigned 177 patients in whom a biventricular pacemaker had been successfully implanted to receive biventricular pacing (89 patients) or right ventricular apical pacing (88 patients). The primary end points were the left ventricular ejection fraction and left ventricular end-systolic volume at 12 months. RESULTS: At 12 months, the mean left ventricular ejection fraction was significantly lower in the right-ventricular-pacing group than in the biventricular-pacing group (54.8+/-9.1% vs. 62.2+/-7.0%, P<0.001), with an absolute difference of 7.4 percentage points, whereas the left ventricular end-systolic volume was significantly higher in the right-ventricular-pacing group than in the biventricular-pacing group (35.7+/-16.3 ml vs. 27.6+/-10.4 ml, P<0.001), with a relative difference between the groups in the change from baseline of 25% (P<0.001). The deleterious effect of right ventricular apical pacing occurred in prespecified subgroups, including patients with and patients without preexisting left ventricular diastolic dysfunction. Eight patients in the right-ventricular-pacing group (9%) and one in the biventricular-pacing group (1%) had ejection fractions of less than 45% (P=0.02). There was one death in the right-ventricular-pacing group, and six patients in the right-ventricular-pacing group and five in the biventricular-pacing group were hospitalized for heart failure (P=0.74). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with normal systolic function, conventional right ventricular apical pacing resulted in adverse left ventricular remodeling and in a reduction in the left ventricular ejection fraction; these effects were prevented by biventricular pacing. (Centre for Clinical Trials number, CUHK_CCT00037.) 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society
650    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie jako téma $7 D016032
650    _2
$a financování organizované $7 D005381
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a atrioventrikulární blokáda $x komplikace $7 D054537
650    _2
$a bradykardie $x etiologie $x patofyziologie $x terapie $7 D001919
650    _2
$a objem srdce $7 D002306
650    _2
$a dvojitá slepá metoda $7 D004311
650    _2
$a echokardiografie trojrozměrná $7 D019560
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
650    _2
$a kardiostimulátor $7 D010138
650    _2
$a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
650    _2
$a kvalita života $7 D011788
650    _2
$a syndrom chorého sinu $x komplikace $7 D012804
650    _2
$a tepový objem $7 D013318
650    _2
$a dysfunkce levé srdeční komory $x etiologie $x prevence a kontrola $x terapie $7 D018487
650    _2
$a funkce levé komory srdeční $7 D016277
650    _2
$a remodelace komor $7 D020257
655    _2
$a srovnávací studie $7 D003160
655    _2
$a multicentrická studie $7 D016448
773    0_
$w MED00012706 $t Clinical cardiology alert $g Roč. 4, č. 2 (2010), s. 12 $x 1213-2586
787    18
$w bmc10013581 $i Recenze v: $t Komentář [k článku Biventrikulární stimulace vs.stimulace z hrotu pravé komory]
910    __
$a ABA008 $b B 2242 $c 407 a $y 8
990    __
$a 20100607122824 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20100901101807 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 749444 $s 613091
BAS    __
$a 3
BMC    __
$a 2010 $b 4 $c 2 $d 12 $m Clinical Cardiology Alert $x MED00012706
LZP    __
$a 2010-15/mkme

Find record