-
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
- MeSH
- Atrioventricular Block complications MeSH
- Bradycardia etiology physiopathology therapy MeSH
- Double-Blind Method MeSH
- Ventricular Dysfunction, Left etiology prevention & control therapy MeSH
- Echocardiography, Three-Dimensional MeSH
- Financing, Organized MeSH
- Ventricular Function, Left MeSH
- Pacemaker, Artificial MeSH
- Quality of Life MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Cardiac Volume MeSH
- Prospective Studies MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic MeSH
- Ventricular Remodeling MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Sick Sinus Syndrome complications MeSH
- Stroke Volume MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
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