We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Left ventricular conduction delays induced by right ventricular apical pacing: effect of left ventricular dysfunction and bundle branch block.
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 2008 Februrary
BACKGROUND: RV apical pacing (RVP) may be deleterious, possibly by simulating LBBB, i.e., prolonging QRS duration (QRSd) and LV activation (LVAT). However, determinants of electrical delays are unknown.
HYPOTHESIS: LV dysfunction (LVEF
METHODS: RVP-induced QRSd and LVAT were compared in normal LV to HF, with normal QRS (<120 ms), RBBB, or LBBB. LVAT was estimated by interval from QRS onset to basal inferolateral LV depolarization.
RESULTS: During LBBB and RVP, LVAT/QRSd was >or=85%, i.e., LVAT indicated terminal LV depolarization. In normal LV, LVAT during intrinsic conduction (55 +/- 18 ms) was delayed by RVP (129 +/- 20 ms, n = 58, P < 0.001). RVP's effects were similar to LBBB (P = NS) and unaffected by baseline conduction disease. In HF overall, RVP-induced delays (QRSd 209 +/- 27, LVAT 186 +/- 26 ms, n = 102) were greater than RVP in normal LV (P < 0.001). When baseline conduction system disease was present, RVP's effects were exaggerated (RVP wide QRS [>120 ms]: QRSd 216 +/- 27, LVAT 191 +/- 20 ms, [n = 72] vs RVP normal QRS: QRSd 193 +/- 24, LVAT 169 +/- 24 ms, n = 31, P < 0.001). In patients with LBBB (n = 41), delays during intrinsic conduction (QRSd 163 +/- 29, LVAT 137 +/- 33 ms, n = 41) were enhanced by RVP (QRSd 218 +/- 28, LVAT 191 +/- 22 ms, P < 0.001). RVP's effects were similar in patients with LBBB and RBBB (P = NS).
CONCLUSION: RVP simulated LBBB in normal LV. In HF, RVP induced greater conduction delays than LBBB, enhanced by accompanying conduction disease. These variations may contribute to RVP's mixed clinical effects.
HYPOTHESIS: LV dysfunction (LVEF
METHODS: RVP-induced QRSd and LVAT were compared in normal LV to HF, with normal QRS (<120 ms), RBBB, or LBBB. LVAT was estimated by interval from QRS onset to basal inferolateral LV depolarization.
RESULTS: During LBBB and RVP, LVAT/QRSd was >or=85%, i.e., LVAT indicated terminal LV depolarization. In normal LV, LVAT during intrinsic conduction (55 +/- 18 ms) was delayed by RVP (129 +/- 20 ms, n = 58, P < 0.001). RVP's effects were similar to LBBB (P = NS) and unaffected by baseline conduction disease. In HF overall, RVP-induced delays (QRSd 209 +/- 27, LVAT 186 +/- 26 ms, n = 102) were greater than RVP in normal LV (P < 0.001). When baseline conduction system disease was present, RVP's effects were exaggerated (RVP wide QRS [>120 ms]: QRSd 216 +/- 27, LVAT 191 +/- 20 ms, [n = 72] vs RVP normal QRS: QRSd 193 +/- 24, LVAT 169 +/- 24 ms, n = 31, P < 0.001). In patients with LBBB (n = 41), delays during intrinsic conduction (QRSd 163 +/- 29, LVAT 137 +/- 33 ms, n = 41) were enhanced by RVP (QRSd 218 +/- 28, LVAT 191 +/- 22 ms, P < 0.001). RVP's effects were similar in patients with LBBB and RBBB (P = NS).
CONCLUSION: RVP simulated LBBB in normal LV. In HF, RVP induced greater conduction delays than LBBB, enhanced by accompanying conduction disease. These variations may contribute to RVP's mixed clinical effects.
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app