We have located links that may give you full text access.
JOURNAL ARTICLE
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Differing effects of right ventricular pacing and left bundle branch block on left ventricular function.
British Heart Journal 1993 Februrary
OBJECTIVE: To compare the different effects of right ventricular pacing and classic left bundle branch block on left ventricular function.
DESIGN: Retrospective and prospective study of 48 patients by electrocardiography, and M mode, cross sectional, and Doppler echocardiography.
SETTING: A tertiary cardiac referral centre.
PATIENTS: 48 patients (age range 21 to 89 years, 15 women), 24 with a VVI pacemaker implanted and 24 with classic left bundle branch block. Functional mitral regurgitation was present in all those with right ventricular pacing and 22 of those with left bundle branch block.
RESULTS: Age, RR interval, and left ventricular size were similar in the two groups, as were conventional measurements of overall systolic function: shortening fraction and pre-ejection and aortic ejection times. In right ventricular pacing, however, QRS duration (p < 0.01) and electromechanical delay were much longer (p < 0.001), whereas the time intervals from onset of mitral regurgitation to aortic opening (contraction time) and from A 2 to the end of mitral regurgitation (relaxation time) were consistently shorter (p < 0.01) than corresponding values in patients with left bundle branch block. Reversed splitting of the second heart sound was much commoner in left bundle branch block (p < 0.02), and only these patients showed an early systolic ventricular septal contraction. Its onset followed the initial deflection of the QRS complex by 40(15) ms and preceded mitral regurgitation by a small but consistent interval of 10 ms (p < 0.01). The onset of posterior wall thickening was synchronous with the onset of mitral regurgitation in right ventricular pacing but much later (p < 0.01) in patients with left bundle branch block. The extent of incoordinate wall motion measure as relative dimension change during pre-ejection and isovolumic relaxation period was much greater (p < 0.01) in left bundle branch block. These major differences were not altered by left ventricular cavity size in either group, nor by the presence of previous left bundle branch block in patients who were subsequently paced.
CONCLUSIONS: The left ventricle seems to be activated much more rapidly with right ventricular pacing than with left bundle branch block. This applies even when left bundle branch block is present before pacing. Electromechanical delay, contraction and relaxation times, and extent of incoordinate ventricular wall motion differ strikingly between the two conditions. The use of right ventricular pacing as an experimental model of left bundle branch block in humans must be re-examined.
DESIGN: Retrospective and prospective study of 48 patients by electrocardiography, and M mode, cross sectional, and Doppler echocardiography.
SETTING: A tertiary cardiac referral centre.
PATIENTS: 48 patients (age range 21 to 89 years, 15 women), 24 with a VVI pacemaker implanted and 24 with classic left bundle branch block. Functional mitral regurgitation was present in all those with right ventricular pacing and 22 of those with left bundle branch block.
RESULTS: Age, RR interval, and left ventricular size were similar in the two groups, as were conventional measurements of overall systolic function: shortening fraction and pre-ejection and aortic ejection times. In right ventricular pacing, however, QRS duration (p < 0.01) and electromechanical delay were much longer (p < 0.001), whereas the time intervals from onset of mitral regurgitation to aortic opening (contraction time) and from A 2 to the end of mitral regurgitation (relaxation time) were consistently shorter (p < 0.01) than corresponding values in patients with left bundle branch block. Reversed splitting of the second heart sound was much commoner in left bundle branch block (p < 0.02), and only these patients showed an early systolic ventricular septal contraction. Its onset followed the initial deflection of the QRS complex by 40(15) ms and preceded mitral regurgitation by a small but consistent interval of 10 ms (p < 0.01). The onset of posterior wall thickening was synchronous with the onset of mitral regurgitation in right ventricular pacing but much later (p < 0.01) in patients with left bundle branch block. The extent of incoordinate wall motion measure as relative dimension change during pre-ejection and isovolumic relaxation period was much greater (p < 0.01) in left bundle branch block. These major differences were not altered by left ventricular cavity size in either group, nor by the presence of previous left bundle branch block in patients who were subsequently paced.
CONCLUSIONS: The left ventricle seems to be activated much more rapidly with right ventricular pacing than with left bundle branch block. This applies even when left bundle branch block is present before pacing. Electromechanical delay, contraction and relaxation times, and extent of incoordinate ventricular wall motion differ strikingly between the two conditions. The use of right ventricular pacing as an experimental model of left bundle branch block in humans must be re-examined.
Full text links
Related Resources
Trending Papers
Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: diagnosis, risk assessment, and treatment.Clinical Research in Cardiology : Official Journal of the German Cardiac Society 2024 April 12
Proximal versus distal diuretics in congestive heart failure.Nephrology, Dialysis, Transplantation 2024 Februrary 30
World Health Organization and International Consensus Classification of eosinophilic disorders: 2024 update on diagnosis, risk stratification, and management.American Journal of Hematology 2024 March 30
Efficacy and safety of pharmacotherapy in chronic insomnia: A review of clinical guidelines and case reports.Mental Health Clinician 2023 October
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