The effect of right ventricle pacemaker lead position on diastolic function in patients with preserved left ventricle...

Our aim was to analyze any changes during diastole in patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), after pacemaker stimulation from the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) and right ventricular apex (RVA) lead position. This was a prospective, randomized, follow up study, which lasted for 12 months. Our research included 132 consecutive patients who were implanted with a permanent antibradycardiac pacemaker. Regarding the right ventricle lead position the patients were divided into two groups: The RVOT group--71 patients, with right ventricle outflow tract lead position and the RVA group--61 patients, with right ventricle apex lead position. We measured LVEF and diastolic parameters: peak filling ratio and time to peak filling ratio obtained by radionuclide ventriculography (RNV). The LVEF and various diastolic parameters and left atrial diameter were obtained by echocardiography. Based on the values of deceleration time of early diastolic filling (DTE), and other diastolic parameters like left atrial diameter, all the patients were classified into three degrees of diastolic dysfunction. Our results showed that there was no group difference in distribution of gender, age, body mass index (BMI), VVI to DDD pacemakers implantation ratio, RNV parameters (LVEF, peak filling rate (PFR), time to PFR (TPFR)) and echocardiography parameters: LVEF and parameters of diastolic dysfunction. After 12 months of pacemaker stimulation, LVEF by RNV remained the same in the RVOT group 51.31±15.80% (P=0.75), and also in the RVA group 53.83±6.57%, (P=0.19). In the RVOT group the PFR was highly lower and this finding was significant (P=0.01), while TPFR was also significantly lower (P=0.03). By dividing the patients according to the degree of diastolic dysfunction we found that most patients in both groups at enrollment had a second degree diastolic dysfunction. In both groups diastolic dysfunction increased, the number of patients with third degree diastolic dysfunction increased, and the number of patients with second degree diastolic dysfunction decreased, however, the worsening of diastolic function was significant only in the RVOT group. In conclusion, pacemaker stimulation from RVOT, but not in RVA, leads to progression of diastolic dysfunction in patients with preserved LVEF. This negative effect of pacemaker stimulation from RVOT on diastolic parameters was confirmed by two independent methods, RNV and echocardiography.