The changing landscape of cardiac pacing

A number of trials have shown that irrespective of baseline QRS duration, left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and heart failure are more common in patients with right ventricular (RV) than in those with biventricular (BiV) pacing. By contrast, preliminary results of the BIOPACE trial (follow-up 5.6 years) yielded a disappointing comparison of RV vs. BiV pacing. Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PIC) may occur in patients with normal and abnormal LV ejection fractions (LVEF) and tends to occur if there is RV pacing more than 40 % of the time. Yet, some pacemaker-dependent patients do not develop LV dysfunction. PIC can be improved in about two thirds of patients by upgrading to a BiV system and the results are comparable to de novo BiV pacing in patients with a wide QRS complex. The findings of the BLOCK HF trial (2013) suggested that patients requiring pacing virtually 100 % of the time might benefit from BiV pacing irrespective of the LVEF (< 50 %), manifestations of heart failure, QRS duration, or functional class. These characteristics would generate many patients for BiV pacing. However, these recommendations should now be weighed against a more conservative approach based on the recently announced results of the BIOPACE trial. Organizational guidelines recommend BiV pacing for bradycardia irrespective of QRS duration for patients with LVEF < 35 %. At this time, BiV pacing for antibradycardia therapy (irrespective of QRS duration) has to be individualized in the setting of a normal or decreased LVEF (> 35 %) and according to the expected percentage of RV pacing. The benefit of BiV pacing should be considered against procedural complications, which are more frequent than with traditional RV pacing.