Modalities of ventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure: a
Ailan Chen1, Xinyu Chen2, Yuechun Shen1
1Department of Cardiology, The First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Insights
Triventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) shows promise for heart failure patients, offering improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) compared to biventricular pacing. Further trials are needed to confirm these findings for CRT modalities.
Area of Science:
- Cardiology
- Medical Devices
- Heart Failure Management
Background:
- Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is used to manage heart failure.
- Different CRT modalities exist, including biventricular (BiV), univentricular (LUV/RUV), and triventricular (TriV) pacing.
- Comparative outcomes of these CRT modalities require thorough evaluation.
Purpose of the Study:
- To compare clinical and functional outcomes of various cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) modalities.
- To evaluate the effectiveness of different CRT pacing strategies in heart failure (HF) patients.
Main Methods:
- A meta-analysis of 14 studies comparing CRT modalities was conducted.
- Studies were identified through comprehensive database searches (Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, Google Scholar).
- Clinical outcomes (peak O2 consumption, LVEF) and functional outcomes (6-min walk distance, quality of life) were analyzed.
Main Results:
- No significant difference in 6-min walk distance was observed between BiV and univentricular (LUV/RUV) or triventricular (TriV) groups.
- Peak oxygen consumption was comparable between BiV and LUV/RUV groups.
- Triventricular (TriV) CRT demonstrated a significant improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) compared to biventricular (BiV) pacing.
Conclusions:
- Triventricular (TriV) CRT presents a compelling alternative for heart failure management compared to univentricular or biventricular pacing.
- Further large-scale randomized trials are essential to validate the observed benefits of TriV CRT.
Introduction:
This meta-analysis evaluated 14 studies which compared clinical and functional outcomes after different cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) modalities.
Material And Methods:
Relevant studies were selected from the Medline, PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar databases until June 27th, 2016. We analyzed and compared the clinical outcomes (peak O2 consumption and LVEF) and functional outcomes (6-min walk distance and quality of life (SF-36)) of HF patients who received different CRT modalities with outcomes in patients who received conventional univentricular therapy.
Results:
There was no significant difference in post-treatment 6-min walking distance between the biventricular (BiV) and left/right univentricular (LUV/RUV) groups (standardized difference in means = 0.049, 95% CI: -0.119 to 0.217, p = 0.566), or between the BiV and triventricular (TriV) groups (standardized difference in means = 0.035, 95% CI: -0.270 to 0.340, p = 0.822). Peak O2 consumption was comparable between BiV and LUV/RUV groups (standardized difference in means = 0.306, 95% CI: -0.002 to 0.614, p = 0.052). Patients in the TriV group had a significant improvement in LVEF compared to the BiV group (standardized difference in means = 0.647, 95% CI: 0.313 to 0.982, p < 0.001).
Conclusions:
TriV CRT is an attractive alternative to univentricular or BiV pacing for heart failure patients. It is necessary to conduct further large randomized trials to validate our present data.
Related Concept Videos
Heart Failure VI: Adjunct Therapies
Cardiomyopathy II: Dilated Cardiomyopathy
Heart Failure V: Medical Management
Cardiomyopathy V: Interprofessional Care
Heart Failure Drugs: Inhibitors of Renin-Angiotensin System
Pathophysiology of Heart Failure


