Skip Navigation


Europace Advance Access originally published online on May 15, 2009
Europace 2009 11(7):924-930; doi:10.1093/europace/eup118
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Supplementary Data
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
11/7/924    most recent
eup118v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stockburger, M.
Right arrow Articles by Dietz, R.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Stockburger, M.
Right arrow Articles by Dietz, R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2009. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

ICD

Right ventricular pacing is associated with impaired overall survival, but not with an increased incidence of ventricular tachyarrhythmias in routine cardioverter/defibrillator recipients with reservedly programmed pacing

Martin Stockburger*, Oezlem Celebi, Alice Krebs, Thomas Knaus, Aischa Nitardy, Dirk Habedank and Rainer Dietz

Charité–Universitaetsmedizin Berlin, Campus Virchow-Klinikum, Medizinische Klinik mit Schwerpunkt Kardiologie, Augustenburger Platz 1 13353, Berlin, Germany

Aims: Data from previous defibrillator studies raised concern about right ventricular pacing (RVP) promoting heart failure progression and mortality in implantable cardioverter/defibrillator (ICD) patients. The present observational study re-examined the association of RVP, survival, and ventricular tachyarrhythmias/ventricular fibrillation (VT/VF) in routine ICD patients with restrictively programmed pacing.

Methods and results: In 213 ICD patients [183 men, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 37 ± 15%, follow-up 37 ± 18 months, no advanced atrioventricular (AV) block], the RVP proportion, survival, and the time to a first appropriate VT/VF episode were assessed. Electrograms were validated and the overall survival was determined. The RVP prevalence was dichotomized at ≥30% (high RVP) vs. <30% (low RVP). High RVP (RVP 94%, n = 24) and low RVP (RVP 0%, n = 189) patients had similar LVEF, underlying heart disease, ICD indication, and medication. Multivariate Cox regression showed no difference in survival without appropriate VT/VF treatment [odds ratio (OR): 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41–2.04, P = 0.83]. Overall survival was significantly more favourable in low RVP patients (OR: 0.34, CI: 0.13–0.91, P = 0.03).

Conclusion: Frequent RVP is associated with impaired survival in ICD patients despite conservative pacing settings. Implantable cardioverter/defibrillator patients requiring concomitant bradycardia pacing should be cared for with particular attention to clinical worsening. Right ventricular pacing prevention and alternative modalities of ventricular pacing need prospective evaluation.

Key Words: Right ventricular pacing, Cardioverter/defibrillator, Overall survival, Ventricular tachyarrhythmia, Appropriate treatment episodes, Ventricular pacing prevention

* Correspondence address. Tel: +49 30 450653635, Fax: +49 30 450553961, Email: martin.stockburger{at}charite.de

Manuscript submitted 15 December 2008. Accepted after revision 15 April 2009.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.