Skip Navigation


Europace Advance Access originally published online on July 1, 2009
Europace 2009 11(9):1168-1176; doi:10.1093/europace/eup178
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
11/9/1168    most recent
eup178v1
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 Related articles in Europace
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 Tomaske, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bauersfeld, U.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Tomaske, M.
Right arrow Articles by Bauersfeld, U.
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.


Pacing and CRT

Preserved cardiac synchrony and function with single-site left ventricular epicardial pacing during mid-term follow-up in paediatric patients

Maren Tomaske1,*, Ole A. Breithardt2 and Urs Bauersfeld1

1 Division of Paediatric Cardiology, University Children's Hospital, Steinwiesstrasse 75, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland; 2 Department of Cardiology, Hospital Coburg, Coburg, Germany

Aims: Right ventricular (RV) pacing may cause dyssynchronous left ventricular (LV) contraction and systolic dysfunction. Left ventricular-based pacing may prevent such deterioration. The aim of this study was to evaluate ventricular synchrony and function with permanent LV pacing (LVP) vs. RV pacing (RVP) in paediatric patients with normal cardiac anatomy.

Methods and results: Twenty-five paediatric patients with normal cardiac anatomy and single-site epicardial RV apex pacing (RVP, n = 10, pacing duration: 7.9 ± 2.9 years) or LV free wall pacing (LVP, n = 15, pacing duration: 4.3 ± 2.6 years) for complete heart block were enrolled. A total of 15 healthy children served as a control group. Conventional echocardiography, myocardial circumferential (LV), and longitudinal (RV) 2D strain (2Ds) analysis were obtained. Paced QRS duration did not differ between groups (P = 0.915). Interventricular mechanical delay (LVP: 17 ± 10, RVP: 62 ± 15 ms; P < 0.0001), septal-to-posterior wall motion delay (LVP: 59 ± 23, RVP: 294 ± 84 ms; P < 0.0001), septal-to-lateral wall motion delay (LVP: 40 ± 19, RVP: 59 ± 12 ms; P = 0.009), and LV mechanical delay (LVP: 35 ± 9, RVP: 63 ± 17 ms; P < 0.0001) were preserved for LVP but not for RVP. Right ventricular mechanical delay was similar among paced groups (P = 0.639). Left ventricular ejection fraction was normal for LVP but not for RVP (LVP: 60 ± 6%, RVP: 45 ± 6%; P = 0.012). Left ventricular pacing did not differ from controls for synchrony or function.

Conclusion: Conventional and 2Ds echocardiographic measurements indicate preserved LV synchrony and function in paediatric patients with LVP compared with RVP. Permanent LVP has no impact on RV synchrony.

Key Words: Epicardial pacing leads, Cardiac resynchronization, Single-site, Left ventricular pacing, Children


* Corresponding author. Tel: +41 44 2667519, Fax: +41 44 2667981, Email: maren.tomaske{at}kispi.uzh.ch

Manuscript submitted 17 March 2009. Accepted after revision 10 June 2009.


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

Related articles in Europace:

Is the left ventricle the preferred pacing site in all children with atrioventricular block?
Nico A. Blom
Europace 2009 11: 1134-1135. [Full Text]  



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
EuropaceHome page
N. A. Blom
Is the left ventricle the preferred pacing site in all children with atrioventricular block?
Europace, September 1, 2009; 11(9): 1134 - 1135.
[Full Text] [PDF]



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.