Skip Navigation

Europace 2006 8(8):629-635; doi:10.1093/europace/eul075
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
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 ISI Web of Science
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 arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (3)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Funck, R. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Funck, R. C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2006. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org


CRT

Biventricular stimulation to prevent cardiac desynchronization: rationale, design, and endpoints of the ‘Biventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block to Prevent Cardiac Desynchronization (BioPace)’ study

Reinhard C. Funck1,*, Jean-Jacques Blanc2, Hans-Helge Mueller3, Carmen Schade-Brittinger4, Christophe Bailleul5, Bernhard Maisch1 for the BioPace Study Group

1 Department of Cardiology and Angiology, Clinic of Internal Medicine and Cardiology, University Hospital Philipps-University Marburg, Baldingerstr. 1, D-35033 Marburg, Germany; 2 Centre Hospitalier Régional Universitaire de la Cavale Blanche, Brest, France; 3 Institute of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology (IMBE), Philipps-University Marburg, Germany; 4 Coordinating Centre for Clinical Trials (KKS), Philipps-University Marburg, Germany; 5 SJM International, Inc., Brussels, Belgium

Despite the deleterious effects of cardiac dyssynchrony and the positive effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy, patients with high-degree atrioventricular block continue to receive desynchronizing right ventricular (RV) pacing systems. Although it is unclear whether the negative effects of RV pacing and left bundle branch block (LBBB) are comparable, and whether they depend on the presence and the degree of structural heart disease, one may hypothesize that RV pacing may have similar effects to LBBB. In the BioPace trial, the long-term effects of RV pacing vs. biventricular pacing will be prospectively compared in 1200 pacemaker patients with high likelihood of mostly paced ventricular events, regardless of whether in sinus rhythm or in atrial fibrillation (AF). After echocardiographic examination of left ventricular (LV) function, patients will be randomly assigned to the implantation of an RV vs. a biventricular pacing system and followed for up to 5 years. Primary study endpoints are survival, quality of life (QoL), and the distance covered in a 6-min hall walk (6-MHW) at 24 months after implantation. Secondary endpoints are QoL and the 6-MHW result at 12 months after implantation, hospitalization rate, LV dimensions, LV ejection fraction, and the development of chronic AF and other adverse events.

Key Words: Cardiac pacing, Biventricular stimulation, Prevention of cardiac desynchronization, Atrioventricular block, Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Left ventricular dysfunction


* Corresponding author. Tel: +49 6421 28 66462; fax: +49 6421 28 68954. E-mail address: funck{at}mailer.uni-marburg.de


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.