Skip Navigation


Europace Advance Access originally published online on August 7, 2007
Europace 2007 9(10):862-868; doi:10.1093/europace/eum161
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
9/10/862    most recent
eum161v1
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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sirker, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hildick-Smith, D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sirker, A.
Right arrow Articles by Hildick-Smith, D.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The European Society of Cardiology 2007. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

CARDIAC RESYNCHRONISATION THERAPY

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: left or left-and-right for optimal symptomatic effect—the LOLA ROSE study

Alexander Sirker, Martin Thomas, Stephanie Baker, Jean Shrimpton, Simon Jewell, Lorraine Lee, Rebecca Rankin, Vicky Griffiths, Nina Cooter, Rachael James, Sean O’Nunain and David Hildick-Smith*

Sussex Cardiac Centre, Royal Sussex County Hospital, Eastern Road, Brighton BN2 5BE, East Sussex, UK

Aims Biventricular (BiV) pacing and left univentricular (LUV) pacing can each produce clinical benefits in heart failure. The impact of modern refinements in pacing optimization on the relative benefits of these two modes is unknown. We aimed to compare these two modes in patients with heart failure, using Echo-based optimization of each pacing mode.

Methods and results Paired data were collected on 18 patients (age 72 ± 8 years; 16 male) with refractory heart failure symptoms, sinus rhythm, and LBBB with QRS duration>120 ms. Patients were randomized to an initial 8 weeks of either BiV or LUV pacing, followed by 8 weeks of the other mode, in a blinded cross-over design. Echocardiography was used to optimize atrioventricular delay for both modes and right ventricular–left ventricular offset for BiV mode. Peak oxygen consumption (baseline 13.6 ± 2.7; BiV 15.8 ± 3.0; LUV 15.2 ± 3.1 mL/kg/min), 6 min walk distance (baseline 258 ± 47; BiV 290 ± 63; LUV 287 ± 69 m), and scores on SF36 health questionnaire (baseline 41.5 ± 16.8; BiV 58.6 ± 19.6; LUV 51.8 ± 21.3) did not differ between BiV and LUV modes. New York Heart Association class was significantly better in BiV than in LUV mode (P < 0.01).

Conclusion In this pilot study, we found no differences in major clinical outcome measures between the two modes of resynchronization.

Key Words: Heart failure, Biventricular, Univentricular, Pacing, Resynchronization

* Corresponding author. Tel: +44 1273 664494. E-mail address: david.hildick-smith{at}bsuh.nhs.uk

Manuscript submitted 31 March 2007. Accepted after revision 7 July 2007.


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.