Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with complete atrioventricular block and preserved left ventricular systolic function.

Heart Rhythm 2016 12;13(12):2272-2278

Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Electrophysiology Section, Cleveland Clinic Foundation, Cleveland, Ohio. Electronic address:

Background: Right ventricular (RV) pacing may worsen left ventricular cardiomyopathy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and advanced atrioventricular block.

Objective: The objectives of this study were to calculate incidence and identify predictors of RV pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in complete heart block (CHB) with preserved LVEF and to describe outcomes of subsequent cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade.

Methods: An analysis of consecutive patients receiving permanent pacemaker (PPM) from 2000 to 2014 for CHB with LVEF >50% was performed. PICM was defined as CRT upgrade or post-PPM LVEF ≤40%. PICM association was determined via multivariable regression analysis. CRT response was defined by LVEF increase ≥10% or left ventricular end-systolic volume decrease ≥15%.

Results: Of the 823 study patients, 101 (12.3%) developed PICM over the mean follow-up of 4.3 ± 3.9 years, with post-PPM LVEF being 33.7% ± 7.4% in patients with PICM vs 57.6% ± 6.1% in patients without PICM (P < .001). In multivariable analysis, lower pre-PPM LVEF (hazard ratio [HR] 1.047 per 1% LVEF decrease; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.002-1.087; P = .042) and RV pacing % both as a continuous (HR 1.011 per 1% RV pacing; 95% CI 1.002-1.02; P = .021) and as a categorical (<20% or ≥20% RV pacing) (HR 6.76; 95% CI 2.08-22.0; P = .002) variable were independently associated with PICM. Only 29 patients with PICM (28.7%) received CRT upgrade despite an 84% responder rate (LVEF increase 18.5% ± 8.1% and left ventricular end-systolic volume decrease 45.1% ± 15.0% in responders). CRT upgrade was associated with greater post-PPM LVEF decrease, lower post-PPM LVEF, and post-PPM LVEF ≤35% (P = .006, P = .004, and P = .004, respectively).

Conclusion: PICM is not uncommon in patients receiving PPM for CHB with preserved LVEF and is strongly associated with RV pacing burden >20%. CRT response rate is high in PICM, but is perhaps underutilized.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.09.027DOI Listing
December 2016
70 Reads

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

left ventricular
16
patients picm
8
lvef
8
cardiomyopathy patients
8
post-ppm lvef
8
pacing-induced cardiomyopathy
8
crt response
8
picm
7
patients
6
ventricular
6
analysis crt
4
≥10% left
4
response defined
4
defined lvef
4
lvef increase
4
increase ≥10%
4
decrease ≥15%results
4
study patients
4
patients 101
4
101 123%
4

Similar Publications