Predictors of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with Permanent Right Ventricular Pacing and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function

  • Eugene O. Perepeka National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9755-8825
  • Olena M. Trembovetska National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3923-224X
  • Borys B. Kravchuk National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4535-7797
  • Ievgen A. Nastenko National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Kyiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1076-9337
  • Maryna M. Sychyk National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine, Kyiv, Ukraine; National Technical University of Ukraine “Igor Sikorsky Kyiv Polytechnic Institute”, Kyiv, Ukraine https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0145-4744
DOI: https://doi.org/10.30702/ujcvs/23.31(02)/PT024-3444
Keywords: complete atrioventricular block, left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, upgrade of pacemaker, cardiac resynchronization therapy, conduction system pacing

Abstract

Right ventricular pacing may impair left ventricular systolic function in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

The aim. To determine the frequency of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing (at least 90%) and preserved LVEF (≥50%). To determine the risk factors for the occurrence of PICM.

Materials and methods. The study included 34 patients with indications for permanent ventricular pacing in whom pacemaker was implanted from 2012 to 2022 (mean follow-up period 44.97 ± 28.45 months). PICM was defined as a decrease in LVEF <45% during follow-up regardless of clinical manifestations. Risk factors for PICM were determined through univariate and multivariate regression analysis.

Results. The incidence of PICM in this study was 26% during the mean observation period of 44.9 ± 28.4 months. The mean time to the onset of PICM was 29 months in 5 out of 9 patients (55%), the time from implantation to diagnosis of PICM was less than a year. The mean LVEF and end-diastolic volume index at the time of follow-up differed significantly in the groups with and without PICM: 38.6 ± 5.9% vs. 53.5 ± 5.7% (p<0.001) and 97.9 ± 20.75 ml/m2 vs. 60.9 ± 19.32 ml/m2 (p<0.001), respectively. In the PICM group intraventricular asynchrony was 261.1 ± 61 ms vs. 146.1 ± 62.8 ms (p<0.001), interventricular asynchrony 91 ± 36.4 ms vs. 54.2 ± 22.2 ms (p = 0.014), the number of segments with reduced deformation 8.1 ± 2.6 vs. 3.91 ± 2.3 (p<0.001), global longitudinal strain –9.7 ± 2.6 % vs. –14.9 ± 3.4 % (p<0.001). At the time of the follow-up examination, the signal of sensitivity on ventricular lead in the PICM group was significantly reduced compared to patients without PICM (6.26 ± 4.02 mV vs. 11.56 ± 3.86 mV, p = 0.045). Paced QRS width in the PICM group was significantly larger (163 ± 22.7 ms vs. 150.8 ± 14.5 ms) and there were more patients with rate-adapted cardiac pacing in the PICM group: 4 (40%) vs. 2 (8%) (p = 0.0428). In multivariate regression analysis, a wider paced QRS (hazard ratio 1.09 for every 1 ms increment in QRS width, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.17, p = 0.025) was an independent predictor of PICM. In two patients from PICM group, upgrade of pacemaker system to biventricular pacing was performed with an improvement in the left ventricular contractility: in one patient from 37% to 44%, in another from 34% to 51% in one and two month, respectively.

Conclusions. Cardiomyopathy due to right ventricular pacing tends to occur instantaneously in the first years after pacemaker implantation, rather than slowly progressing over time. A wider paced QRS complex is an independent predictor of PICM. Biventricular pacing effectively eliminates the consequences of non-physiological right ventricular pacing, improves left ventricular systolic function.

References

  1. Tops LF, Schalij MJ, Bax JJ. The Effects of Right Ven-tricular Apical Pacing on Ventricular Function and Dyssynchrony: Implications for Therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009;54(9):764-776. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2009.06.006
  2. Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Greenspon AJ, Freedman RA, Lee KL, et al.; MOde Selection Trial In-vestigators. Adverse Effect of Ventricular Pacing on Heart Failure and Atrial Fibrillation Among Patients With Nor-mal Baseline QRS Duration in a Clinical Trial of Pace-maker Therapy for Sinus Node Dysfunction. Circulation. 2003;107(23):2932-2937. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.CIR.0000072769.17295.B1
  3. Wilkoff BL, Cook JR, Epstein AE, Greene HL, Hallstrom AP, Hsia H, Kutalek SP, Sharma A; Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator Trial Investigators. Dual-Chamber Pacing or Ventricular Backup Pacing in Patients With an Implantable Defibrillator: The Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) Trial. JAMA. 2002;288(24):3115-3123. https://doi.org/10.1001/ja-ma.288.24.3115
  4. Glikson M, Nielsen JC, Kronborg MB, Michowitz Y, Auricchio A, Barbash IM, et al.; ESC Scientific Document Group. 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(35):3427-3520. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehab364. Erra-tum in: Eur Heart J. 2022 May 1;43(17):1651.
  5. Curtis AB, Worley SJ, Adamson PB, Chung ES, Niazi I, Sherfesee L, et al.; Biventricular versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients with Atrioventricular Block (BLOCK HF) Trial Investigators. Biventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block and Systolic Dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(17):1585-1593. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1210356
  6. Stockburger M, Gómez-Doblas JJ, Lamas G, Alzueta J, Fernández-Lozano I, Cobo E, et al. Preventing ventricular dysfunction in pacemaker patients without advanced heart failure: results from a multicentre international randomized trial (PREVENT-HF). Eur J Heart Fail. 2011;13(6):633-641. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurjhf/hfr041
  7. Funck RC, Mueller HH, Lunati M, Piorkowski C, De Roy L, Paul V, et al.; BioPace study group. Characteristics of a large sample of candidates for permanent ventricular pacing included in the Biventricular Pacing for Atrio-ventricular Block to Prevent Cardiac Desynchronization Study (BioPace). Europace. 2014;16(3):354-362. https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/eut343
  8. Yu CM, Fang F, Luo XX, Zhang Q, Azlan H, Razali O. Long-term follow-up results of the Pacing to Avoid Cardiac Enlargement (PACE) trial. Eur J Heart Fail. 2014;16(9):1016-1025. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.157
  9. Albertsen AE, Mortensen PT, Jensen HK, Poulsen SH, Egeblad H, Nielsen JC. Adverse effect of right ventricular pacing prevented by biventricular pacing during long-term follow-up: a randomized comparison. Eur J Echocardiogr. 2011;12(10):767-772. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejechocard/jer136
  10. Abdelrahman M, Subzposh FA, Beer D, Durr B, Naperkowski A, Sun H, et al. Clinical Outcomes of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71(20):2319-2330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.048
  11. Sharma PS, Patel NR, Ravi V, Zalavadia DV, Dommaraju S, Garg V, et al. Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19(1):3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.08.033
  12. Khurshid S, Epstein AE, Verdino RJ, Lin D, Goldberg LR, Marchlinski FE, et al. Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Heart Rhythm. 2014;11(9):1619-1625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.05.040
  13. Kiehl EL, Makki T, Kumar R, Gumber D, Kwon DH, Rickard JW, et al. Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with complete atrioventricular block and preserved left ventricular systolic function. Heart Rhythm. 2016;13(12):2272-2278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2016.09.027
  14. Abdin A, Yalin K, Zink MD, Napp A, Gramlich M, Marx N, et al. Incidence and predictors of pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy: A single-center experience. J Electrocardiol. 2019;57:31-34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2019.08.016
  15. Abdelmohsen Sayed M, Abd El Fatah Badran H, Khaled S, Effat Fakhry E. Predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction in pacemaker recipients with preserved ejection fraction. Herzschrittmacherther Elektrophysiol. 2022;33(3):312-318. English. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00399-022-00880-w
  16. Perla HT, Chandra Srinath Patloori S, Manickavasagam A, Chase D, Roshan J. Do the predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy add up? Indian Heart J. 2021;73(5):582-587. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ihj.2021.07.011
  17. Kim JH, Kang KW, Chin JY, Kim TS, Park JH, Choi YJ. Major determinant of the occurrence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in complete atrioventricular block: a multicentre, retrospective analysis over a 15-year period in South Korea. BMJ Open. 2018;8(2):e019048. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019048
  18. Cho SW, Gwag HB, Hwang JK, Chun KJ, Park KM, On YK, et al. Clinical features, predictors, and long-term prognosis of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Eur J Heart Fail. 2019;21(5):643-651. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.1427
  19. Vatankulu MA, Goktekin O, Kaya MG, Ayhan S, Kucukdurmaz Z, Sutton R, et al. Effect of Long-Term Resynchronization Therapy on Left Ventricular Remodeling in Pacemaker Patients Upgraded to Biventricular Devices. Am J Cardiol. 2009;103(9):1280-1284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2009.01.023
  20. Vijayaraman P, Herweg B, Dandamudi G, Mittal S, Bhatt AG, Marcantoni L, et al. Outcomes of His-bundle pacing upgrade after long-term right ventricular pacing and/or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: Insights into disease progression. Heart Rhythm. 2019;16(10):1554-1561. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.03.026
  21. Rademakers LM, Bouwmeester S, Mast TP, Dekker L, Houthuizen P, Bracke FA. Feasibility, safety and outcomes of upgrading to left bundle branch pacing in patients with right ventricular pacing induced cardiomyopathy. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2022;45(6):726-732. https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14515
  22. Ye Y, Wu S, Su L, Sheng X, Zhang J, Wang B, et al. Feasibility and Outcomes of Upgrading to Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients With Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy and Infranodal Atrioventricular Block. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8:674452. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.674452
  23. Chen Z, Zhou X, Ma X, Chen K. Recruitment of the cardiac conduction system for optimal resynchronization therapy in failing heart. Front Physiol. 2022;13:1045740. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2022.1045740
  24. Perepeka EO, Kravchuk BB. [Results of Using Various Conduction System Pacing Options in Patients with Bradyarrhythmia]. Ukrainian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery. 2022;30(4):94-103. Ukrainian. https://doi.org/10.30702/ujcvs/22.30(04)/PK064-94103
  25. Kaye GC, Linker NJ, Marwick TH, Pollock L, Graham L, Pouliot E, et al.; Protect-Pace trial investigators. Effect of right ventricular pacing lead site on left ventricular function in patients with high-grade atrioventricular block: results of the Protect-Pace study. Eur Heart J. 2015;36(14):856-862. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehu304
Published
2023-06-26
How to Cite
Perepeka, E. O., Trembovetska, O. M., Kravchuk, B. B., Nastenko, I. A., & Sychyk, M. M. (2023). Predictors of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with Permanent Right Ventricular Pacing and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function. Ukrainian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery, 31(2), 35-44. https://doi.org/10.30702/ujcvs/23.31(02)/PT024-3444
Issue
Ukrainian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery Vol 31 No 2 2023
Section
HEART RHYTHM DISORDER

Most read articles by the same author(s)