Transient severe tricuspid regurgitation during atrioventricular block

Effects of long-term right ventricular apex pacing on left ventricular dyssynchrony, morphology and systolic function

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular apex (RVA) is still the most common implanted site in the world. There are a large number of RVA pacing population who have been carrying dual-chamber permanent pacemaker (PPM) over decades. Comparison of left ventricular dyssynchrony, morphology and systolic function between RVA pacing population and healthy population is unknown.

METHOD

This case-control study enrolled 61 patients suffered from complete atrioventricular block (III°AVB) for replacement of dual-chamber PPM. Then, 61 healthy controls matched with PPM patients in gender, age, follow-up duration and complications were included. The lead impedance, pacing threshold and sensing were compared between at implantation and long-term follow-up. Left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony, morphology and systolic function were compared between RVA pacing population (RVA group) and healthy population (healthy group) at implantation (baseline) and follow-up. And clarify the predictors of LV systolic function in RVA group at follow-up.

RESULTS

After 112.44 ± 34.94 months of follow-up, comparing with parameters at implantation, atrial lead impedance decreased significantly (690 ± 2397 Ω vs 613 ± 2257 Ω， p = 0.048); atrial pacing threshold has a increased trend and P-wave amplitude has a decreased trend, but there was no statistical differences; while, RVA ventricular lead threshold increased significantly (0.50 ± 0.23 V vs 0.91 ± 0.47 V， p < 0.001), impedance (902 ± 397 Ω vs 680 ± 257 Ω，p < 0.001) and R-wave amplitude (11.71 ± 9.40mv vs 7.00 ± 6.91 mv， p < 0.001) decreased significantly. Compared with healthy group, long-term RVA pacing significantly increased ventricular dyssynchrony (mean QRS duration, 156.21 ± 29.80 ms vs 97.08 ± 15.70 ms， p < 0.001), left atrium diameter (LAD, 40.61 ± 6.15 mm vs 37.49 ± 4.80 mm，p = 0.002), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD, 49.15 ± 5.93 mm vs 46.41 ± 3.80 mm，p = 0.003), left ventricular hypertrophy (LVMI, 121.86 ± 41.52 g/m2 vs 98.41 ± 25.29 g/m2，p < 0.001), significantly deteriorated degree of tricuspid regurgitation (p < 0.001), and significantly decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF, 61.38 ± 8.10% vs 64.64 ± 5.85%, p = 0.012), but after long-term RVA pacing, the mean LVEF was still more than 50%. Long-term RVA group LVEF was negatively correlated with preimplantation LVMI (B = -0.055，t = -2.244，p = 0.029), LVMI at follow-up (B = -0.081，t = -3.864，p = 0.000) and tricuspid regurgitation at follow-up (B = -3.797，t = -3.599，p = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, although long-term RVA pacing has significantly effects on left ventricular dyssynchrony, morphology and systolic function in III°AVB patients, the mean LVEF is still >50%. High preimplantation LVMI can predict the decline of LVEF.