Effect of right ventricular pacing on intra-left ventricular electromechanical activation in patients with native narrow QRS

Some patients with right ventricular (RV) apical pacing show contractile asynchrony of the left ventricle. Whether the asynchrony is due to RV pacing or was a preexistimg condition remains unknown. The aim of this study was to evaluate how much pacing from the RV apex affects left ventricular (LV) electromechanical activation and to assess whether the extent of LV asynchrony during RV pacing can be predicted by clinical, electrocardiographic, or echocardiographic findings obtained during spontaneous rhythm. We evaluated 56 patients with narrow QRS and preserved atrioventricular conduction who received permanent backup RV pacing. Intra-LV electromechanical activation was assessed during spontaneous rhythm and during pacing using tissue Doppler echocardiography. An abnormal intra-LV electromechanical delay (EMD) (defined as a >41-ms difference between the faster and slower activated LV wall) was found in 15 patients (27%) during spontaneous rhythm and 28 patients (50%) during RV pacing (p<0.001). Of the 9 baseline variables (age, gender, history of heart failure, QRS duration in spontaneous rhythm and during pacing, LV end-diastolic and end-systolic diameters, LV ejection fraction, and intra-LV EMD in spontaneous rhythm), an abnormal baseline intra-LV EMD and QRS duration of >85 ms were independent predictors of an abnormal intra-LV delay during RV pacing. RV apical pacing induces asynchrony of LV contractions in a substantial percentage of patients but not in all. Although normal baseline intra-LV electromechanical activation cannot exclude the development of significant asynchrony during RV pacing, the presence of preimplant LV asynchrony predicts for a worsening of this detrimental effect

Left ventricular electromechanical delay in patients with heart failure and normal QRS duration and in patients with right and left bundle branch block

Aims: We sought to define the reference values of intra-left ventricular (LV) electromechanical delay (EMD), and to assess the prevalence (and pattern) of intra-LV dyssynchrony in patients with heart failure (HF) and normal QRS and in patients with right and left bundle branch block. Methods and results: We used tissue Doppler imaging echocardiography and a six-LV wall model to study LV EMD in 103 patients [41 with HF and normal QRS, 22 with right bundle branch block (RBBB), and 40 with left bundle branch block (LBBB)], and in 59 controls. In controls, the median intra-LV EMD was 17 ms, (inter-quartile range 13-30); 95% of controls had a value < or =41 ms. Patients showed a longer intra-LV EMD than controls: 33 ms (20-57) in patients with normal QRS, 32 ms (23-50) in RBBB patients, and 50 ms (30-94) in LBBB patients. Intra-LV dyssynchrony (defined as intra-LV EMD >41 ms) was present in 39, 36, and 60% of the patients, respectively. On average, HF patients showed the same pattern of activation as controls, from the septum to the posterior wall, but activation times were significantly prolonged. In RBBB patients the activation sequence was directed from inferior to anterior and in LBBB from anterior to inferior wall. Conclusions: Left ventricular dyssynchrony was present in several patients with HF and normal QRS, and in patients with RBBB; conversely, 40% of LBBB patients showed values of LV EMD within the normal range. Left ventricular activation sequence was different between groups. Assessment of LV synchronicity by means of imaging techniques may be more important than QRS duration or morphology in selecting patients for cardiac resynchronization treatment