View clinical trials related to Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy.
Filter by:This prospective, un-blinded, randomized, noninferiority, single centre study with 12 month follow-up included patients who were scheduled for a single-chamber PM implant. Patients were 1:1 randomized to undergo the implantation of a conventional VVI pacing system (Medtronic, Advisa ADSR03) with a ventricular pacing lead (Medtronic, 5076-58) in the right ventricle (called 'conventional group') or to be implanted with a leadless Micra TPS (called 'Micra group'). The primary objective was to assess and compare the mechanical impact of right ventricular pacing using the Micra TPS versus a conventional PM on the left ventricular function.
Guidelines for patients having first-time implants advocate that even when heart function is only mildly impaired, modern pacing approaches should be utilised to avoid the potentially damaging effects of RV pacing to preventing symptoms from pacing induced or worsened cardiomyopathy. However, once a traditional (RV) pacemaker is implanted, development of impaired heart function does not prompt a device upgrade. Even at the end of battery life, physicians simply replace it like-for-like. This trial tests whether such patients have better symptoms and quality of life if changed to a modern physiological pacing strategy from the traditional RV pacing approach. In this crossover trial, participants will be upgraded to a physiological pacing strategy. After their procedure, they will have a one-month run-in period to recover from the procedure (their pacemaker will be programmed to continued RV pacing). They will be have 2 one-month blinded time periods, randomised to physiological pacing or right ventricular pacing alternately. They will subsequently undergo two six-month blinded randomised time periods. Patients will document symptoms monthly on a mobile phone application or computer. At the end of each time period, they will have measurements of heart function, a walking test and quality-of-life questionnaires including the SF-36 questionnaire. The investigators hypothesise that upgrading to physiological pacing strategies will improve patients' quality of life.
The purpose of the current study was to determine the factors associated with increased levels of anxiety and depression both before and after pacemaker implantation and examine if changes in these symptoms occur during the first postoperative year.
The investigators aim to prospectively test the comparative effectiveness of His or Left bundle branch pacing in relation to patient centered outcomes (quality of life, physical activity, heart failure hospitalization, mortality) and comparative safety in relation to device-related complications and re-interventions (e.g., lead dislodgement, infection) relative to standard of care biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure due to left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVEF≤50%) and with either a wide QRS (≥130 ms) or with/anticipated >40% pacing who are already receiving current standard heart failure pharmacological therapy.
Permanent ventricular pacing may be complicated with ventricular dyssynchrony and subsequent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. We hypothesized that left bundle branch area pacing may prevent the development of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation requiring permanent ventricular pacing. Patients with permanent atrial arrhythmia with an indication of cardiac pacing and atrioventricular junction ablation will be prospectively enrolled. They will undergo the implantation of a single-chamber pacemaker with left bundle branch area pacing, and then atrioventricular junction ablation. They will be prospectively followed during 6 months.
Prospective, randomized, single center clinical trial to compare the outcome of left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular apical pacing in patients with higher degree atrio-ventricular block and a normal left ventricular function after transcatheter aortic valve replacement.
This study will examine the clinical feasibility of His pacing in patients with expected high demand for ventricular pacing and no established indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Secondarily, examine differences in electrical and mechanical cardiac activation between traditional pacing and His pacing.
This study will randomize cross-over periods of 6 months of right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing in patients with baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)>40%. The primary outcome measure is LVEF.
Rationale: Permanent cardiac pacing is the only available therapy in patients with atrioventricular (AV) conduction disorders and can be life-saving. Right ventricular pacing (RVP), the routine clinical practice for decades in these patients, is non-physiologic, leads to dyssynchronous electrical and mechanical activation of the ventricles, and may cause pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and heart failure. Left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) is an emerging form of physiologic pacing that can possibly overcome the adverse effects of RVP. Study design and hypotheses: The LEAP trial is a multi-center investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized controlled, open label, blinded endpoint evaluation (PROBE) study that compares LVSP with conventional RVP. A total of four hundred seventy patients with a class I or IIa indication for pacemaker implantation due to AV conduction disorders and an expected ventricular pacing percentage >20% will be randomized 1:1 to LVSP or RVP. The primary endpoint is a composite endpoint of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure and a more than 10% decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in absolute terms leading to a LVEF below 50% at one year follow-up. LVSP is anticipated to result in improved outcomes. Secondary objectives are to evaluate whether LVSP is cost-effective and associated with an improved quality of life (QOL) as compared to RVP. Quality of life is expected to improve with LVSP and reduced healthcare resource utilizations are expected to ensure lower costs in the LVSP group during follow-up, despite initial higher costs of the implantation. Study design: Multi-center investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized controlled, open label, blinded endpoint evaluation (PROBE) study. Study population: Adult patients with a bradycardia-pacing indication because of AV conduction disorders with an expected ventricular pacing percentage of ≥ 20% and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >/= 40%. Four hundred seventy patients will be randomized 1:1 to LVSP or RVP. Intervention: LVSP vs RVP. Main study parameters/endpoints: The primary endpoint is a composite of all-cause mortality, hospitalization for heart failure, and a more than 10% point decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) leading to an LVEF below 50%, which as a binary combined endpoint will be determined at one year follow-up. Secondary endpoints are: - Time to first occurrence of all cause mortality or hospitalization for heart failure. - Time to first occurrence of all cause mortality. - Time to first occurrence of hospitalization for heart failure. - Time to first occurrence of atrial fibrillation (AF) de novo. - The echocardiographic changes in LVEF at one year. - The echocardiographic changes in diastolic (dys-)function at one year. - The occurrence of pacemaker related complications. - Quality of life (QOL), cost-effectiveness analyses (CEA) and budget impact analysis (BIA). The secondary endpoints (other than echocardiographic LVEF change) will be determined at the end of the follow-up period, when the last included patient has reached one year follow-up. The individual follow-up time for patients at this time point will vary with a minimum of one year.
Right ventricular pacing causes ventricular dyssynchrony and may be associated with impaired outcome. In the last decade, several approaches for more physiological pacing became available and were implemented in the latest guidelines. However, compared to conventional device implantation, cardiac resynchronization, His bundle pacing and left bundle area pacing remain demanding procedures in the individual case. Goal of the single center observational "Pace conduct" study is to evaluate implantation success, safety and outcome of pacing methods that maintain physiologic ventricular activation.