No abstract

IntroductionChronic stimulation of the right ventricle with pacemaker is associated with ventricular dyssynchrony and loss of contractility, even in subjects without previous dysfunction. In these patients, there is a debate of which pacing site is less associated with loss of ventricular function.ObjectiveTo compare pacemaker-induced dyssynchrony among different pacing sites in right ventricular stimulation.MethodsCross-sectional study of outpatients with right ventricle stimulation higher than 80% and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. Pacing lead position (apical, medial septum or free wall) was assessed through chest X-rays. Every patient underwent echocardiogram to evaluate for dyssynchrony according to CARE-HF criteria: aortic pre-ejection time, interventricular delay and septum/posterior wall delay on M mode.ResultsForty patients were included. Fifty-two percent had apical electrode position, 42% mid septum and 6% free wall. Mean QRS time 148.97±15.52 milliseconds. A weak correlation between the mean QRS width and pre-aortic ejection time (r=0.32; P=0.04) was found. No difference in QRS width among the positions could be noted. Intraventricular delay was lower in apical patients against mid septal (34.4±17.2 vs. 54.3±19.1 P<0.05) - no difference with those electrode on the free wall. No difference was noted in the pre-aortic ejection time (P=0.9).ConclusionApical pacing showed a lower interventricular conduction delay when compared to medial septum site. Our findings suggest that apical pacing dyssynchrony is not ubiquitous, as previously thought, and that it should remain an option for lead placement.

BackgroundBrugada syndrome (SBr) is an arrhythmic condition characterized by ST-T segment abnormalities in the right precordial leads associated with a high risk of ventricular arrhythmias and sudden death. Local data regarding the clinical characteristics of patients with a typical electrocardiographic (ECG) pattern undergoing electrophysiological study are scarce.ObjectiveTo evaluate patients with an ECG pattern suggestive of SBr referred for electrophysiological evaluation in a specialized center.MethodsCohort study of patients referred for electrophysiological study because of an ECG pattern compatible with SBr between January 1998 and March 2017.ResultsOf the 5506 procedures, 35 (0.64%) were for SBr investigation, 25 of which (71.42%) were performed in men. The mean age was 43.89 ± 13.1 years. The ECG patterns were as follows: type I, 22 (62.85%); type II, 12 (34.30%); and type III, 1 (2.85%). Twenty-three patients (65.7%) were asymptomatic, 6 (17.14%) had palpitations, 5 (14.3%) had syncope, and 3 (8.6%) had a family history of sudden death. Electrophysiological study induced ventricular tachyarrhythmias in 16 cases (45.7%), the mean ventricular refractory period being 228 ± 36 ms. Ajmaline / procainamide was used in 11 cases (31.4%), changing the ECG pattern to type I in 7 (63.6%). Sixteen cases (45.7%) received an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). In a mean 5-year follow-up, 1 of the 16 patients (6.25%) with ICD had appropriate therapy for ventricular fibrillation. There was no death. Other arrhythmias occurred in 4 (11.4%) cases.ConclusionsMost patients are men, and a type I ECG pattern is the main indication for electrophysiological study. Class IA drugs have a high ECG conversion rate. The ICD event rate was 6%.

Background The use of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices (CIED), such as the Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (ICD) and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT), is increasing. The number of leads may vary according to the device. Lead placement in the left ventricle increases surgical time and may be associated with greater morbidity after hospital discharge, an event that is often confused with the underlying disease severity. Objective To evaluate the rate of unscheduled emergency hospitalizations and death after implantable device surgery stratified by the type of device. Methods Prospective cohort study of 199 patients submitted to cardiac device implantation. The groups were stratified according to the type of device: ICD group (n = 124) and CRT group (n = 75). Probability estimates were analyzed by the Kaplan-Meier method according to the outcome. A value of p < 0.05 was considered significant in the statistical analyses. Results Most of the sample comprised male patients (71.9%), with a mean age of 61.1 ± 14.2. Left ventricular ejection fraction was similar between the groups (CRT 37.4 ± 18.1 vs. ICD 39.1 ± 17.0, p = 0.532). The rate of unscheduled visits to the emergency unit related to the device was 4.8% in the ICD group and 10.6% in the CRT group (p = 0.20). The probability of device-related survival of the variable “death” was different between the groups (p = 0.008). Conclusions Patients after CRT implantation show a higher probability of mortality after surgery at a follow-up of less than 1 year. The rate of unscheduled hospital visits, related or not to the implant, does not differ between the groups.

No abstract