Shih, Henry

Introduction: Right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing appears to have detrimental effects on cardiac function and long term outcomes. Right ventricular non-apical (RVNA) pacing, especially in the septal position, has been postulated as an alternative that may lead to less morbidity and mortality. Prior studies have shown conflicting results and been limited by small numbers and short follow-up. We aimed to determine if right ventricular septal lead position was associated with a reduction in long-term mortality compared to RVA lead position. Methods: Patients who underwent dual-chamber pacemaker implantation from 2004 through 2013 were evaluated for right ventricular lead position based on chest radiographs. Lead positions were divided in to apical or non-apical. Non-apical lead positions were subdivided to isolate a septal lead position group. Mortality was compared between these groups. Results: During the study period, 3456 patients underwent dual-chamber pacemaker placement and had images appropriate for lead position evaluation. The group was 53.5% male with a mean age of 74 ± 13 years. RVNA lead position was found in 976 (28.2%) patients, including 243 (7.0%) with a septal position. There was no significant difference in age or prior heart failure diagnosis between groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis did not reveal a significant difference in mortality between patients with RVA versus RVNA lead position during 5 year follow-up (p = 0.82). However, septal lead position was associated with a significantly lower mortality compared with RVA position (p = 0.03) (figure). Conclusions: Right ventricular septal lead position is associated with a lower long-term mortality than RVA lead position. This has substantial implications regarding the preferred site for ventricular pacing lead placement.

AbstractIntroductionCardiac pacing from the right ventricular apex is associated with detrimental long‐term effects and nonapical pacing locations may be associated with improved outcomes. There is little data regarding complications with nonapical lead positions. The aim of this study was to assess long‐term outcomes and lead‐related complications associated with differing ventricular lead tip position.Methods and resultsAll adult patients who underwent dual‐chamber pacemaker implantation from 2004 to 2014 were included if they had postprocedure chest radiographs amenable to lead position determination. Long‐term outcomes and lead‐related complication rates were recorded. These were compared at 5 years between: (1) apical and septal leads, (2) apical and nonseptal nonapical (NSNA), and (3) apical and septal with >40% ventricular pacing. We retrospectively evaluated 3,450 patients, which included 238 with a septal position and 733 with NSNA lead positions. Septal lead position was associated with a lower mortality compared to apical leads (24% vs. 31%, P = 0.02). In patients with greater than 40% pacing, septal leads were associated with significantly higher rates of incident atrial fibrillation compared to apical leads (49% vs. 34%, P = 0.04). NSNA positions were associated with a significantly higher rate of lead dislodgement (4% vs. 2%, P = 0.005) and need for revision (8% vs. 5%, P = 0.005).ConclusionsSeptal pacemaker lead position is associated with a lower mortality compared to apically placed leads, but a higher incidence of atrial fibrillation with higher percentage ventricular pacing. NSNA lead locations are associated with more complications and should be avoided.