A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

Left ventricular endocardial pacing is less arrhythmogenic than conventional epicardial pacing when pacing in proximity to scar. | LitMetric

Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

Background: Epicardial pacing increases risk of ventricular tachycardia (VT) in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) when pacing in proximity to scar. Endocardial pacing may be less arrhythmogenic as it preserves the physiological sequences of activation and repolarization.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to determine the relative arrhythmogenic risk of endocardial compared to epicardial pacing, and the role of the transmural gradient of action potential duration (APD) and pacing location relative to scar on arrhythmogenic risk during endocardial pacing.

Methods: Computational models of ICM patients (n = 24) were used to simulate left ventricular (LV) epicardial and endocardial pacing 0.2-3.5 cm from a scar. Mechanisms were investigated in idealized models of the ventricular wall and scar. Simulations were run with/without a 20-ms transmural APD gradient in the physiological direction and with the gradient inverted. Dispersion of repolarization was computed as a surrogate of VT risk.

Results: Patient-specific models with a physiological APD gradient predict that endocardial pacing decreases VT risk (34%; P <.05) compared to epicardial pacing when pacing in proximity to scar (0.2 cm). Endocardial pacing location does not significantly affect VT risk, but epicardial pacing at 0.2 cm compared to 3.5 cm from scar increases it (P <.05). Inverting the transmural APD gradient reverses this trend. Idealized models predict that propagation in the direction opposite to APD gradient decreases VT risk.

Conclusion: Endocardial pacing is less arrhythmogenic than epicardial pacing when pacing proximal to scar and is less susceptible to pacing location relative to scar. The physiological repolarization sequence during endocardial pacing mechanistically explains reduced VT risk compared to epicardial pacing.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7397521PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.03.021DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

endocardial pacing
16
epicardial pacing
12
pacing
10
left ventricular
8
pacing arrhythmogenic
8
pacing proximity
8
proximity scar
8
arrhythmogenic risk
8
risk endocardial
8
apd gradient
8

Similar Publications