PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
April 30, 2026European Heart Journal Open0 citationsOpen Access

Prevalence and incidence of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and adverse outcomes in patients receiving de novo and replacement pacemaker therapy for bradycardia

View Full Paper
NSNurul H Abdul SamadJGJohn GierulaJLJudith E. Lowry

Key Points

  • To assess the prevalence and predictors of left ventricular systolic dysfunction and heart failure outcomes in patients undergoing pacemaker therapy.
  • Prospective data collection from 1024 patients
  • Comparison between de novo and replacement RVP cases
  • Logistic regression models to identify predictors of LVSD and HF outcomes
  • LVSD observed in 37% of patients
  • De novo patients had a higher prevalence of LVSD than replacement patients (20% vs 17%)
  • 33% faced hospitalisation for heart failure or death over 30 months, with higher rates in replacement patients (25% vs 8%)

Abstract

Abstract Background and Aims Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is associated with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and heart failure (HF). We investigated the prevalence and predictors of LVSD and adverse HF outcomes in patients undergoing de novo or replacement RVP for bradycardia. Methods Prospective data were collected from 1024 patients receiving de novo (2014–2017, n=514) or generator replacement (2008–2011, n=510) RVP at a UK tertiary centre. Logistic regression models were used to identify predictors of LVSD, defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 50%, and subsequent HF hospitalisation (HFH) and all-cause mortality. Results Overall, 61% were male; mean age 76±11 years. De novo patients were more often male (66% vs. 56%) and more likely to have ischaemic heart disease (IHD; 31% vs. 14%) and diabetes (24% vs. 6%), but less likely to have atrial fibrillation (AF; 25% vs. 33%) than replacement patients (all p0.01). LVSD was present in 344 (37%) and was more frequent in de novo than replacement cases (20% vs. 17%, p0.01). Independent predictors of LVSD were IHD (OR=2.56, CI:1.58–4.13) and ventricular pacing burden 80% (OR=2.13, CI:1.29–3.52). Over a median 30 (IQR: 16–42) months, 341 (33%) experienced HFH or death, more commonly after replacement than de novo RVP (25% vs. 8%, p0.01). Predictors of adverse outcomes included replacement status (HR=2.27, CI:1.78–4.16), older age, AF, and LVEF 50%. Conclusions LVSD is common in RVP recipients and largely driven by comorbidities rather than pacing burden. Screening and targeted therapy in high-risk patients may improve outcomes and optimise resource use.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Samad et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69f2a4da8c0f03fd67763f90https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjopen/oeag069
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1154 Patients receiving standard pacemaker generator replacements frequently have impaired left ventricular function and exercise intolerance, related to the percentage of right ventricular pacing2011 · 8 citations
  2. 2Heart disease in the elderly2000 · 48 citations
  3. 3A minimum dataset for a standard adult transthoracic echocardiogram: a guideline protocol from the British Society of Echocardiography2015 · 187 citations
  4. 4Pacing-associated left ventricular dysfunction? Think reprogramming first!2014 · 14 citations
  5. 5Incidence of heart failure after pacemaker implantation: a nationwide Danish Registry-based follow-up study2019 · 98 citations