Background. The main adverse effect of chronic stimulation is stimulation-induced heart failure in case of ventricular contraction dyssynchrony. Because of this fact, new techniques of stimulation should be considered to optimize electrotherapy. One of these methods is pacing from alternative right ventricular sites. Objectives. The purpose of this article is to review currently accumulated data about alternative sites of cardiac pacing. Material and Methods. Medline and PubMed bases were used to search English and Polish reports published recently.Results. Recent studies report a deleterious effect of long term apical pacing. It is suggested that permanent apical stimulation, by omitting physiological conduction pattern with His-Purkinie network, may lead to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony of heart muscle contraction. In the long term this pathological situation can lead to severe heart failure and death. Because of this, scientists began to search for some alternative sites of cardiac pacing to reduce the deleterious effect of stimulation. Based on current accumulated data, it is suggested that the right ventricular outflow tract, right ventricular septum, direct His-bundle or biventricular pacing are better alternatives due to more physiological electrical impulse propagation within the heart and the reduction of the dyssynchrony effect. These methods should preserve a better left ventricular function and prevent the development of heart failure in permanent paced patients. As there is still not enough, long-term, randomized, prospective, cross-over and multicenter studies, further research is required to validate the benefits of using this kind of therapy. Conclusions. The article should pay attention to new sites of cardiac stimulation as a better and safer method of treatment (Adv Clin Exp Med 2015, 24, 2, 349-359).
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.