JACC
HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Coll Cardiol, 2004; 43:234-238, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2003.09.027
© 2004 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Puggioni, E.
Right arrow Articles by Del Rosso, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Puggioni, E.
Right arrow Articles by Del Rosso, A.

CLINICAL RESEARCH: ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY

Acute comparative effect of right and left ventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation

Enrico Puggioni, MD*, Michele Brignole, MD*,*, Michael Gammage, MD{dagger}, Ezio Soldati, MD{ddagger}, Maria Grazia Bongiorni, MD{ddagger}, Emmanuael N. Simantirakis, MD§, Panos Vardas, MD§, Fredrik Gadler, MD||, Lennart Bergfeldt, MD||, Corrado Tomasi, MD, Giacomo Musso, MD#, Gianni Gasparini, MD** and Attilio Del Rosso, MD{dagger}{dagger}

* Ospedali del Tigullio, Lavagna, Italy
{dagger} Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, United Kingdom
{ddagger} Ospedale S. Chiara, Pisa, Italy
§ University Hospital, Heraklion, Greece
|| Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden
Ospedale S. Maria Nuova, Reggio Emilia, Italy
# Ospedale Civile, Imperia, Italy
** Ospedale Umberto I, Mestre, Italy
{dagger}{dagger} Ospedale S. Pietro Igneo, Fucecchio, Italy

Manuscript received June 14, 2003; revised manuscript received August 2, 2003, accepted September 8, 2003.

* Reprint requests and correspondence: Dr. Michele Brignole, Head of the Department of Cardiology, Ospedali del Tigullio, Via don Bobbio, 16033 Lavagna, Italy.
mbrignole{at}ASL4.liguria.it


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 APPENDIX
 References
 
OBJECTIVES: We tested the hypothesis that left ventricular (LV) pacing is superior to right ventricular (RV) apical pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation and pacing for permanent atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefit of LV over RV pacing needs to be evaluated without the confounding effect of other variables that can influence cardiac performance.

METHODS: An acute intrapatient comparison of the QRS width and echocardiographic parameters between RV versus LV pacing was performed within 24 h after ablation in 44 patients. Both modes of pacing were also compared with pre-implantation values.

RESULTS: Compared with RV pacing, LV pacing caused a 5.7% increase in the ejection fraction (EF) and a 16.7% decrease in the mitral regurgitation (MR) score; the QRS width was 4.8% shorter with LV pacing. Similar results were observed in patients with or without systolic dysfunction and/or native left bundle branch block, except for a greater improvement in MR in the latter group. Compared with pre-ablation measures, the EF increased by 11.2% and 17.6% with RV and LV pacing, respectively; the MR score decreased by 0% and 16.7%; and the diastolic filling time increased by 12.7% and 15.6%.

CONCLUSIONS: Rhythm regularization achieved with AV junction ablation improved EF with both RV and LV pacing; LV pacing provided an additional modest but favorable hemodynamic effect, as reflected by a further increase of EF and reduction of MR. The effect seems to be equal in patients with both depressed and preserved systolic functions and in those with and without native left bundle branch block.

Abbreviations and Acronyms
  AF = atrial fibrillation
  AV = atrioventricular
  EF = ejection fraction
  LBBB = left bundle branch block
  LV = left ventricle/ventricular
  MR = mitral regurgitation
  OPSITE = Optimal Pacing Site study
  RV = right ventricle/ventricular

Pacing from the apex of the right ventricle (RV) is considered not optimal, as it provides a nonphysiologic asynchronous contraction, which results in a decrease in cardiac performance (1,2). In patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) who received atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation and pacing from the RV apex, the beneficial hemodynamic effect of regularization of heart rhythm is thus assumed to be partly counteracted by the adverse hemodynamic effect of a nonphysiologic pacing mode (3).

The Optimal Pacing Site (OPSITE) study (4) is a prospective, randomized, single-blinded, cross-over comparison between RV and left ventricular (LV) pacing for patients with permanent AF undergoing ablation and pacing therapy. The study consists of acute and chronic- evaluations. The protocol has been published previously (4).

In this report, we focus on the acute comparison of RV and LV pacing in a model of AF and AV junction ablation, which allows the net effect of LV over RV pacing to be studied without the confounding effect of two other variables that can influence cardiac performance—namely, the effect of atrial contribution (including the effect of the PR interval) and the irregularity of the ventricular rhythm. Single-site LV pacing was compared with single-site RV pacing to eliminate the potential confounding effect of simultaneous biventricular stimulation. Moreover, the acute evaluation was performed shortly after ablation, allowing a minimum time for cardiac adaptation, which is another confounding factor.

We assumed that the acute hemodynamic effect of LV pacing would be better than that of RV pacing. Secondary objectives were the comparison between two predefined subgroups of patients with preserved or depressed systolic function and the comparison of the two modes of pacing with baseline measures to evaluate the effect of AV junction ablation.


   Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
Results
 Discussion
 APPENDIX
 References
 
The following patients were eligible for enrollment in the OPSITE study: 1) patients with permanent AF in whom a clinical decision was made to undertake complete AV junction ablation and ventricular pacing because of a drug-refractory, severely symptomatic, uncontrolled high ventricular rate; and 2) patients with permanent AF, drug-refractory heart failure, depressed LV function, and/or left bundle branch block (LBBB) in whom a clinical decision was made to undertake LV synchronization pacing.

Patient exclusion criteria were as follows: 1) New York Heart Association functional class IV heart failure; 2) severe concomitant noncardiac diseases; 3) need for surgical intervention; 4) myocardial infarction within three months; 5) sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation; and 6) previously implanted pacemaker.

Two different subgroups were predefined for analysis: patients with an ejection fraction (EF) >40% and absence of an LBBB pattern (group A) and patients with heart failure (i.e., those with EF ≤40% and/or LBBB pattern) (group B).

All patients underwent pacemaker implantation and AV junction ablation; pacemaker implantation and ablation could take place at different times (<6 weeks apart), but simultaneous procedures were recommended. The RV leads were positioned in the RV apex. The LV leads were positioned via the coronary sinus in a position considered most appropriate by the implanting physician; in case of failure of pacing through the coronary sinus, an epicardial lead was inserted. A conventional dual-chamber pacemaker was used; the atrial port of the pacemaker was connected to the LV lead, and the ventricular port was connected to the RV lead.

The acute noninvasive study, which was performed within 24 h after AV junction ablation, consisted of echocardiographic evaluation and measurements of the QRS duration. The pacemaker was alternately programmed to pace in the LV or RV only in randomized order, at a rate of 70 beats/min. The RV and LV pacing studies were performed during the same session; the operator who performed the test and analyzed the records was not informed of the mode of pacing. The echocardiographic examination was performed using standard views, according to the guidelines of the American Society of Echocardiography (5). Echocardiographic long-axis and apical two- and four-chamber views were obtained to assess the LV end-diastolic diameter, LV end-systolic diameter, EF (area–length method), aortic flow integral (pulsed Doppler), isovolumic relaxation time, mitral flow integral (pulsed Doppler), mitral flow peak, mitral deceleration time, diastolic filling time, and severity of mitral regurgitation (MR) (by means of a semiquantitative three-score scale). The measures obtained were the average of six consecutive beats.

Statistical analysis.   The assumption for the sample size calculation was that, based on a previous study (6), LV pacing would be able to increase EF by 9%, compared with RV pacing. The sample size able to provide 80% power to show an intrapatient difference, with a probability of 95%, was 40 patients. Paired and unpaired two-tailed t tests were used for comparison of continuous variables. A value p < 0.05 was considered as significant.


   Results
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
Discussion
 APPENDIX
 References
 
The study group consisted of 44 patients who had undergone successful AV junction ablation and pacemaker implantation between July 2001 and July 2002. The RV leads were positioned in the RV apex in all patients. The LV leads were positioned via the coronary sinus in the mid-posterolateral site in 39 patients and in the anterior site in 3 patients. In two patients in whom the coronary sinus approach had failed, the lead was implanted in an epicardial mid-posterolateral position through a limited thoracotomy. The clinical characteristics are shown in Table 1. Of these, 14 belonged to group A and 30 to group B (22 of group B also had LBBB).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1 Patient Characteristics at Enrollment (n = 49)

 
The results of the comparison between RV and LV pacing are shown in Table 2. Compared with RV, LV pacing resulted in a significant increase of EF, a decrease of MR, and a small reduction of the QRS duration.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2 Results

 
Similar results were observed in patients with normal cardiac function (group A) and in those with depressed systolic function (group B) for all variables except for MR, which was more reduced in group A patients (Table 3). Similar findings were also observed in patients with and without native LBBB (Table 4). Among patients with native LBBB, all but three also had an EF <40%.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3 Comparison Between Group A and Group B Patients

 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4 Comparison Between Patients With LBBB and Those Without

 
A comparison with pre-implantation data is shown in Table 2. Both RV and LV pacing improved EF and prolonged the diastolic filling time; LV pacing also reduced the MR score, whereas RV pacing did not. Both RV and LV pacing decreased aortic and mitral stroke velocity, thus suggesting a deleterious effect on contraction, but this effect was less pronounced with LV pacing.


   Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
APPENDIX
 References
 
The main findings of this study are that rhythm regularization achieved with AV junction ablation improves EF with both RV and LV pacing; however, LV pacing gives an additive modest but favorable hemodynamic effect, as judged by a further increase of EF and reduction of MR magnitude. This effect seems to be equal in patients with and without depressed systolic function and in patients with and without LBBB. As a consequence of the protocol used, the effect of LV pacing could be evaluated without several potentially confounding factors (i.e., the effect of atrial contribution [including the effect of the PR interval], irregularity of the ventricular rhythm, simultaneous biventricular stimulation, and cardiac adaptation to chronic stimulation).

An increase in EF over baseline was already present as a result of RV pacing. Because a direct improvement of cardiac function by RV pacing is unlikely, this improvement seems likely to be due to the effects of rhythm regularization and the reduction in the ventricular rate following AV junction ablation, resulting in improvements in ventricular filling, the Frank-Starling mechanism, and the interval-force relation (7–10). In addition, RV pacing showed a neutral effect on MR and indeed a worsening of aortic and mitral flow, probably reflecting the asynchronous contraction caused by nonphysiologic pacing from the apex of the RV (1,2). Thus, the cardiac performance after AV junction ablation and RV pacing is the net result of two opposite effects.

Left ventricular pacing, compared with RV pacing, substantially reduced the magnitude of MR and did not worsen aortic and mitral flow. The lessened MR tended to lower the EF because of higher afterloading conditions on the LV present during MR, unless inotropic/contractile performance was improved. In one study (11), functional MR was reduced in patients in sinus rhythm, and this effect was directly related to the increased closing force. In the present study, the EF improved by a further 6%, as compared with RV pacing (+17% vs. baseline). Thus, the improvement of EF in the presence of less MR implies even more benefit from LV pacing. On the other hand, the aortic flow did not improve with LV pacing, as much as expected from the reduction of MR. Small changes in aortic flow may indicate that only a small reduction in MR took place. In brief, the observed modifications were generally modest and, in some way, contrasting. Anyway, in general, it seems that LV pacing is able to counteract some of the adverse effects of RV pacing.

The acute hemodynamic effects of LV pacing were similar in the patients with preserved and depressed systolic function, as well as in patients with and without native LBBB. This finding is original. Indeed, until now, LV and biventricular pacing modes have been studied mainly in patients with severely compromised LV systolic function and LBBB. Pacing from the apex of the RV causes an electrocardiographic pattern of LBBB. In one study (12) performed in patients with otherwise normal hearts, the presence of LBBB was associated with a significant deterioration of cardiac function of about 10% to 20%. In the published data, the widely used criterion for LV (or biventricular) pacing is the presence of LBBB with a wide QRS complex (13–15). The criterion of a paced QRS width >200 ms was also used in one study (14). Our observation potentially extends the indication for LV pacing to all patients who are candidates for ablation and pacing therapy. This latter assertion needs to be verified in a larger population, as the present study is probably underpowered to show differences between subgroups.

We cannot exclude some interobserver variability of echocardiographic evaluations that could confound the results. However, the intrapatient comparison allowed us to reduce the interobserver variability.

There is increasing evidence for a favorable effect of cardiac resynchronization pacing in patients with heart failure and an intraventricular conduction delay, who are in sinus rhythm either during acute hemodynamic (16–22) or clinical follow-up studies (6,23–28).

Much less is known about patients with permanent AF. An acute hemodynamic study (13) showed similar hemodynamic benefits of LV-based pacing either in sinus rhythm or in AF. Capillary wedge pressure decreased from 24 ±4 mm Hg at baseline to 19 ± 5 mm Hg and 21 ± 6 mm Hg during LV and biventricular pacing, respectively; aortic systolic blood pressure increased from 116 ± 19 mm Hg baseline to 123 ± 18 mm Hg and 121 ± 18 mm Hg during LV and biventricular pacing, respectively. In another small, acute, controlled study (6), LV pacing, compared with RV pacing, caused an improvement of EF from 34 ± 14% to 37 ± 12% and in the aortic flow integral from 19 ± 14 cm to 21 ± 14 cm.

The magnitude of the acute improvement is modest, however. It is uncertain how much these hemodynamic effects correlate with the clinical outcome. The results of the first randomized clinical study have recently been reported (14). The intention-to-treat analysis did not show any statistically significant difference in either the primary or secondary end points between biventricular and RV pacing; however, in the on-treatment analysis, the mean walked distance increased significantly by 9.3% and peak oxygen uptake increased by 13% during biventricular pacing. The average magnitude of the effect was modest, although very helpful, in terms of clinical improvement. This is not surprising if we consider that, in AF patients, an improvement is achieved by AV junction ablation, per se, which reduces the amount of the potential additional benefits obtainable through LV pacing. On the other hand, it is apparent from the published data that upgrading to biventricular pacing is greatly effective in patients with congestive heart failure with a low EF, who have had the previous intervention of AV junction ablation and RV pacing (29). The results of the chronic phase the OPSITE study (4) will hopefully help to increase our knowledge of the benefits of different pacing sites in these patients.


   APPENDIX
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 APPENDIX
References
 
For the Study Organization, Steering Committee, Executive Committee, and Data and Statistical Analysis, please see the January 21, 2004, issue of JACC at www.cardiosource.com/jacc.html.


   Footnotes
 
This study is officially endorsed by the Working Group on Pacing of the European Society of Cardiology. The Steering Committee was supported by a limited grant from Vitatron, The Netherlands, and St. Jude Medical, Italy, which have agreed not to interfere with the scientific issues of the study.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 Methods
 Results
 Discussion
 APPENDIX
 References
 

  1. Zile M, Blaustein A, Shimizu G, et al. Right ventricular pacing reduces the rate of left ventricular relaxation and filling. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1987;10:702–709[Abstract]
  2. Ausubel K, Furman S. The pacemaker syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 1985;103:420–429[Medline]
  3. Brignole M, Menozzi C, Gianfranchi L, et al. Assessment of atrioventricular junction ablation and VVIR pacemaker versus pharmacological treatment in patients with heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation: a randomized controlled study. Circulation. 1998;98:953–960[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  4. Brignole M, Gammage M. An assessment of the optimal ventricular pacing site in patients undergoing ‘ablate and pace’ therapy for permanent atrial fibrillation. Europace. 2001;3:153–156[Free Full Text]
  5. Schiller NB, Shah PM, Crawford M, et al. Recommendations for quantitation of the left ventricle by two-dimensional echocardiography. American Society of Echocardiography Committee on Standards, Subcommittee on Quantitation of Two-Dimensional Echocardiograms. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 1989;2:358–367[Medline]
  6. Lupi G, Brignole M, Oddone D, Bollini R, Menozzi C, Oddone D. Effects of left ventricular pacing on cardiac performance and quality of life in patients with drug-refractory heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 2000;86:1267–1270[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Clark D, Plumb V, Epstein A, Kay N. Hemodynamic effects of irregular sequences of ventricular cycle lengths during atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1997;30:1039–1045[Abstract]
  8. Daoud E, Weiss R, Bahu M, et al. Effect of irregular ventricular rhythm on cardiac output. Am J Cardiol. 1996;78:1433–1436[CrossRef][Medline]
  9. Herbert WH. Cardiac output and the varying RR interval of atrial fibrillation. J Electrocardiol. 1973;6:131–135[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Gosselink M, Blanksma P, Crijns H, et al. Left ventricular beat-to-beat performance in atrial fibrillation: contribution of Frank-Starling mechanism after short rather than long RR interval. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:1516–1521[Abstract]
  11. Breithard O, Sinha A, Schwammenthal E, et al. Acute effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy on functional mitral regurgitation in advanced systolic heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;41:765–770[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Sadaniantz A, Laurent L. Left ventricular Doppler diastolic filling patterns in patients with isolated left bundle branch block. Am J Cardiol. 1998;81:643–645[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Etienne Y, Mansourati J, Gilard M, et al. Evaluation of left ventricular based pacing in patients with congestive heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83:1138–1140[CrossRef][Medline]
  14. Leclercq C, Walker S, Linde C, et al. Comparative effects of permanent biventricular and right-univentricular pacing in heart failure patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. Eur Heart J. 2002;23:1780–1787[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  15. Leclerq C, Victor F, Alonso C, et al. Comparative effects of permanent biventricular pacing for refractory heart failure in patients with stable sinus rhythm or chronic atrial fibrillation. Am J Cardiol. 2000;85:1154–1156[CrossRef][Medline]
  16. Blanc JJ, Etienne Y, Gilard M, et al. Evaluation of different ventricular pacing sites in patients with severe heart failure: results of an acute hemodynamic study. Circulation. 1997;96:3273–3277[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Kass D, Chen-Huan C, Curry C, et al. Improved left ventricular mechanics from acute VDD pacing in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and ventricular conduction delay. Circulation. 1999;99:1567–1573[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Auricchio A, Stellbrink C, Block M, et al. Effect of pacing chamber and atrioventricular delay on acute systolic function of paced patients with congestive heart failure. Circulation. 1999;99:2993–3001[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  19. Leclercq C, Cazeau S, Le Breton H, et al. Acute hemodynamic effects of biventricular DDD pacing in patients with end-stage heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998;32:1825–1831[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  20. Nelson G, Berger R, Fetics B, et al. Left ventricular or biventricular pacing improves cardiac function at diminished energy costs in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block. Circulation. 2000;103:3053–3059
  21. Yu CM, Chau E, Sanderson J, et al. Tissue Doppler echocardiographic evidence of reverse remodeling and improved synchronicity by simultaneous delaying regional contraction after biventricular pacing therapy in heart failure. Circulation. 2002;105:438–445[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  22. Butter C, Auricchio A, Stellbrink C, et al. Effect of resynchronization therapy stimulation site on the systolic function of heart failure patients. Circulation. 2001;104:3026–3029[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  23. Stellbrink C, Breithardt OL, Franke A, et al. Impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy using hemodynamically optimized pacing on left ventricular remodeling in patients with congestive heart failure and ventricular conduction disturbances. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:1957–1965[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  24. Touiza A, Etienne Y, Gilard M, Fatemi M, Mansourati J, Blanc JJ. Long-term left ventricular pacing: assessment and comparison with biventricular pacing in patients with severe congestive heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001;38:1966–1970[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  25. Cazeau S, Leclercq C, Lavergne T, et al. Effects of multisite biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:873–880[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  26. Auricchio A, Stellbrink C, Sacks S, et al. Long-term clinical effect of hemodynamically optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and ventricular conduction delay. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:2026–2033[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Abraham W, Fisher W, Smith A, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in chronic heart failure. N Engl J Med. 2002;346:1845–1853[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  28. Saxon L, De Marco T, Schafer J, et al. Effects of long-term biventricular stimulation for resynchronization on echocardiographic measures of remodeling. Circulation. 2002;105:1304–1310[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  29. Leon A, Greenberg J, Kanaru N, et al. Cardiac resynchronization in patients with congestive heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;39:1258–1263[Free Full Text]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 EuropaceHome page
A. Proclemer, G. Allocca, D. Gregori, C. Bonanno, R. Ometto, A. Fontanelli, R. Mantovan, M. Crosato, V. Calzolari, D. Pavoni, et al.
Radiofrequency ablation of drug-refractory atrial fibrillation: an observational study comparing 'ablate and pace' with pulmonary vein isolation
Europace, September 1, 2008; 10(9): 1085 - 1090.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Circ Arrhythmia ElectrophysiolHome page
M. O. Sweeney and F. W. Prinzen
Ventricular Pump Function and Pacing: Physiological and Clinical Integration
Circ Arrhythmia Electrophysiol, June 1, 2008; 1(2): 127 - 139.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
R. K. Rao, U. N. Kumar, J. Schafer, E. Viloria, D. De Lurgio, and E. Foster
Reduced Ventricular Volumes and Improved Systolic Function With Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Randomized Trial Comparing Simultaneous Biventricular Pacing, Sequential Biventricular Pacing, and Left Ventricular Pacing
Circulation, April 24, 2007; 115(16): 2136 - 2144.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
R. Lieberman, L. Padeletti, J. Schreuder, K. Jackson, A. Michelucci, A. Colella, W. Eastman, S. Valsecchi, and D. A. Hettrick
Ventricular Pacing Lead Location Alters Systemic Hemodynamics and Left Ventricular Function in Patients With and Without Reduced Ejection Fraction
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 17, 2006; 48(8): 1634 - 1641.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 EuropaceHome page
Writing Committee Members, V. Fuster, L. E. Ryden, D. S. Cannom, H. J. Crijns, A. B. Curtis, K. A. Ellenbogen, J. L. Halperin, J.-Y. Le Heuzey, G. N. Kay, et al.
ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 guidelines for the management of patients with atrial fibrillation: full text: A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) Developed in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society
Europace, September 1, 2006; 8(9): 651 - 745.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J Am Coll CardiolHome page
V. Fuster, L. E. Ryden, D. S. Cannom, H. J. Crijns, A. B. Curtis, K. A. Ellenbogen, J. L. Halperin, J.-Y. Le Heuzey, G. N. Kay, J. E. Lowe, et al.
ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation) Developed in Collaboration With the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society
J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., August 15, 2006; 48(4): e149 - e246.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
V. Fuster, L. E. Ryden, D. S. Cannom, H. J. Crijns, A. B. Curtis, K. A. Ellenbogen, J. L. Halperin, J.-Y. Le Heuzey, G. N. Kay, J. E. Lowe, et al.
ACC/AHA/ESC 2006 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the European Society of Cardiology Committee for Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2001 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Atrial Fibrillation): Developed in Collaboration With the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Rhythm Society
Circulation, August 15, 2006; 114(7): e257 - e354.
[Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.Home page
A. Dodge-Khatami, A. Kadner, H. Dave, M. Rahn, R. Pretre, and U. Bauersfeld
Left heart atrial and ventricular epicardial pacing through a left lateral thoracotomy in children: a safe approach with excellent functional and cosmetic results
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., October 1, 2005; 28(4): 541 - 545.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur Heart JHome page
M. Brignole, M. Gammage, E. Puggioni, P. Alboni, A. Raviele, R. Sutton, P. Vardas, M.G. Bongiorni, L. Bergfeldt, C. Menozzi, et al.
Comparative assessment of right, left, and biventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation
Eur. Heart J., April 1, 2005; 26(7): 712 - 722.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
W. Y. Vanagt, X. A. Verbeek, T. Delhaas, M. Gewillig, L. Mertens, P. Wouters, B. Meyns, W. J. Daenen, and F. W. Prinzen
Acute Hemodynamic Benefit of Left Ventricular Apex Pacing in Children
Ann. Thorac. Surg., March 1, 2005; 79(3): 932 - 936.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 CirculationHome page
I. Hay, V. Melenovsky, B. J. Fetics, D. P. Judge, A. Kramer, J. Spinelli, C. Reister, D. A. Kass, and R. D. Berger
Short-Term Effects of Right-Left Heart Sequential Cardiac Resynchronization in Patients With Heart Failure, Chronic Atrial Fibrillation, and Atrioventricular Nodal Block
Circulation, November 30, 2004; 110(22): 3404 - 3410.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Puggioni, E.
Right arrow Articles by Del Rosso, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Puggioni, E.
Right arrow Articles by Del Rosso, A.

HOME SUBSCRIPTIONS CURRENT ISSUE PAST ISSUES CARDIOSOURCE SEARCH HELP FEEDBACK