» Articles » PMID: 27151347

Improvement in Clinical Outcomes With Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: The BLOCK HF Study

Overview
Date 2016 May 7
PMID 27151347
Citations 39
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Sustained right ventricular (RV) apical pacing may lead to deterioration in ventricular function and an increased risk of heart failure, especially in patients with pre-existing systolic dysfunction. The BLOCK HF (Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With Atrioventricular Block) trial demonstrated that biventricular-paced patients had a reduced incidence of a composite endpoint of death, heart failure-related urgent care, and adverse left ventricular remodeling.

Objectives: In a pre-specified analysis, this study examined clinical outcomes, including clinical composite score, quality of life (QOL), and change in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification.

Methods: The BLOCK HF trial randomized patients with atrioventricular block, NYHA symptom class I to III heart failure, and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤50% to biventricular or RV pacing. NYHA functional classification, QOL, and clinical composite score were assessed at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Bayesian statistical methods were used, with the pre-specified metric of benefit being a posterior probability ≥0.95.

Results: Patients with biventricular pacing showed greater improvement in NYHA functional class at 12 months, with 19% improved, 61% unchanged, and 17% worsened, compared with 12%/62%/23% in the RV arm. QOL was improved through 12 months. At 6 months, clinical composite score was improved/unchanged/worsened in 53%/24%/24% in the biventricular arm compared with 39%/33%/28% in the RV arm. This improvement in clinical composite score was sustained through 24 months.

Conclusions: For patients with atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction, biventricular pacing not only reduces the risk of mortality/morbidity, but also leads to better clinical outcomes, including improved QOL and heart failure status, compared with RV pacing. (Biventricular Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Heart Failure Patients With Atrioventricular Block [BLOCK HF]; NCT00267098).

Citing Articles

Observational Study of Trans-Septal Endocardial Left Ventricle Lead Implant for Effective Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Heart Failure and Challenging Coronary Sinus Anatomy.

Farhangee A, Davies M, Gaughan K, Mesina M, Mindrila I Biomedicines. 2025; 12(12.

PMID: 39767600 PMC: 11673049. DOI: 10.3390/biomedicines12122693.


Conduction System Pacing for Heart Failure.

Smith N, Lynch P, Chelu M Tex Heart Inst J. 2024; 51(2):e248469.

PMID: 39677397 PMC: 11638759. DOI: 10.14503/THIJ-24-8469.


People with cardiac pacemakers require multidisciplinary care.

Vernooy K, van Stipdonk A, Joza J Nat Med. 2024; 30(11):3061-3062.

PMID: 39385045 DOI: 10.1038/s41591-024-03296-w.


Mechanical dyssynchrony as a selection criterion for cardiac resynchronization therapy: Design of the AMEND-CRT trial.

Puvrez A, Duchenne J, Donal E, Gorcsan 3rd J, Patel H, Marwick T ESC Heart Fail. 2024; 11(6):4390-4399.

PMID: 38984947 PMC: 11631248. DOI: 10.1002/ehf2.14932.


Comparative Analysis of Response to Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Upgrades in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Pacemakers.

Farhangee A, Davies M, Mesina M, Morgan D, Sieniewicz B, Meyrick R J Clin Med. 2024; 13(10).

PMID: 38792297 PMC: 11122322. DOI: 10.3390/jcm13102755.