Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

IF 2.5 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Jingjing Chen MD , Fatima M. Ezzeddine MD , Xiaoke Liu MD, PhD , Vaibhav Vaidya MBBS , Christopher J. McLeod MB ChB, PhD , Arturo M. Valverde MD , Freddy Del-Carpio Munoz MD , Abhishek J. Deshmukh MBBS , Malini Madhavan MBBS , Ammar M. Killu MBBS , Siva K. Mulpuru MD , Paul A. Friedman MD , Yong-Mei Cha MD
{"title":"Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy","authors":"Jingjing Chen MD ,&nbsp;Fatima M. Ezzeddine MD ,&nbsp;Xiaoke Liu MD, PhD ,&nbsp;Vaibhav Vaidya MBBS ,&nbsp;Christopher J. McLeod MB ChB, PhD ,&nbsp;Arturo M. Valverde MD ,&nbsp;Freddy Del-Carpio Munoz MD ,&nbsp;Abhishek J. Deshmukh MBBS ,&nbsp;Malini Madhavan MBBS ,&nbsp;Ammar M. Killu MBBS ,&nbsp;Siva K. Mulpuru MD ,&nbsp;Paul A. Friedman MD ,&nbsp;Yong-Mei Cha MD","doi":"10.1016/j.hroo.2024.01.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) in patients with heart failure remain to be learned.</p></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><p>The objective of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP, LVSP, and deep septal pacing (DSP).</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>This retrospective study included patients who met the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and underwent attempted LBBP in 5 Mayo centers. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were collected at baseline and follow-up.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 91 consecutive patients were included in the study. A total of 52 patients had LBBP, 25 had LVSP, and 14 had DSP. The median follow-up duration was 307 (interquartile range 208, 508) days. There was significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement in the LBBP and LVSP groups (from 35.9 ± 8.5% to 46.9 ± 10.0%, <em>P &lt;</em> .001 in the LBBP group; from 33.1 ± 7.5% to 41.8 ± 10.8%, <em>P &lt;</em> .001 in the LVSP group) but not in the DSP group. A unipolar paced right bundle branch block morphology during the procedure in lead V1 was associated with higher odds of CRT response. There was no significant difference in heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths between the LBBP and LVSP groups. The rate of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths were increased in the DSP group compared with the LBBP group (hazard ratio 5.10, 95% confidence interval 1.14–22.78, <em>P =</em> .033; and hazard ratio 7.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38–44.32, <em>P =</em> .020, respectively).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>In patients undergoing CRT, LVSP had comparable CRT outcomes compared with LBBP.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":29772,"journal":{"name":"Heart Rhythm O2","volume":"5 3","pages":"Pages 150-157"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666501824000060/pdfft?md5=19a9c95523a969e70e7e37669486bcdd&pid=1-s2.0-S2666501824000060-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart Rhythm O2","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666501824000060","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) in patients with heart failure remain to be learned.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP, LVSP, and deep septal pacing (DSP).

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who met the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and underwent attempted LBBP in 5 Mayo centers. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were collected at baseline and follow-up.

Results

A total of 91 consecutive patients were included in the study. A total of 52 patients had LBBP, 25 had LVSP, and 14 had DSP. The median follow-up duration was 307 (interquartile range 208, 508) days. There was significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement in the LBBP and LVSP groups (from 35.9 ± 8.5% to 46.9 ± 10.0%, P < .001 in the LBBP group; from 33.1 ± 7.5% to 41.8 ± 10.8%, P < .001 in the LVSP group) but not in the DSP group. A unipolar paced right bundle branch block morphology during the procedure in lead V1 was associated with higher odds of CRT response. There was no significant difference in heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths between the LBBP and LVSP groups. The rate of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths were increased in the DSP group compared with the LBBP group (hazard ratio 5.10, 95% confidence interval 1.14–22.78, P = .033; and hazard ratio 7.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38–44.32, P = .020, respectively).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing CRT, LVSP had comparable CRT outcomes compared with LBBP.

左束支起搏与室间隔起搏用于心脏再同步化治疗
背景左束支起搏(LBBP)和左室间隔起搏(LVSP)在心力衰竭患者中的疗效仍有待了解。目的本研究旨在评估左束支起搏、左室间隔起搏和室间隔深起搏(DSP)的超声心动图和临床疗效。研究共纳入 91 名连续患者。共有 52 名患者患有 LBBP,25 名患者患有 LVSP,14 名患者患有 DSP。随访时间的中位数为 307 天(四分位数间距为 208-508 天)。LBBP 组和 LVSP 组的左室射血分数(LVEF)有明显改善(LBBP 组从 35.9 ± 8.5% 提高到 46.9 ± 10.0%,P < .001;LVSP 组从 33.1 ± 7.5% 提高到 41.8 ± 10.8%,P < .001),但 DSP 组没有改善。在手术过程中,V1导联的单极起搏右束支传导阻滞形态与较高的CRT反应几率相关。LBBP 组和 LVSP 组在心衰住院率和全因死亡人数上没有明显差异。与 LBBP 组相比,DSP 组的心衰住院率和全因死亡率均有所增加(危险比分别为 5.10,95% 置信区间为 1.14-22.78,P = .033;危险比分别为 7.83,95% 置信区间为 1.38-44.32,P = .020)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Heart Rhythm O2
Heart Rhythm O2 Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
52 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信