Left bundle branch area versus conventional pacing after transcatheter valve implant for aortic stenosis: the LATVIA study.

IF 2.9 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
G. Dell'Era, Matteo Baroni, Antonio Frontera, C. Ghiglieno, Marco Carbonaro, Diego Penela Maceda, Carmine Romano, Federica Giordano, G. Del Monaco, Paola Galimberti, Patrizio Mazzone, Giuseppe Patti
{"title":"Left bundle branch area versus conventional pacing after transcatheter valve implant for aortic stenosis: the LATVIA study.","authors":"G. Dell'Era, Matteo Baroni, Antonio Frontera, C. Ghiglieno, Marco Carbonaro, Diego Penela Maceda, Carmine Romano, Federica Giordano, G. Del Monaco, Paola Galimberti, Patrizio Mazzone, Giuseppe Patti","doi":"10.2459/JCM.0000000000001619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nAtrioventricular block (AVB) is a frequent complication in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Right apex ventricular pacing (RVP) represents the standard treatment but may induce cardiomyopathy over the long term. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising alternative, minimizing the risk of desynchrony. However, available evidence with LBBAP after TAVI is still low.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nTo assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP for AVB post-TAVI compared with RVP.\n\n\nMETHODS\nConsecutive patients developing AVB early after TAVI were enrolled between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 at three high-volume hospitals and received LBBAP or RVP. Data on procedure and at short-term follow-up (at least 3 months) were collected.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 38 patients (61% men, mean age 83 ± 6 years) were included; 20 patients (53%) received LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in all patients according to chosen pacing strategy. Electrical pacing performance at implant and after a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 2.8 months was clinically equivalent for both pacing modalities. In the LBBAP group, procedural time was longer (70 ± 17 versus 58 ± 15 min in the RVP group, P = 0.02) and paced QRS was shorter (120 ± 19 versus 155 ± 12 ms at implant, P < 0.001; 119 ± 18 versus 157 ± 9 ms at follow-up, P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the two groups.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nIn patients with AVB after TAVI, LBBAP is feasible and safe, resulting in a narrow QRS duration, either acutely and during the follow-up, compared with RVP. Further studies are needed to evaluate if LBBAP reduces pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this clinical setting.","PeriodicalId":15228,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000001619","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","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 Atrioventricular block (AVB) is a frequent complication in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Right apex ventricular pacing (RVP) represents the standard treatment but may induce cardiomyopathy over the long term. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising alternative, minimizing the risk of desynchrony. However, available evidence with LBBAP after TAVI is still low. OBJECTIVE To assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP for AVB post-TAVI compared with RVP. METHODS Consecutive patients developing AVB early after TAVI were enrolled between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 at three high-volume hospitals and received LBBAP or RVP. Data on procedure and at short-term follow-up (at least 3 months) were collected. RESULTS A total of 38 patients (61% men, mean age 83 ± 6 years) were included; 20 patients (53%) received LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in all patients according to chosen pacing strategy. Electrical pacing performance at implant and after a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 2.8 months was clinically equivalent for both pacing modalities. In the LBBAP group, procedural time was longer (70 ± 17 versus 58 ± 15 min in the RVP group, P = 0.02) and paced QRS was shorter (120 ± 19 versus 155 ± 12 ms at implant, P < 0.001; 119 ± 18 versus 157 ± 9 ms at follow-up, P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION In patients with AVB after TAVI, LBBAP is feasible and safe, resulting in a narrow QRS duration, either acutely and during the follow-up, compared with RVP. Further studies are needed to evaluate if LBBAP reduces pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this clinical setting.
主动脉瓣狭窄经导管瓣膜植入术后左束支区与传统起搏的比较:LATVIA 研究。
背景三室阻滞(AVB)是经导管主动脉瓣植入术(TAVI)患者的常见并发症。右心室起搏(RVP)是标准治疗方法,但长期使用可能诱发心肌病。左束支区起搏(LBBAP)是一种很有前景的替代方法,可将非同步性风险降至最低。方法2022年1月1日至2022年12月31日期间,三家大医院连续招募了TAVI术后早期发生房室传导阻滞的患者,接受了LBBAP或RVP治疗。结果共纳入 38 名患者(61% 为男性,平均年龄为 83 ± 6 岁);20 名患者(53%)接受了 LBBAP。根据选择的起搏策略,所有患者都获得了手术成功。两种起搏方式在植入时和平均随访 4.2 ± 2.8 个月后的电起搏性能在临床上相当。在 LBBAP 组,手术时间更长(70±17 分钟对 RVP 组的 58±15 分钟,P = 0.02),起搏 QRS 更短(植入时 120±19 毫秒对 155±12 毫秒,P < 0.001;随访时 119±18 毫秒对 157±9 毫秒,P < 0.001)。结论 在 TAVI 术后 AVB 患者中,LBBAP 是可行且安全的,与 RVP 相比,LBBAP 在急性期和随访期间都能使 QRS 时间变短。还需要进一步的研究来评估 LBBAP 是否能在这种临床环境中减少起搏诱发的心肌病。
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
Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine
Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
26.70%
发文量
189
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine is a monthly publication of the Italian Federation of Cardiology. It publishes original research articles, epidemiological studies, new methodological clinical approaches, case reports, design and goals of clinical trials, review articles, points of view, editorials and Images in cardiovascular medicine. Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool. ​
×
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