Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing in TAVI patients.

IF 5.6 2区医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS

Heart rhythm Pub Date : 2024-09-15 DOI:10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.09.021

Xi Wang, Yuanning Xu, Lijun Zeng, Kun Tan, Xueli Zhang, Xu Han, Tianyuan Xiong, Zhengang Zhao, Yong Peng, Jiafu Wei, Qiao Li, Sen He, Yong Chen, Minggang Zhou, Xi Li, Xin Wei, Yujia Liang, Wenxia Zhou, Lingyun Jiang, Xingbin Liu, Wei Meng, Rui Zhou, Guojun Xiong, Min Dai, Xiaojian Deng, Yuan Feng, Mao Chen

{"title":"Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing in TAVI patients.","authors":"Xi Wang, Yuanning Xu, Lijun Zeng, Kun Tan, Xueli Zhang, Xu Han, Tianyuan Xiong, Zhengang Zhao, Yong Peng, Jiafu Wei, Qiao Li, Sen He, Yong Chen, Minggang Zhou, Xi Li, Xin Wei, Yujia Liang, Wenxia Zhou, Lingyun Jiang, Xingbin Liu, Wei Meng, Rui Zhou, Guojun Xiong, Min Dai, Xiaojian Deng, Yuan Feng, Mao Chen","doi":"10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.09.021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: New-onset permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) is still a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with adverse clinical outcomes.Objective: To investigate whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) improves long-term clinical results compared to traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients requiring PPMI following TAVI.Methods: A total of 237 consecutive patients undergoing RVP (N=117) or LBBAP (N=120) following TAVI were retrospectively included. Long-term outcomes including all-cause death, heart failure rehospitalization (HFH) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) change compared to baseline were obtained until 5 years post-TAVI.Results: The mean age of the overall population was 74 years with a mean surgical risk score as 4.4%. The paced QRS duration was significantly longer in RVP group compared to LBBAP group (151 ± 18 vs. 122 ± 12 ms, P<0.001). There was no difference between two groups in all-cause death (13.7% vs. 13.3%, adjusted HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.58; P=0.466) or the composite endpoint of death and HFH (29.9% vs. 19.2%, adjusted HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.70 to 2.13; P=0.476), however, the risk of HFH was significantly higher in RVP group at 5 years after TAVI (21.4% vs. 7.5%, adjusted HR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.01 to 5.08; P=0.048). There was a greater improvement of LVEF over time in LBBAP group (P=0.046 for LVEF changes over time between groups).Conclusions: LBBAP improved long-term clinical outcomes compared to RVP in patients undergoing PPMI after TAVI in terms of less HFH and better LVEF improvement.","PeriodicalId":12886,"journal":{"name":"Heart rhythm","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Heart rhythm","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.09.021","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: New-onset permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) is still a common complication after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with adverse clinical outcomes.

Objective: To investigate whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) improves long-term clinical results compared to traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients requiring PPMI following TAVI.

Methods: A total of 237 consecutive patients undergoing RVP (N=117) or LBBAP (N=120) following TAVI were retrospectively included. Long-term outcomes including all-cause death, heart failure rehospitalization (HFH) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) change compared to baseline were obtained until 5 years post-TAVI.

Results: The mean age of the overall population was 74 years with a mean surgical risk score as 4.4%. The paced QRS duration was significantly longer in RVP group compared to LBBAP group (151 ± 18 vs. 122 ± 12 ms, P<0.001). There was no difference between two groups in all-cause death (13.7% vs. 13.3%, adjusted HR: 0.76; 95% CI: 0.37 to 1.58; P=0.466) or the composite endpoint of death and HFH (29.9% vs. 19.2%, adjusted HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 0.70 to 2.13; P=0.476), however, the risk of HFH was significantly higher in RVP group at 5 years after TAVI (21.4% vs. 7.5%, adjusted HR: 2.26; 95% CI: 1.01 to 5.08; P=0.048). There was a greater improvement of LVEF over time in LBBAP group (P=0.046 for LVEF changes over time between groups).

Conclusions: LBBAP improved long-term clinical outcomes compared to RVP in patients undergoing PPMI after TAVI in terms of less HFH and better LVEF improvement.

查看原文本刊更多论文

TAVI 患者左束支区起搏与右心室起搏的长期疗效比较。

背景：新发永久性起搏器植入术（PPMI）仍是经导管主动脉瓣植入术（TAVI）后的常见并发症，会带来不良的临床结果：与传统的右室起搏（RVP）相比，左束支区起搏（LBBAP）是否能改善TAVI术后需要PPMI患者的长期临床效果：回顾性纳入了237例在TAVI术后接受RVP（117例）或LBBAP（120例）治疗的连续患者。研究结果显示，TAVI术后5年前的长期结果包括全因死亡、心衰再住院（HFH）和左室射血分数（LVEF）与基线相比的变化：所有患者的平均年龄为74岁，平均手术风险评分为4.4%。与LBBAP组相比，RVP组的起搏QRS持续时间明显更长（151 ± 18 vs. 122 ± 12 ms）：与RVP相比，LBBAP可改善TAVI术后PPMI患者的长期临床预后，减少HFH，改善LVEF。

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 医学-心血管系统

CiteScore

10.50

自引率

5.50%

发文量

1465

审稿时长

24 days

期刊介绍： HeartRhythm, the official Journal of the Heart Rhythm Society and the Cardiac Electrophysiology Society, is a unique journal for fundamental discovery and clinical applicability. HeartRhythm integrates the entire cardiac electrophysiology (EP) community from basic and clinical academic researchers, private practitioners, engineers, allied professionals, industry, and trainees, all of whom are vital and interdependent members of our EP community. The Heart Rhythm Society is the international leader in science, education, and advocacy for cardiac arrhythmia professionals and patients, and the primary information resource on heart rhythm disorders. Its mission is to improve the care of patients by promoting research, education, and optimal health care policies and standards.