Differences in Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency, Mechanical Synchrony, and Cardiac Remodeling Between Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing.

IF 7 2区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Qing Jin, Zhan Li, Xingbiao Ren, Junjie Li, Min He, Yaoqian Zhang, Haiyan Wang
{"title":"Differences in Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency, Mechanical Synchrony, and Cardiac Remodeling Between Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing.","authors":"Qing Jin, Zhan Li, Xingbiao Ren, Junjie Li, Min He, Yaoqian Zhang, Haiyan Wang","doi":"10.1016/j.hrthm.2026.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac implantable electronic device-induced tricuspid regurgitation (CIED-induced TR) involves primary (lead-induced) and functional etiologies. The impact of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) versus right ventricular pacing (RVP) on these mechanisms remains unclear.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To compare the incidence and mechanisms of TR among pacing modalities, and evaluate the prognostic significance of these mechanisms.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We analyzed 225 patients with first-time RV apical pacing (RVAP, n=97) or RV septal pacing (RVSP, n=78) using stylet-driven leads, and LBBAP (n=50) using lumenless leads. Echocardiography and electrocardiography were performed at baseline and 2 years post-implantation. Three-dimensional echocardiography assessed lead interference. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared event-free survival between lead-induced (LITR) and functional TR (FTR) groups. Cox regression identified predictors for adverse outcomes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Despite a higher baseline heart failure burden than RVP (P< .001), LBBAP showed the lowest TR progression rate (20.0% vs RVAP 43.3% vs RVSP 35.9%, P=.020) over 25.8 months. Mechanistically, LBBAP shortened QRS duration (vs RVP widening, P< .001) and demonstrated less lead interference than RVAP (28.0% vs 50.5%, P= .009). Furthermore, LBBAP showed greater left-heart reverse remodeling and improvement in mitral regurgitation, while preserving right-heart structure and function better than RVP. Over 37.4 months, LITR showed worse outcomes than FTR (P= .03). LITR, pulmonary hypertension, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and elevated creatinine were independent predictors for adverse outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP was associated with less CIED-induced TR than RVP, likely through reduced mechanical interference, superior electrical synchrony, and favorable cardiac remodeling. Furthermore, LITR was associated with a worse prognosis than FTR.</p>","PeriodicalId":12886,"journal":{"name":"Heart rhythm","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-09","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.2026.10.003","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: Cardiac implantable electronic device-induced tricuspid regurgitation (CIED-induced TR) involves primary (lead-induced) and functional etiologies. The impact of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) versus right ventricular pacing (RVP) on these mechanisms remains unclear.

Objective: To compare the incidence and mechanisms of TR among pacing modalities, and evaluate the prognostic significance of these mechanisms.

Methods: We analyzed 225 patients with first-time RV apical pacing (RVAP, n=97) or RV septal pacing (RVSP, n=78) using stylet-driven leads, and LBBAP (n=50) using lumenless leads. Echocardiography and electrocardiography were performed at baseline and 2 years post-implantation. Three-dimensional echocardiography assessed lead interference. Kaplan-Meier analysis compared event-free survival between lead-induced (LITR) and functional TR (FTR) groups. Cox regression identified predictors for adverse outcomes.

Results: Despite a higher baseline heart failure burden than RVP (P< .001), LBBAP showed the lowest TR progression rate (20.0% vs RVAP 43.3% vs RVSP 35.9%, P=.020) over 25.8 months. Mechanistically, LBBAP shortened QRS duration (vs RVP widening, P< .001) and demonstrated less lead interference than RVAP (28.0% vs 50.5%, P= .009). Furthermore, LBBAP showed greater left-heart reverse remodeling and improvement in mitral regurgitation, while preserving right-heart structure and function better than RVP. Over 37.4 months, LITR showed worse outcomes than FTR (P= .03). LITR, pulmonary hypertension, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, and elevated creatinine were independent predictors for adverse outcomes.

Conclusion: LBBAP was associated with less CIED-induced TR than RVP, likely through reduced mechanical interference, superior electrical synchrony, and favorable cardiac remodeling. Furthermore, LITR was associated with a worse prognosis than FTR.

左束支区起搏与右室起搏在三尖瓣功能不全、机械同步和心脏重构方面的差异。
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
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.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书