{"title":"左束支传导阻滞的逆行传导:左束支起搏的启示","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jacep.2024.04.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>Biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF), left </span>bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The aim of this study was to assess the retrograde conduction properties of the left bundle branch in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB during LBBP and its clinical implications.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span><span><span>Patients undergoing successful LBBP for nonischemic cardiomyopathy with </span>LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and LBBB were included. Continuous recording of His potential was performed using a quadripolar catheter. Unidirectional block was defined as retrograde His bundle activation during LBBP with stimulus to His potential (SH) duration less than or equal to antegrade </span>HV interval<span> and bidirectional block as VH dissociation or SH duration greater than HV interval. HF hospitalization, </span></span>ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were documented.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span><span>A total of 165 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 21.8 ± 13.1 months. Bidirectional block (group I) was observed in 82% (n = 136), and these patients were noted to have advanced HF stage and prolonged baseline QRS duration. Unidirectional block (group II) with intact retrograde conduction was observed in 18% (n = 29) and was associated with narrow paced QRS duration and higher </span>LVEF during follow-up. Super-response (LVEF ≥50%) was observed in 54.4% (n = 74) in group I compared with 73.3% (n = 22) in group II (</span><em>P</em><span> = 0.03). The OR for LVEF normalization was 4.1 (95% CI: 1.26-13.97; </span><em>P</em><span> = 0.02), with unidirectional block compared with bidirectional block in patients with LBBB and LV dysfunction. Adverse clinical outcomes as measured by a composite of HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were significantly higher in group I compared with group II (12.5% vs 0%; </span><em>P</em> = 0.04).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Bidirectional block in LBBB was characterized by advanced HF symptoms, while unidirectional block was associated with better clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy by LBBP.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":14573,"journal":{"name":"JACC. Clinical electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Retrograde Conduction in Left Bundle Branch Block\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jacep.2024.04.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><p><span>Biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF), left </span>bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing.</p></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>The aim of this study was to assess the retrograde conduction properties of the left bundle branch in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB during LBBP and its clinical implications.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p><span><span><span>Patients undergoing successful LBBP for nonischemic cardiomyopathy with </span>LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and LBBB were included. Continuous recording of His potential was performed using a quadripolar catheter. Unidirectional block was defined as retrograde His bundle activation during LBBP with stimulus to His potential (SH) duration less than or equal to antegrade </span>HV interval<span> and bidirectional block as VH dissociation or SH duration greater than HV interval. HF hospitalization, </span></span>ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were documented.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p><span><span>A total of 165 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 21.8 ± 13.1 months. Bidirectional block (group I) was observed in 82% (n = 136), and these patients were noted to have advanced HF stage and prolonged baseline QRS duration. Unidirectional block (group II) with intact retrograde conduction was observed in 18% (n = 29) and was associated with narrow paced QRS duration and higher </span>LVEF during follow-up. Super-response (LVEF ≥50%) was observed in 54.4% (n = 74) in group I compared with 73.3% (n = 22) in group II (</span><em>P</em><span> = 0.03). The OR for LVEF normalization was 4.1 (95% CI: 1.26-13.97; </span><em>P</em><span> = 0.02), with unidirectional block compared with bidirectional block in patients with LBBB and LV dysfunction. Adverse clinical outcomes as measured by a composite of HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were significantly higher in group I compared with group II (12.5% vs 0%; </span><em>P</em> = 0.04).</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Bidirectional block in LBBB was characterized by advanced HF symptoms, while unidirectional block was associated with better clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy by LBBP.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JACC. Clinical electrophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JACC. Clinical electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405500X24002755\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JACC. Clinical electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405500X24002755","RegionNum":1,"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
摘要
背景:双心室起搏是治疗心力衰竭(HF)、左束支传导阻滞(LBBB)和左室功能障碍患者的一种行之有效的方法。左束支起搏(LBBP)已成为双心室起搏的替代疗法:本研究旨在评估非缺血性心肌病和 LBBB 患者在 LBBP 期间左束支的逆行传导特性及其临床意义:方法:纳入因非缺血性心肌病成功接受LBBP治疗的患者,这些患者的左心室射血分数(LVEF)≤35%且伴有LBBB。使用四极导管连续记录 His 电位。单向阻滞的定义是:LBBB时逆行His束激活,刺激His电位(SH)持续时间小于或等于前行HV间期;双向阻滞的定义是:VH解离或SH持续时间大于HV间期。记录了心房颤动住院、室性心律失常和死亡率:结果:共纳入 165 名患者。平均随访时间为 21.8 ± 13.1 个月。82%的患者(n = 136)出现双向阻滞(I 组),这些患者的心房颤动分期较晚,基线 QRS 持续时间较长。18%的患者(n = 29)出现单向传导阻滞(II组),且逆行传导完好,随访期间,这些患者的起搏QRS时程较窄,LVEF较高。超反应(LVEF ≥50%)在 I 组中占 54.4%(n = 74),而在 II 组中占 73.3%(n = 22)(P = 0.03)。在LBBB和左心室功能障碍患者中,单向阻滞与双向阻滞相比,LVEF正常化的OR值为4.1(95% CI:1.26-13.97;P = 0.02)。以HF住院、室性心律失常和死亡率的复合指标衡量,I组的不良临床结局明显高于II组(12.5% vs 0%; P = 0.04):结论:LBBB双向阻滞的特点是出现晚期高血压症状,而单向阻滞与LBBP心脏再同步治疗后更好的临床预后相关。
Biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing.
Objectives
The aim of this study was to assess the retrograde conduction properties of the left bundle branch in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB during LBBP and its clinical implications.
Methods
Patients undergoing successful LBBP for nonischemic cardiomyopathy with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and LBBB were included. Continuous recording of His potential was performed using a quadripolar catheter. Unidirectional block was defined as retrograde His bundle activation during LBBP with stimulus to His potential (SH) duration less than or equal to antegrade HV interval and bidirectional block as VH dissociation or SH duration greater than HV interval. HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were documented.
Results
A total of 165 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 21.8 ± 13.1 months. Bidirectional block (group I) was observed in 82% (n = 136), and these patients were noted to have advanced HF stage and prolonged baseline QRS duration. Unidirectional block (group II) with intact retrograde conduction was observed in 18% (n = 29) and was associated with narrow paced QRS duration and higher LVEF during follow-up. Super-response (LVEF ≥50%) was observed in 54.4% (n = 74) in group I compared with 73.3% (n = 22) in group II (P = 0.03). The OR for LVEF normalization was 4.1 (95% CI: 1.26-13.97; P = 0.02), with unidirectional block compared with bidirectional block in patients with LBBB and LV dysfunction. Adverse clinical outcomes as measured by a composite of HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were significantly higher in group I compared with group II (12.5% vs 0%; P = 0.04).
Conclusions
Bidirectional block in LBBB was characterized by advanced HF symptoms, while unidirectional block was associated with better clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy by LBBP.
期刊介绍:
JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology is one of a family of specialist journals launched by the renowned Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC). It encompasses all aspects of the epidemiology, pathogenesis, diagnosis and treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. Submissions of original research and state-of-the-art reviews from cardiology, cardiovascular surgery, neurology, outcomes research, and related fields are encouraged. Experimental and preclinical work that directly relates to diagnostic or therapeutic interventions are also encouraged. In general, case reports will not be considered for publication.