{"title":"在心衰模型中进行有或无传导系统捕获的左束支区起搏","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jacep.2024.05.007","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Left bundle branch area pacing includes left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), which is effective in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (DHF). However, the basic mechanisms are unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study aimed to compare LBBP with LVSP and explore potential mechanisms underlying the better clinical outcomes of LBBP.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div><span>A total of 24 beagles<span> were assigned to the following groups: 1) control group; 2) DHF group, left bundle branch ablation followed by 6 weeks of AOO pacing at 200 ppm; 3) LBBP group, DHF for 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks of DOO pacing at 200 ppm; and 4) LVSP with the same interventions in the LBBP group. Metrics of electrocardiogram, echocardiography, </span></span>hemodynamics, and expression of left ventricular proteins were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Compared with LVSP, LBBP had better peak strain dispersion (44.67 ± 1.75 ms vs 55.50 ± 4.85 ms; <em>P <</em> 0.001) and hemodynamic effect (dP/dtmax improvement: 27.16% ± 7.79% vs 11.37% ± 4.73%; <em>P <</em> 0.001), whereas no significant differences in cardiac function were shown. The altered expressions of proteins in the lateral wall vs septum in the DHF group were partially reversed by LBBP and LVSP, which was associated with the contraction and adhesion process, separately.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The animal study demonstrated that LBBP offered better mechanical synchrony and improved hemodynamics than LVSP, which might be explained by the reversed expression of contraction proteins. These results supported the potential superiority of left bundle branch area pacing with the capture of the conduction system in DHF model.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":14573,"journal":{"name":"JACC. Clinical electrophysiology","volume":"10 10","pages":"Pages 2234-2246"},"PeriodicalIF":8.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing With or Without Conduction System Capture in Heart Failure Models\",\"authors\":\"\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jacep.2024.05.007\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Left bundle branch area pacing includes left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), which is effective in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (DHF). However, the basic mechanisms are unknown.</div></div><div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>This study aimed to compare LBBP with LVSP and explore potential mechanisms underlying the better clinical outcomes of LBBP.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div><span>A total of 24 beagles<span> were assigned to the following groups: 1) control group; 2) DHF group, left bundle branch ablation followed by 6 weeks of AOO pacing at 200 ppm; 3) LBBP group, DHF for 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks of DOO pacing at 200 ppm; and 4) LVSP with the same interventions in the LBBP group. Metrics of electrocardiogram, echocardiography, </span></span>hemodynamics, and expression of left ventricular proteins were evaluated.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Compared with LVSP, LBBP had better peak strain dispersion (44.67 ± 1.75 ms vs 55.50 ± 4.85 ms; <em>P <</em> 0.001) and hemodynamic effect (dP/dtmax improvement: 27.16% ± 7.79% vs 11.37% ± 4.73%; <em>P <</em> 0.001), whereas no significant differences in cardiac function were shown. The altered expressions of proteins in the lateral wall vs septum in the DHF group were partially reversed by LBBP and LVSP, which was associated with the contraction and adhesion process, separately.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>The animal study demonstrated that LBBP offered better mechanical synchrony and improved hemodynamics than LVSP, which might be explained by the reversed expression of contraction proteins. These results supported the potential superiority of left bundle branch area pacing with the capture of the conduction system in DHF model.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14573,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JACC. Clinical electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\"10 10\",\"pages\":\"Pages 2234-2246\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":8.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"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/S2405500X24003669\",\"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/S2405500X24003669","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing With or Without Conduction System Capture in Heart Failure Models
Background
Left bundle branch area pacing includes left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), which is effective in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (DHF). However, the basic mechanisms are unknown.
Objectives
This study aimed to compare LBBP with LVSP and explore potential mechanisms underlying the better clinical outcomes of LBBP.
Methods
A total of 24 beagles were assigned to the following groups: 1) control group; 2) DHF group, left bundle branch ablation followed by 6 weeks of AOO pacing at 200 ppm; 3) LBBP group, DHF for 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks of DOO pacing at 200 ppm; and 4) LVSP with the same interventions in the LBBP group. Metrics of electrocardiogram, echocardiography, hemodynamics, and expression of left ventricular proteins were evaluated.
Results
Compared with LVSP, LBBP had better peak strain dispersion (44.67 ± 1.75 ms vs 55.50 ± 4.85 ms; P < 0.001) and hemodynamic effect (dP/dtmax improvement: 27.16% ± 7.79% vs 11.37% ± 4.73%; P < 0.001), whereas no significant differences in cardiac function were shown. The altered expressions of proteins in the lateral wall vs septum in the DHF group were partially reversed by LBBP and LVSP, which was associated with the contraction and adhesion process, separately.
Conclusions
The animal study demonstrated that LBBP offered better mechanical synchrony and improved hemodynamics than LVSP, which might be explained by the reversed expression of contraction proteins. These results supported the potential superiority of left bundle branch area pacing with the capture of the conduction system in DHF model.
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.