左束支区起搏与精确右室间隔起搏的中期临床疗效对比。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Yousaku Okubo, Takumi Sakai, Shogo Miyamoto, Yukimi Uotani, Naoto Oguri, Motoki Furutani, Shunsuke Miyauchi, Sho Okamura, Takehito Tokuyama, Yukiko Nakano
{"title":"左束支区起搏与精确右室间隔起搏的中期临床疗效对比。","authors":"Yousaku Okubo, Takumi Sakai, Shogo Miyamoto, Yukimi Uotani, Naoto Oguri, Motoki Furutani, Shunsuke Miyauchi, Sho Okamura, Takehito Tokuyama, Yukiko Nakano","doi":"10.1007/s10840-024-01890-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) reportedly results in fewer adverse outcomes after implantation than conventional stylet-guided right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), previous studies have not compared LBBAP with accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and accurate RVSP among patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center observational study enrolled 160 patients requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB between September 2018 and December 2021. Primary composite outcomes included all-cause death, hospitalization due to heart failure (HF), and upgrading to biventricular pacing. Secondary composite outcomes included any procedural and postprocedural complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 160 patients were analyzed (LBBAP, n = 81; RVSP, n = 79). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The RV pacing burden at 1 year after implantation was 90.8% ± 20.4% and 86.2% ± 22.6%, respectively (p = 0.21). During a mean follow-up of 840 ± 369 days, the incidence of the primary outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (4.9%) compared to RVSP (22.8%) (Log-rank p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the secondary outcome between the two groups (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, baseline QRS duration, RV pacing burden, and LBBAP were independently associated with the primary outcome (baseline QRS duration: hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; RV pacing burden: HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; LBBAP: HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.64; p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients requiring frequent RV pacing, LBBAP was associated with reduced adverse clinical outcome compared to accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Mid-term clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to accurate right ventricular septal pacing.\",\"authors\":\"Yousaku Okubo, Takumi Sakai, Shogo Miyamoto, Yukimi Uotani, Naoto Oguri, Motoki Furutani, Shunsuke Miyauchi, Sho Okamura, Takehito Tokuyama, Yukiko Nakano\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10840-024-01890-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) reportedly results in fewer adverse outcomes after implantation than conventional stylet-guided right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), previous studies have not compared LBBAP with accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and accurate RVSP among patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center observational study enrolled 160 patients requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB between September 2018 and December 2021. Primary composite outcomes included all-cause death, hospitalization due to heart failure (HF), and upgrading to biventricular pacing. Secondary composite outcomes included any procedural and postprocedural complications.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 160 patients were analyzed (LBBAP, n = 81; RVSP, n = 79). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The RV pacing burden at 1 year after implantation was 90.8% ± 20.4% and 86.2% ± 22.6%, respectively (p = 0.21). During a mean follow-up of 840 ± 369 days, the incidence of the primary outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (4.9%) compared to RVSP (22.8%) (Log-rank p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the secondary outcome between the two groups (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, baseline QRS duration, RV pacing burden, and LBBAP were independently associated with the primary outcome (baseline QRS duration: hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; RV pacing burden: HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; LBBAP: HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.64; p < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In patients requiring frequent RV pacing, LBBAP was associated with reduced adverse clinical outcome compared to accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01890-z\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-024-01890-z","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:尽管据报道左束支区起搏(LBBAP)植入后的不良后果少于传统的样式引导右室间隔起搏(RVSP),但之前的研究并未将 LBBAP 与使用输送导管的精确 RVSP 进行比较。本研究旨在比较 LBBAP 和精确 RVSP 对房室传导阻滞(AVB)患者的临床疗效:这项单中心观察性研究在 2018 年 9 月至 2021 年 12 月间招募了 160 名因症状性房室传导阻滞而需要 RV 起搏的患者。主要综合结果包括全因死亡、因心力衰竭(HF)住院以及升级为双心室起搏。次要综合结果包括任何手术并发症和手术后并发症:共分析了160名患者(LBBAP,81人;RVSP,79人)。两组患者的基线特征无明显差异。植入一年后的 RV 起搏负担分别为 90.8% ± 20.4% 和 86.2% ± 22.6%(P = 0.21)。在平均 840 ± 369 天的随访期间,LBBAP(4.9%)的主要结果发生率显著低于 RVSP(22.8%)(对数秩 P = 0.02)。两组的次要结果发生率无明显差异(3.7% vs. 5.1%,p = 0.65)。在多变量分析中,基线QRS持续时间、RV起搏负担和LBBAP与主要结局独立相关(基线QRS持续时间:危险比[HR],1.01;95%置信区间[CI],1.00-1.02;P=0.01):在需要频繁进行 RV 起搏的患者中,与使用输送导管的精确 RVSP 相比,LBBAP 可减少不良临床结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Mid-term clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to accurate right ventricular septal pacing.

Mid-term clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to accurate right ventricular septal pacing.

Background: Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) reportedly results in fewer adverse outcomes after implantation than conventional stylet-guided right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), previous studies have not compared LBBAP with accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and accurate RVSP among patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).

Methods: This single-center observational study enrolled 160 patients requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB between September 2018 and December 2021. Primary composite outcomes included all-cause death, hospitalization due to heart failure (HF), and upgrading to biventricular pacing. Secondary composite outcomes included any procedural and postprocedural complications.

Results: Overall, 160 patients were analyzed (LBBAP, n = 81; RVSP, n = 79). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The RV pacing burden at 1 year after implantation was 90.8% ± 20.4% and 86.2% ± 22.6%, respectively (p = 0.21). During a mean follow-up of 840 ± 369 days, the incidence of the primary outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (4.9%) compared to RVSP (22.8%) (Log-rank p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the secondary outcome between the two groups (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, baseline QRS duration, RV pacing burden, and LBBAP were independently associated with the primary outcome (baseline QRS duration: hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; RV pacing burden: HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; LBBAP: HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.64; p < 0.001).

Conclusion: In patients requiring frequent RV pacing, LBBAP was associated with reduced adverse clinical outcome compared to accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.10%
发文量
320
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology is an international publication devoted to fostering research in and development of interventional techniques and therapies for the management of cardiac arrhythmias. It is designed primarily to present original research studies and scholarly scientific reviews of basic and applied science and clinical research in this field. The Journal will adopt a multidisciplinary approach to link physical, experimental, and clinical sciences as applied to the development of and practice in interventional electrophysiology. The Journal will examine techniques ranging from molecular, chemical and pharmacologic therapies to device and ablation technology. Accordingly, original research in clinical, epidemiologic and basic science arenas will be considered for publication. Applied engineering or physical science studies pertaining to interventional electrophysiology will be encouraged. The Journal is committed to providing comprehensive and detailed treatment of major interventional therapies and innovative techniques in a structured and clinically relevant manner. It is directed at clinical practitioners and investigators in the rapidly growing field of interventional electrophysiology. The editorial staff and board reflect this bias and include noted international experts in this area with a wealth of expertise in basic and clinical investigation. Peer review of all submissions, conflict of interest guidelines and periodic editorial board review of all Journal policies have been established.
×
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