Jiaojiao Tang, Nathan W Kong, Andrew Beaser, Zaid Aziz, Srinath Yeshwant, Cevher Ozcan, Roderick Tung, Gaurav A Upadhyay
{"title":"在射血分数中等的患者中，传导系统起搏与双心室起搏的临床效果比较。","authors":"Jiaojiao Tang, Nathan W Kong, Andrew Beaser, Zaid Aziz, Srinath Yeshwant, Cevher Ozcan, Roderick Tung, Gaurav A Upadhyay","doi":"10.1007/s10840-024-01882-z","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a paucity of data comparing conduction system pacing (CSP) to biventricular pacing (BiVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare the clinical outcomes of patients with mid-range LVEF undergoing CSP versus BiVP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with mid-range LVEF (> 35 to 50%) undergoing CSP or BiVP were retrospectively identified. Lead performance, LVEF, HF hospitalization, and clinical composite outcome including upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy and mortality were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36 patients (20 BiVP, 16 CSP--14 His bundle pacing, 4 left bundle branch area pacing) were analyzed. The mean age was 73 ± 15, 44% were female, and the mean LVEF was 42 ± 5%. Procedural and fluoroscopy time was comparable between the two groups. QRS duration was significantly shorter for the CSP group compared to the BiVP group (P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 47 ± 36 months, no significant differences were found in thresholds or need for generator change due to early battery depletion. LVEF improved in both groups (41.5 ± 4.5% to 53.9 ± 10.9% BiVP, P < 0.001; 41.6 ± 5.3% to 52.5 ± 8.3% CSP, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in HF hospitalizations (P = 0.71) or clinical composite outcomes (P = 0.07).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients with HF with moderately reduced ejection fraction, CSP appears associated with similar improvements in LVEF and had similar clinical outcomes as BiVP in mid-term follow-up.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients with mid-range ejection fraction.\",\"authors\":\"Jiaojiao Tang, Nathan W Kong, Andrew Beaser, Zaid Aziz, Srinath Yeshwant, Cevher Ozcan, Roderick Tung, Gaurav A Upadhyay\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10840-024-01882-z\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There is a paucity of data comparing conduction system pacing (CSP) to biventricular pacing (BiVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>Compare the clinical outcomes of patients with mid-range LVEF undergoing CSP versus BiVP.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Patients with mid-range LVEF (> 35 to 50%) undergoing CSP or BiVP were retrospectively identified. Lead performance, LVEF, HF hospitalization, and clinical composite outcome including upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy and mortality were compared.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 36 patients (20 BiVP, 16 CSP--14 His bundle pacing, 4 left bundle branch area pacing) were analyzed. The mean age was 73 ± 15, 44% were female, and the mean LVEF was 42 ± 5%. Procedural and fluoroscopy time was comparable between the two groups. QRS duration was significantly shorter for the CSP group compared to the BiVP group (P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 47 ± 36 months, no significant differences were found in thresholds or need for generator change due to early battery depletion. LVEF improved in both groups (41.5 ± 4.5% to 53.9 ± 10.9% BiVP, P < 0.001; 41.6 ± 5.3% to 52.5 ± 8.3% CSP, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in HF hospitalizations (P = 0.71) or clinical composite outcomes (P = 0.07).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Among patients with HF with moderately reduced ejection fraction, CSP appears associated with similar improvements in LVEF and had similar clinical outcomes as BiVP in mid-term follow-up.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-17\",\"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/s10840-024-01882-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/s10840-024-01882-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}
Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients with mid-range ejection fraction.
Background: There is a paucity of data comparing conduction system pacing (CSP) to biventricular pacing (BiVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).
Objective: Compare the clinical outcomes of patients with mid-range LVEF undergoing CSP versus BiVP.
Methods: Patients with mid-range LVEF (> 35 to 50%) undergoing CSP or BiVP were retrospectively identified. Lead performance, LVEF, HF hospitalization, and clinical composite outcome including upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy and mortality were compared.
Results: A total of 36 patients (20 BiVP, 16 CSP--14 His bundle pacing, 4 left bundle branch area pacing) were analyzed. The mean age was 73 ± 15, 44% were female, and the mean LVEF was 42 ± 5%. Procedural and fluoroscopy time was comparable between the two groups. QRS duration was significantly shorter for the CSP group compared to the BiVP group (P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 47 ± 36 months, no significant differences were found in thresholds or need for generator change due to early battery depletion. LVEF improved in both groups (41.5 ± 4.5% to 53.9 ± 10.9% BiVP, P < 0.001; 41.6 ± 5.3% to 52.5 ± 8.3% CSP, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in HF hospitalizations (P = 0.71) or clinical composite outcomes (P = 0.07).
Conclusion: Among patients with HF with moderately reduced ejection fraction, CSP appears associated with similar improvements in LVEF and had similar clinical outcomes as BiVP in mid-term follow-up.
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
