老年患者左束支区起搏与右心室起搏的临床和超声心动图结果比较。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology Pub Date : 2024-10-01 Epub Date: 2024-08-29 DOI:10.1111/pace.15056
Qian Wang, Chen He, Xiaohan Fan, Haojie Zhu, Xiaofei Li, Zhimin Liu, Yan Yao
{"title":"老年患者左束支区起搏与右心室起搏的临床和超声心动图结果比较。","authors":"Qian Wang, Chen He, Xiaohan Fan, Haojie Zhu, Xiaofei Li, Zhimin Liu, Yan Yao","doi":"10.1111/pace.15056","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is safe and effective, but studies in older patients are lacking. This study compared the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients aged ≥75 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included older patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBAP or RVP between 2019 and 2022. Clinical data, including pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and device-related complications were collected. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 267 included patients, 110 underwent LBBAP and 157 underwent RVP. LBBAP was successful in 109 patients (success rate: 99.1%), with one patient eventually undergoing RVP. The pacing parameters of LBBAP were similar to those of RVP, except for a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (112.8 ± 11.6 vs. 138.3 ± 23.9 ms, p < .001). Ventricular lead implanting procedural duration was longer for LBBAP than RVP (14.0 vs. 6.0 min, p < .001), as was the fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.0 min, p < .001). During a mean follow-up period of 31.0 ± 16.8 months, the primary outcome incidence was significantly lower following LBBAP than RVP (15.1% vs. 21.1%; hazard ratio, 0.471; 95% confidence interval, 0.215-1.032; p = .036) in 149 patients (55.8%) with ventricular pacing burden > 20%. RVP reduced LVEF from 62.7 ± 4.1% at baseline to 59.8 ± 7.8% at the final follow-up (p = .001), whereas LBBAP preserved LVEF (61.4 ± 6.3% vs. 60.1 ± 7.4%, p = .429).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared with RVP and maintained LVEF in older patients with high ventricular pacing burdens.</p>","PeriodicalId":54653,"journal":{"name":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing in older patients.\",\"authors\":\"Qian Wang, Chen He, Xiaohan Fan, Haojie Zhu, Xiaofei Li, Zhimin Liu, Yan Yao\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pace.15056\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is safe and effective, but studies in older patients are lacking. This study compared the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients aged ≥75 years.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This prospective observational study included older patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBAP or RVP between 2019 and 2022. Clinical data, including pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and device-related complications were collected. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 267 included patients, 110 underwent LBBAP and 157 underwent RVP. LBBAP was successful in 109 patients (success rate: 99.1%), with one patient eventually undergoing RVP. The pacing parameters of LBBAP were similar to those of RVP, except for a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (112.8 ± 11.6 vs. 138.3 ± 23.9 ms, p < .001). Ventricular lead implanting procedural duration was longer for LBBAP than RVP (14.0 vs. 6.0 min, p < .001), as was the fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.0 min, p < .001). During a mean follow-up period of 31.0 ± 16.8 months, the primary outcome incidence was significantly lower following LBBAP than RVP (15.1% vs. 21.1%; hazard ratio, 0.471; 95% confidence interval, 0.215-1.032; p = .036) in 149 patients (55.8%) with ventricular pacing burden > 20%. RVP reduced LVEF from 62.7 ± 4.1% at baseline to 59.8 ± 7.8% at the final follow-up (p = .001), whereas LBBAP preserved LVEF (61.4 ± 6.3% vs. 60.1 ± 7.4%, p = .429).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared with RVP and maintained LVEF in older patients with high ventricular pacing burdens.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.15056\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.15056","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:左束支区起搏(LBBAP)安全有效,但缺乏对老年患者的研究。本研究比较了 LBBAP 和右心室起搏(RVP)对年龄≥75 岁患者的临床和超声心动图结果:这项前瞻性观察研究纳入了2019年至2022年期间接受LBBAP或RVP治疗的有症状心动过缓的老年患者。研究收集了临床数据,包括起搏和电生理学特征、超声心动图测量和设备相关并发症。主要终点是全因死亡率、心力衰竭住院率和升级为双室起搏率的综合。次要结果包括左心室射血分数(LVEF)的变化:在纳入的 267 名患者中,110 人接受了 LBBAP,157 人接受了 RVP。109名患者的LBBAP获得成功(成功率:99.1%),其中一名患者最终接受了RVP。LBBAP 的起搏参数与 RVP 相似,只是起搏 QRS 间期明显更窄(112.8 ± 11.6 vs. 138.3 ± 23.9 ms,p 20%)。RVP使LVEF从基线时的62.7±4.1%降至最终随访时的59.8±7.8%(p = .001),而LBBAP保留了LVEF(61.4±6.3% vs. 60.1±7.4%,p = .429):结论:与 RVP 相比,LBBAP 可改善临床疗效,并可维持高心室起搏负担的老年患者的 LVEF。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing in older patients.

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is safe and effective, but studies in older patients are lacking. This study compared the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients aged ≥75 years.

Methods: This prospective observational study included older patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBAP or RVP between 2019 and 2022. Clinical data, including pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and device-related complications were collected. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

Results: Of 267 included patients, 110 underwent LBBAP and 157 underwent RVP. LBBAP was successful in 109 patients (success rate: 99.1%), with one patient eventually undergoing RVP. The pacing parameters of LBBAP were similar to those of RVP, except for a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (112.8 ± 11.6 vs. 138.3 ± 23.9 ms, p < .001). Ventricular lead implanting procedural duration was longer for LBBAP than RVP (14.0 vs. 6.0 min, p < .001), as was the fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.0 min, p < .001). During a mean follow-up period of 31.0 ± 16.8 months, the primary outcome incidence was significantly lower following LBBAP than RVP (15.1% vs. 21.1%; hazard ratio, 0.471; 95% confidence interval, 0.215-1.032; p = .036) in 149 patients (55.8%) with ventricular pacing burden > 20%. RVP reduced LVEF from 62.7 ± 4.1% at baseline to 59.8 ± 7.8% at the final follow-up (p = .001), whereas LBBAP preserved LVEF (61.4 ± 6.3% vs. 60.1 ± 7.4%, p = .429).

Conclusion: LBBAP demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared with RVP and maintained LVEF in older patients with high ventricular pacing burdens.

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
Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology
Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology 医学-工程:生物医学
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
209
审稿时长
2-4 weeks
期刊介绍: Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology (PACE) is the foremost peer-reviewed journal in the field of pacing and implantable cardioversion defibrillation, publishing over 50% of all English language articles in its field, featuring original, review, and didactic papers, and case reports related to daily practice. Articles also include editorials, book reviews, Musings on humane topics relevant to medical practice, electrophysiology (EP) rounds, device rounds, and information concerning the quality of devices used in the practice of the specialty.
×
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