房室传导阻滞患者左束分支区起搏与右心室起搏:系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Irfan Ahsan, Hussam Al Hennawi, Angad Bedi, Muhammad Khuzzaim Khan, Nikhil Duseja, Reginald T Ho
{"title":"房室传导阻滞患者左束分支区起搏与右心室起搏:系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Irfan Ahsan, Hussam Al Hennawi, Angad Bedi, Muhammad Khuzzaim Khan, Nikhil Duseja, Reginald T Ho","doi":"10.1111/jce.16548","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a new technique for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), potentially offering better cardiac function than right ventricular pacing (RVP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched databases and registries for studies that compared LBBAP with RVP in patients with AVB and preserved LVEF. We extracted data on various outcomes and pooled the effect estimates using random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our meta-analysis included 14 studies (10 observational and 4 RCTs) involving 3062 patients with AVB. The analysis revealed that the QRS duration was significantly shorter in the LBBAP group compared to the RVP group [MD = -35.56 ms; 95% CI: (-39.27, -31.85), p < 0.00001]. Patients in the LBBAP group also exhibited a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [MD = 5.48%; 95% CI: (4.07%, 6.89%), p < 0.00001], and a significant reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) compared to RVP [MD = -3.98 mm; 95% CI: (-5.88, -2.09 mm), p < 0.0001]. In terms of clinical outcomes, LBBAP was associated with a significantly lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) compared to RVP [OR = 0.26; 95% CI: (0.16, 0.44), p < 0.0001]. However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the implant success rate, pacing impedance, or pacing threshold. The RVP group demonstrated a significantly higher R-wave amplitude increase than the LBBAP group [MD = 0.85 mV; 95% CI: (0.23, 1.46), p = .007]. Lastly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups [OR = 2.12; 95% CI: (0.29, 15.52), p = 0.46].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP outperforms RVP in several cardiac function indicators, suggesting it may be a superior pacing method for AVB patients with preserved LVEF. However, the small sample size in studies and the result in heterogeneity call for more research to validate these findings and assess LBBAP's long-term effects.</p>","PeriodicalId":15178,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Irfan Ahsan, Hussam Al Hennawi, Angad Bedi, Muhammad Khuzzaim Khan, Nikhil Duseja, Reginald T Ho\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jce.16548\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a new technique for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), potentially offering better cardiac function than right ventricular pacing (RVP).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched databases and registries for studies that compared LBBAP with RVP in patients with AVB and preserved LVEF. We extracted data on various outcomes and pooled the effect estimates using random-effects models.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our meta-analysis included 14 studies (10 observational and 4 RCTs) involving 3062 patients with AVB. The analysis revealed that the QRS duration was significantly shorter in the LBBAP group compared to the RVP group [MD = -35.56 ms; 95% CI: (-39.27, -31.85), p < 0.00001]. Patients in the LBBAP group also exhibited a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [MD = 5.48%; 95% CI: (4.07%, 6.89%), p < 0.00001], and a significant reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) compared to RVP [MD = -3.98 mm; 95% CI: (-5.88, -2.09 mm), p < 0.0001]. In terms of clinical outcomes, LBBAP was associated with a significantly lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) compared to RVP [OR = 0.26; 95% CI: (0.16, 0.44), p < 0.0001]. However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the implant success rate, pacing impedance, or pacing threshold. The RVP group demonstrated a significantly higher R-wave amplitude increase than the LBBAP group [MD = 0.85 mV; 95% CI: (0.23, 1.46), p = .007]. Lastly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups [OR = 2.12; 95% CI: (0.29, 15.52), p = 0.46].</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP outperforms RVP in several cardiac function indicators, suggesting it may be a superior pacing method for AVB patients with preserved LVEF. However, the small sample size in studies and the result in heterogeneity call for more research to validate these findings and assess LBBAP's long-term effects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15178,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16548\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.16548","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:左束分支区起搏(LBBAP)是一种治疗房室传导阻滞(AVB)和保留左室射血分数(LVEF)患者的新技术,可能比右室起搏(RVP)提供更好的心功能。方法:我们检索了数据库和注册研究,比较了LBBAP与RVP在AVB和保留LVEF患者中的应用。我们提取了各种结果的数据,并使用随机效应模型汇总了效果估计。结果:我们的荟萃分析纳入了14项研究(10项观察性研究和4项随机对照试验),涉及3062例AVB患者。分析显示,与RVP组相比,LBBAP组QRS持续时间显著缩短[MD = -35.56 ms;95% CI:(-39.27, -31.85), p结论:LBBAP在多项心功能指标上优于RVP,提示LBBAP可能是保留LVEF的AVB患者更好的起搏方法。然而,研究样本量小,结果存在异质性,需要更多的研究来验证这些发现,并评估LBBAP的长期效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a new technique for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), potentially offering better cardiac function than right ventricular pacing (RVP).

Methods: We searched databases and registries for studies that compared LBBAP with RVP in patients with AVB and preserved LVEF. We extracted data on various outcomes and pooled the effect estimates using random-effects models.

Results: Our meta-analysis included 14 studies (10 observational and 4 RCTs) involving 3062 patients with AVB. The analysis revealed that the QRS duration was significantly shorter in the LBBAP group compared to the RVP group [MD = -35.56 ms; 95% CI: (-39.27, -31.85), p < 0.00001]. Patients in the LBBAP group also exhibited a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [MD = 5.48%; 95% CI: (4.07%, 6.89%), p < 0.00001], and a significant reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) compared to RVP [MD = -3.98 mm; 95% CI: (-5.88, -2.09 mm), p < 0.0001]. In terms of clinical outcomes, LBBAP was associated with a significantly lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) compared to RVP [OR = 0.26; 95% CI: (0.16, 0.44), p < 0.0001]. However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the implant success rate, pacing impedance, or pacing threshold. The RVP group demonstrated a significantly higher R-wave amplitude increase than the LBBAP group [MD = 0.85 mV; 95% CI: (0.23, 1.46), p = .007]. Lastly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups [OR = 2.12; 95% CI: (0.29, 15.52), p = 0.46].

Conclusion: LBBAP outperforms RVP in several cardiac function indicators, suggesting it may be a superior pacing method for AVB patients with preserved LVEF. However, the small sample size in studies and the result in heterogeneity call for more research to validate these findings and assess LBBAP's long-term effects.

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
5.20
自引率
14.80%
发文量
433
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology (JCE) keeps its readership well informed of the latest developments in the study and management of arrhythmic disorders. Edited by Bradley P. Knight, M.D., and a distinguished international editorial board, JCE is the leading journal devoted to the study of the electrophysiology of the heart.
×
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