{"title":"升级左束支区起搏治疗右心室起搏诱发型心肌病的效果:QRS额外缩短的重要性","authors":"Hao Huang, Xiaofeng Li, Tianxin Long, Yu Yu, Sijing Cheng, Xiaohui Ning, Xuhua Chen, Min Gu, Hongxia Niu, Wei Hua","doi":"10.1002/joa3.70017","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background and Objectives</h3>\n \n <p>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has developed as a strategy for patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). We aimed to compare the upgrade effectiveness between LBBAP and traditional biventricular pacing (BVP) in PICM patients.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Consecutive PICM patients with successful device upgrades were enrolled. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic response, defined as absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement ≥5% at 6-month follow up.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>A total of 92 patients were included. 61 underwent BVP and 31 underwent LBBAP. The median RVP burden was 96.8% (IQR: 93.0–99.0%). LBBAP achieved a shorter paced QRS duration (QRSd) compared with BVP (145.9 ± 22.4 ms vs. 157.5 ± 26.5 ms; <i>p</i> =.031). At 6 months, LBBAP had a higher echocardiographic response rate than BVP (67.7% vs. 39.3%, <i>p</i> =.019). LVEF increased from 37.8% ± 9.2% to 44.8% ± 10.2% (<i>p</i> <.001) in LBBAP compared with an improvement from 35.7% ± 8.9% to 38.2% ± 12.1% (<i>p</i> <.01) in BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline in LBBAP (7.0% ± 7.0% vs. 2.5% ± 8.7%; <i>p</i> =.024). Narrower pacing QRS after upgrade was associated with better echocardiographic response only in LBBAP but not in BVP. (<i>P</i> for interaction <.05). Both groups had similar rates of composite clinical outcome.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>LBBAP improved echocardiographic response compared with BVP in PICM patients. The superior efficacy of LBBAP in reverse remodeling was dependent on improved electrical synchrony.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15174,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Arrhythmia","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.70017","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Effectiveness of upgrade left bundle branch area pacing for right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: Extra QRS shortening matters\",\"authors\":\"Hao Huang, Xiaofeng Li, Tianxin Long, Yu Yu, Sijing Cheng, Xiaohui Ning, Xuhua Chen, Min Gu, Hongxia Niu, Wei Hua\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/joa3.70017\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background and Objectives</h3>\\n \\n <p>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has developed as a strategy for patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). We aimed to compare the upgrade effectiveness between LBBAP and traditional biventricular pacing (BVP) in PICM patients.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Consecutive PICM patients with successful device upgrades were enrolled. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic response, defined as absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement ≥5% at 6-month follow up.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>A total of 92 patients were included. 61 underwent BVP and 31 underwent LBBAP. The median RVP burden was 96.8% (IQR: 93.0–99.0%). LBBAP achieved a shorter paced QRS duration (QRSd) compared with BVP (145.9 ± 22.4 ms vs. 157.5 ± 26.5 ms; <i>p</i> =.031). At 6 months, LBBAP had a higher echocardiographic response rate than BVP (67.7% vs. 39.3%, <i>p</i> =.019). LVEF increased from 37.8% ± 9.2% to 44.8% ± 10.2% (<i>p</i> <.001) in LBBAP compared with an improvement from 35.7% ± 8.9% to 38.2% ± 12.1% (<i>p</i> <.01) in BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline in LBBAP (7.0% ± 7.0% vs. 2.5% ± 8.7%; <i>p</i> =.024). Narrower pacing QRS after upgrade was associated with better echocardiographic response only in LBBAP but not in BVP. (<i>P</i> for interaction <.05). Both groups had similar rates of composite clinical outcome.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>LBBAP improved echocardiographic response compared with BVP in PICM patients. The superior efficacy of LBBAP in reverse remodeling was dependent on improved electrical synchrony.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15174,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Arrhythmia\",\"volume\":\"41 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-02-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/joa3.70017\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Arrhythmia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.70017\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"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 Arrhythmia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joa3.70017","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"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
背景和目的左束支区起搏(LBBAP)已发展成为一种治疗起搏性心肌病(PICM)的策略。我们的目的是比较LBBAP与传统双心室起搏(BVP)在PICM患者中的升级效果。方法纳入连续PICM患者并成功升级设备。主要终点是超声心动图反应,定义为随访6个月时左室射血分数(LVEF)改善≥5%。结果共纳入92例患者。61例行BVP, 31例行LBBAP。中位RVP负担为96.8% (IQR: 93.0-99.0%)。与BVP相比,LBBAP获得了更短的QRS持续时间(QRSd)(145.9±22.4 ms vs 157.5±26.5 ms);p = .031)。6个月时,LBBAP的超声心动图反应率高于BVP (67.7% vs. 39.3%, p = 0.019)。LBBAP的LVEF从37.8%±9.2%上升到44.8%±10.2% (p < 0.001),而BVP的LVEF从35.7%±8.9%上升到38.2%±12.1% (p < 0.01), LBBAP的LVEF较基线的变化更大(7.0%±7.0% vs 2.5%±8.7%;p = .024)。升级后起搏QRS变窄仅与LBBAP的超声心动图反应相关,而与BVP无关。(P为相互作用<; 0.05)。两组的综合临床转归率相似。结论与BVP相比,LBBAP改善了PICM患者的超声心动图反应。LBBAP在逆转重构中的优越疗效依赖于改善的电同步。
Effectiveness of upgrade left bundle branch area pacing for right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: Extra QRS shortening matters
Background and Objectives
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has developed as a strategy for patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). We aimed to compare the upgrade effectiveness between LBBAP and traditional biventricular pacing (BVP) in PICM patients.
Methods
Consecutive PICM patients with successful device upgrades were enrolled. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic response, defined as absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement ≥5% at 6-month follow up.
Results
A total of 92 patients were included. 61 underwent BVP and 31 underwent LBBAP. The median RVP burden was 96.8% (IQR: 93.0–99.0%). LBBAP achieved a shorter paced QRS duration (QRSd) compared with BVP (145.9 ± 22.4 ms vs. 157.5 ± 26.5 ms; p =.031). At 6 months, LBBAP had a higher echocardiographic response rate than BVP (67.7% vs. 39.3%, p =.019). LVEF increased from 37.8% ± 9.2% to 44.8% ± 10.2% (p <.001) in LBBAP compared with an improvement from 35.7% ± 8.9% to 38.2% ± 12.1% (p <.01) in BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline in LBBAP (7.0% ± 7.0% vs. 2.5% ± 8.7%; p =.024). Narrower pacing QRS after upgrade was associated with better echocardiographic response only in LBBAP but not in BVP. (P for interaction <.05). Both groups had similar rates of composite clinical outcome.
Conclusion
LBBAP improved echocardiographic response compared with BVP in PICM patients. The superior efficacy of LBBAP in reverse remodeling was dependent on improved electrical synchrony.