一项网络荟萃分析:永久性房颤患者行房室结消融的心衰患者,左束分支区起搏优于他束起搏。

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Jing-Wen Ding, Yu-Ang Jiang, Qiu-Ting Wang, Chu Guo, Jian-Hui Yao, Gong-Qiang Dai, Jing-Chen, Huai-Sheng Ding
{"title":"一项网络荟萃分析:永久性房颤患者行房室结消融的心衰患者,左束分支区起搏优于他束起搏。","authors":"Jing-Wen Ding, Yu-Ang Jiang, Qiu-Ting Wang, Chu Guo, Jian-Hui Yao, Gong-Qiang Dai, Jing-Chen, Huai-Sheng Ding","doi":"10.1007/s10840-025-02034-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and pacemaker implantation enhance prognosis in heart failure patients experiencing rapid ventricular response due to atrial fibrillation. This meta-analysis assessed the clinical benefits of various pacing modalities following AVNA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The electrophysiological endpoint was defined as QRS duration, while the echocardiographic endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction. Secondary endpoints included pacing threshold, mortality rates, and improvements in the 6-min walk test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 1257 patients suggested that His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) conferred an advantage in narrowing QRS duration compared to biventricular pacing (BVP) (HBP vs BVP OR = - 59.05, 95%CI = - 73.12 to - 44.97; LBBAP vs BVP OR = - 48.64, 95%CI = - 64.05 to - 33.24). The findings of echocardiographic endpoints suggested that LBBAP and HBP emerged as the optimal strategies over RVP (vs HBP OR = - 7.59, 95%CI = - 11.85 to - 3.32; vs LBBAP OR = - 6.58, 95%CI = - 12.08 to - 1.07). LBBAP reduced all-cause mortality compared to BVP (OR = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.01-0.78); however, no significant differences in all-cause mortality were observed between LBBAP and HBP. The pacing threshold of LBBAP was significantly lower than HBP (OR = - 0.40, 95%CI = - 0.57 to - 0.23).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP not only demonstrated superior clinical outcomes regarding mortality compared to ventricular pacing strategies, but also was associated with a lower pacing threshold than HBP, thereby indicating its potential advantage over HBP in patients undergoing AVNA and subsequent pacemaker implantation.</p>","PeriodicalId":16202,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Left bundle branch area pacing prevails over His bundle pacing for heart failure patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation in permanent atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Jing-Wen Ding, Yu-Ang Jiang, Qiu-Ting Wang, Chu Guo, Jian-Hui Yao, Gong-Qiang Dai, Jing-Chen, Huai-Sheng Ding\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s10840-025-02034-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and pacemaker implantation enhance prognosis in heart failure patients experiencing rapid ventricular response due to atrial fibrillation. This meta-analysis assessed the clinical benefits of various pacing modalities following AVNA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The electrophysiological endpoint was defined as QRS duration, while the echocardiographic endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction. Secondary endpoints included pacing threshold, mortality rates, and improvements in the 6-min walk test.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 1257 patients suggested that His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) conferred an advantage in narrowing QRS duration compared to biventricular pacing (BVP) (HBP vs BVP OR = - 59.05, 95%CI = - 73.12 to - 44.97; LBBAP vs BVP OR = - 48.64, 95%CI = - 64.05 to - 33.24). The findings of echocardiographic endpoints suggested that LBBAP and HBP emerged as the optimal strategies over RVP (vs HBP OR = - 7.59, 95%CI = - 11.85 to - 3.32; vs LBBAP OR = - 6.58, 95%CI = - 12.08 to - 1.07). LBBAP reduced all-cause mortality compared to BVP (OR = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.01-0.78); however, no significant differences in all-cause mortality were observed between LBBAP and HBP. The pacing threshold of LBBAP was significantly lower than HBP (OR = - 0.40, 95%CI = - 0.57 to - 0.23).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP not only demonstrated superior clinical outcomes regarding mortality compared to ventricular pacing strategies, but also was associated with a lower pacing threshold than HBP, thereby indicating its potential advantage over HBP in patients undergoing AVNA and subsequent pacemaker implantation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16202,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-03\",\"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/s10840-025-02034-7\",\"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/s10840-025-02034-7","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:房室结消融(AVNA)和起搏器植入可改善心房颤动引起的心室快速反应心衰患者的预后。本荟萃分析评估了AVNA后各种起搏方式的临床益处。方法:以QRS时间为电生理终点,以左室射血分数变化为超声心动图终点。次要终点包括起搏阈值、死亡率和6分钟步行试验的改善。结果:这项涉及1257例患者的13项研究的荟萃分析表明,与双心室起搏(BVP)相比,他束起搏(HBP)和左束分支区域起搏(LBBAP)在缩短QRS持续时间方面具有优势(HBP vs BVP OR = - 59.05, 95%CI = - 73.12至- 44.97;LBBAP vs BVP或= - 48.64,95% ci = - 64.05 - 33.24)。超声心动图终点结果显示,LBBAP和HBP是RVP的最佳策略(vs HBP OR = - 7.59, 95%CI = - 11.85至- 3.32;vs LBBAP或= - 6.58,95% ci = - 12.08 - 1.07)。与BVP相比,LBBAP降低了全因死亡率(OR = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.01-0.78);然而,LBBAP和HBP之间的全因死亡率没有显著差异。LBBAP的起搏阈值显著低于HBP (OR = - 0.40, 95%CI = - 0.57 ~ - 0.23)。结论:LBBAP不仅在死亡率方面表现出优于心室起搏策略的临床结果,而且与HBP相比,LBBAP与更低的起搏阈值相关,从而表明LBBAP在AVNA和随后的起搏器植入患者中比HBP具有潜在优势。
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 prevails over His bundle pacing for heart failure patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation in permanent atrial fibrillation: a network meta-analysis.

Background: Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and pacemaker implantation enhance prognosis in heart failure patients experiencing rapid ventricular response due to atrial fibrillation. This meta-analysis assessed the clinical benefits of various pacing modalities following AVNA.

Methods: The electrophysiological endpoint was defined as QRS duration, while the echocardiographic endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction. Secondary endpoints included pacing threshold, mortality rates, and improvements in the 6-min walk test.

Results: This meta-analysis of 13 studies involving 1257 patients suggested that His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) conferred an advantage in narrowing QRS duration compared to biventricular pacing (BVP) (HBP vs BVP OR = - 59.05, 95%CI = - 73.12 to - 44.97; LBBAP vs BVP OR = - 48.64, 95%CI = - 64.05 to - 33.24). The findings of echocardiographic endpoints suggested that LBBAP and HBP emerged as the optimal strategies over RVP (vs HBP OR = - 7.59, 95%CI = - 11.85 to - 3.32; vs LBBAP OR = - 6.58, 95%CI = - 12.08 to - 1.07). LBBAP reduced all-cause mortality compared to BVP (OR = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.01-0.78); however, no significant differences in all-cause mortality were observed between LBBAP and HBP. The pacing threshold of LBBAP was significantly lower than HBP (OR = - 0.40, 95%CI = - 0.57 to - 0.23).

Conclusion: LBBAP not only demonstrated superior clinical outcomes regarding mortality compared to ventricular pacing strategies, but also was associated with a lower pacing threshold than HBP, thereby indicating its potential advantage over HBP in patients undergoing AVNA and subsequent pacemaker implantation.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信