起搏依赖患者左束支区起搏与正常心功能的长期随访。

IF 1.7 4区 医学 Q3 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS
Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology Pub Date : 2025-05-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-20 DOI:10.1111/pace.15188
Yunjie Yao, Minmin Sun, Yufeng Sheng, Chunming Xu, Chen Ren, Aiping Song, Jiaqun Gu, Kebei Li
{"title":"起搏依赖患者左束支区起搏与正常心功能的长期随访。","authors":"Yunjie Yao, Minmin Sun, Yufeng Sheng, Chunming Xu, Chen Ren, Aiping Song, Jiaqun Gu, Kebei Li","doi":"10.1111/pace.15188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term effect of LBBAP in ventricular pacing-dependent patients and baseline normal cardiac function.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective observational study included patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP for bradycardia indications between January 2018 and July 2021. Baseline characteristics and electrophysiological, pacing and echocardiographic data were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty patients with VP% ≥ 40% were enrolled, including 30 patients in the LBBAP group and 30 patients in the RVP group. The mean follow-up time was 53.03 ± 8.10 months in the LBBAP group and 51.87 ± 11.68 months in the RVP group. No ventricular septum perforation was observed during the procedure or follow-up. The R-wave amplitudes did not differ between the two groups at implantation, but the R-wave amplitude in the LBBAP group at last follow-up was higher than that in the RVP group (17.67 ± 7.50 mV vs. 12.38 ± 5.36 mV, p = 0.003). Paced QRS duration in the LBBAP group was significantly shorter than that in the RVP group (138.93 ± 15.36 ms vs. 164.30 ± 19.48 ms, p < 0.0001). The LBBAP group had a higher LVEF (64.81 ± 5.49 vs. 60.44 ± 9.28, p = 0.041) and lower LVESD (29.70 ± 4.59 mm vs. 32.03 ± 3.97 mm, p = 0.039) than the RVP group at last follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found LBBAP electrodes had a stable anatomic position, better pacing parameters, and better maintaining cardiac performances than RVP in patients with normal cardiac function and bradyarrhythmia indications.</p>","PeriodicalId":54653,"journal":{"name":"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology","volume":"48 5","pages":"480-487"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-Term Follow-Up of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Pacing-Dependent Patients and Normal Cardiac Function.\",\"authors\":\"Yunjie Yao, Minmin Sun, Yufeng Sheng, Chunming Xu, Chen Ren, Aiping Song, Jiaqun Gu, Kebei Li\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pace.15188\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term effect of LBBAP in ventricular pacing-dependent patients and baseline normal cardiac function.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This retrospective observational study included patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP for bradycardia indications between January 2018 and July 2021. Baseline characteristics and electrophysiological, pacing and echocardiographic data were collected.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sixty patients with VP% ≥ 40% were enrolled, including 30 patients in the LBBAP group and 30 patients in the RVP group. The mean follow-up time was 53.03 ± 8.10 months in the LBBAP group and 51.87 ± 11.68 months in the RVP group. No ventricular septum perforation was observed during the procedure or follow-up. The R-wave amplitudes did not differ between the two groups at implantation, but the R-wave amplitude in the LBBAP group at last follow-up was higher than that in the RVP group (17.67 ± 7.50 mV vs. 12.38 ± 5.36 mV, p = 0.003). Paced QRS duration in the LBBAP group was significantly shorter than that in the RVP group (138.93 ± 15.36 ms vs. 164.30 ± 19.48 ms, p < 0.0001). The LBBAP group had a higher LVEF (64.81 ± 5.49 vs. 60.44 ± 9.28, p = 0.041) and lower LVESD (29.70 ± 4.59 mm vs. 32.03 ± 3.97 mm, p = 0.039) than the RVP group at last follow-up.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>This study found LBBAP electrodes had a stable anatomic position, better pacing parameters, and better maintaining cardiac performances than RVP in patients with normal cardiac function and bradyarrhythmia indications.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54653,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pace-Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology\",\"volume\":\"48 5\",\"pages\":\"480-487\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-01\",\"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.15188\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/4/20 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.15188","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

左束分支区起搏(LBBAP)是一种新的生理起搏策略。本研究的目的是评估LBBAP对心室起搏依赖患者和基线正常心功能的长期影响。方法:这项回顾性观察性研究纳入了2018年1月至2021年7月期间因心动过缓适应症接受LBBAP或RVP治疗的患者。收集基线特征、电生理、起搏和超声心动图数据。结果:60例VP%≥40%的患者入组,其中LBBAP组30例,RVP组30例。LBBAP组平均随访时间为53.03±8.10个月,RVP组平均随访时间为51.87±11.68个月。在手术或随访期间未观察到室间隔穿孔。两组植入时r波振幅无差异,但LBBAP组末次随访时r波振幅高于RVP组(17.67±7.50 mV vs. 12.38±5.36 mV, p = 0.003)。LBBAP组节律性QRS持续时间明显短于RVP组(138.93±15.36 ms vs 164.30±19.48 ms)。结论:本研究发现LBBAP电极解剖位置稳定,起搏参数更好,在心功能正常且心律失常适应症的患者中,LBBAP电极比RVP电极具有更好的心脏维持性能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Long-Term Follow-Up of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Pacing-Dependent Patients and Normal Cardiac Function.

Introduction: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the long-term effect of LBBAP in ventricular pacing-dependent patients and baseline normal cardiac function.

Methods: This retrospective observational study included patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP for bradycardia indications between January 2018 and July 2021. Baseline characteristics and electrophysiological, pacing and echocardiographic data were collected.

Results: Sixty patients with VP% ≥ 40% were enrolled, including 30 patients in the LBBAP group and 30 patients in the RVP group. The mean follow-up time was 53.03 ± 8.10 months in the LBBAP group and 51.87 ± 11.68 months in the RVP group. No ventricular septum perforation was observed during the procedure or follow-up. The R-wave amplitudes did not differ between the two groups at implantation, but the R-wave amplitude in the LBBAP group at last follow-up was higher than that in the RVP group (17.67 ± 7.50 mV vs. 12.38 ± 5.36 mV, p = 0.003). Paced QRS duration in the LBBAP group was significantly shorter than that in the RVP group (138.93 ± 15.36 ms vs. 164.30 ± 19.48 ms, p < 0.0001). The LBBAP group had a higher LVEF (64.81 ± 5.49 vs. 60.44 ± 9.28, p = 0.041) and lower LVESD (29.70 ± 4.59 mm vs. 32.03 ± 3.97 mm, p = 0.039) than the RVP group at last follow-up.

Conclusion: This study found LBBAP electrodes had a stable anatomic position, better pacing parameters, and better maintaining cardiac performances than RVP in patients with normal cardiac function and bradyarrhythmia indications.

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:604180095
Book学术官方微信