从传统的右心室起搏到左束分支区域起搏的影响。

Q3 Medicine
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management Pub Date : 2025-06-15 eCollection Date: 2025-06-01 DOI:10.19102/icrm.2025.16064
David Fritz, Ben Ose, Hannah Zerr, Maci Clark, Caroline Trupp, Amulya Gupta, Ahmed Shahab, Seth H Sheldon, Amit Noheria
{"title":"从传统的右心室起搏到左束分支区域起搏的影响。","authors":"David Fritz, Ben Ose, Hannah Zerr, Maci Clark, Caroline Trupp, Amulya Gupta, Ahmed Shahab, Seth H Sheldon, Amit Noheria","doi":"10.19102/icrm.2025.16064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may mitigate pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) and is increasingly favored over traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). We sought to evaluate the impact of a practice-wide switch from RVP to LBBAP. We switched practice from RVP to primarily LBBAP at our center in 2020. A retrospective review was conducted to compare patients who underwent LBBAP from 2020-2023 with controls who underwent RVP from 2018-2019. The LBBAP (n = 288; age, 73.3 ± 10.7 years; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 56.9% ± 11.4%) and RVP (n = 172) groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and LVEF. The LBBAP group as compared to the RVP group had fewer women (38% vs. 51%; <i>P</i> = .006) and longer intrinsic conducted QRS durations (117 ± 28 vs. 110 ± 30 ms; <i>P</i> = .04). LBBAP devices required longer implant (102 vs. 67 min) and fluoroscopy (9.3 vs. 6.9 min) times but resulted in shorter paced QRS durations (122 ± 20 vs. 145 ± 24 ms; all <i>P</i> < .0001). At 3 months, LBBAP patients had higher sensing (13.8 ± 6.1 vs. 12.0 ± 5.6 mV; <i>P</i> = .007), lower pacing impedance (543 ± 98 vs. 576 ± 150 Ω; <i>P</i> = .008), and similar capture threshold (0.78 ± 0.24 vs. 0.76 ± 0.35 V; <i>P</i> = .5) values. Device-related adverse events were similar between the groups (LBBAP 8.7% vs. RVP 8.8%; <i>P</i> = 1.0), which included ventricular lead dislodgement (2.1% vs. 0.6%; <i>P</i> = .3). There were no differences in hazard rates of all-cause mortality (<i>P</i> = .5) or heart failure (HF) hospitalizations (<i>P</i> = .07). In a subgroup of patients with ≥20% ventricular pacing, the average LVEF change during follow-up in the LBBAP group as opposed to the RVP group was +1.6% ± 12.9% versus -3.8% ± 12.0% (<i>P</i> = .03), the average left ventricular internal diameter at end-diastole change was -0.18 ± 0.73 cm versus +0.16 ± 0.45 cm (<i>P</i> = .006), and there were no differences in the hazard rate of all-cause mortality (<i>P</i> = .6) or HF hospitalizations (<i>P</i> = 1.0). Our results suggest there were no adverse consequences of the practice-wide switch from RVP to LBBAP. LBBAP was associated with longer procedure and fluoroscopy times but resulted in narrower paced QRS durations and less PICM.</p>","PeriodicalId":36299,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management","volume":"16 6","pages":"6297-6305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12233320/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Impact of a Practice-wide Switch from Traditional Right Ventricular Pacing to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.\",\"authors\":\"David Fritz, Ben Ose, Hannah Zerr, Maci Clark, Caroline Trupp, Amulya Gupta, Ahmed Shahab, Seth H Sheldon, Amit Noheria\",\"doi\":\"10.19102/icrm.2025.16064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may mitigate pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) and is increasingly favored over traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). We sought to evaluate the impact of a practice-wide switch from RVP to LBBAP. We switched practice from RVP to primarily LBBAP at our center in 2020. A retrospective review was conducted to compare patients who underwent LBBAP from 2020-2023 with controls who underwent RVP from 2018-2019. The LBBAP (n = 288; age, 73.3 ± 10.7 years; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 56.9% ± 11.4%) and RVP (n = 172) groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and LVEF. The LBBAP group as compared to the RVP group had fewer women (38% vs. 51%; <i>P</i> = .006) and longer intrinsic conducted QRS durations (117 ± 28 vs. 110 ± 30 ms; <i>P</i> = .04). LBBAP devices required longer implant (102 vs. 67 min) and fluoroscopy (9.3 vs. 6.9 min) times but resulted in shorter paced QRS durations (122 ± 20 vs. 145 ± 24 ms; all <i>P</i> < .0001). At 3 months, LBBAP patients had higher sensing (13.8 ± 6.1 vs. 12.0 ± 5.6 mV; <i>P</i> = .007), lower pacing impedance (543 ± 98 vs. 576 ± 150 Ω; <i>P</i> = .008), and similar capture threshold (0.78 ± 0.24 vs. 0.76 ± 0.35 V; <i>P</i> = .5) values. Device-related adverse events were similar between the groups (LBBAP 8.7% vs. RVP 8.8%; <i>P</i> = 1.0), which included ventricular lead dislodgement (2.1% vs. 0.6%; <i>P</i> = .3). There were no differences in hazard rates of all-cause mortality (<i>P</i> = .5) or heart failure (HF) hospitalizations (<i>P</i> = .07). In a subgroup of patients with ≥20% ventricular pacing, the average LVEF change during follow-up in the LBBAP group as opposed to the RVP group was +1.6% ± 12.9% versus -3.8% ± 12.0% (<i>P</i> = .03), the average left ventricular internal diameter at end-diastole change was -0.18 ± 0.73 cm versus +0.16 ± 0.45 cm (<i>P</i> = .006), and there were no differences in the hazard rate of all-cause mortality (<i>P</i> = .6) or HF hospitalizations (<i>P</i> = 1.0). Our results suggest there were no adverse consequences of the practice-wide switch from RVP to LBBAP. LBBAP was associated with longer procedure and fluoroscopy times but resulted in narrower paced QRS durations and less PICM.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36299,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management\",\"volume\":\"16 6\",\"pages\":\"6297-6305\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12233320/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2025.16064\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2025.16064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

左束分支区起搏(LBBAP)可以减轻起搏诱导的心肌病(PICM),并且越来越受到传统右室起搏(RVP)的青睐。我们试图评估从RVP到LBBAP的实践范围转换的影响。2020年,我们中心的实践从RVP转为以LBBAP为主。一项回顾性研究比较了2020-2023年接受LBBAP的患者和2018-2019年接受RVP的对照组。LBBAP (n = 288;年龄:73.3±10.7岁;左心室射血分数[LVEF], 56.9%±11.4%)和RVP (n = 172)组在年龄、体重指数、高血压、糖尿病和LVEF方面相似。与RVP组相比,LBBAP组的女性人数较少(38% vs. 51%;P = 0.006)和更长的本征传导QRS持续时间(117±28 vs 110±30 ms;P = .04)。LBBAP装置需要更长的植入时间(102 vs. 67分钟)和透视时间(9.3 vs. 6.9分钟),但QRS持续时间较短(122±20 vs. 145±24 ms);P < 0.0001)。在3个月时,LBBAP患者的感觉更高(13.8±6.1 vs 12.0±5.6 mV;P = .007),较低的起搏阻抗(543±98 vs. 576±150 Ω;P = 0.008),相似的捕获阈值(0.78±0.24 vs. 0.76±0.35 V;P = .5)值。两组之间器械相关不良事件相似(LBBAP 8.7% vs RVP 8.8%;P = 1.0),包括心室导联脱位(2.1% vs. 0.6%;P = .3)。两组全因死亡率(P = 0.5)和心力衰竭住院率(P = 0.07)无差异。子组的患者心室≥20%,平均LVEF改变LBBAP组在随访中而不是RVP组+ 1.6%±12.9%和-3.8%±12.0% (P = . 03),左心室内部直径平均end-diastole变化是-0.18±0.73厘米和+ 0.16±0.45厘米(P = .006),和没有差异的故障率(P = 0。6)或心力衰竭住院患者全因死亡率(P = 1.0)。我们的研究结果表明,从RVP到LBBAP的广泛实践转换没有不良后果。LBBAP与较长的手术和透视时间相关,但导致较窄的QRS持续时间和较低的PICM。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Impact of a Practice-wide Switch from Traditional Right Ventricular Pacing to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may mitigate pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) and is increasingly favored over traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). We sought to evaluate the impact of a practice-wide switch from RVP to LBBAP. We switched practice from RVP to primarily LBBAP at our center in 2020. A retrospective review was conducted to compare patients who underwent LBBAP from 2020-2023 with controls who underwent RVP from 2018-2019. The LBBAP (n = 288; age, 73.3 ± 10.7 years; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF], 56.9% ± 11.4%) and RVP (n = 172) groups were similar in terms of age, body mass index, hypertension, diabetes, and LVEF. The LBBAP group as compared to the RVP group had fewer women (38% vs. 51%; P = .006) and longer intrinsic conducted QRS durations (117 ± 28 vs. 110 ± 30 ms; P = .04). LBBAP devices required longer implant (102 vs. 67 min) and fluoroscopy (9.3 vs. 6.9 min) times but resulted in shorter paced QRS durations (122 ± 20 vs. 145 ± 24 ms; all P < .0001). At 3 months, LBBAP patients had higher sensing (13.8 ± 6.1 vs. 12.0 ± 5.6 mV; P = .007), lower pacing impedance (543 ± 98 vs. 576 ± 150 Ω; P = .008), and similar capture threshold (0.78 ± 0.24 vs. 0.76 ± 0.35 V; P = .5) values. Device-related adverse events were similar between the groups (LBBAP 8.7% vs. RVP 8.8%; P = 1.0), which included ventricular lead dislodgement (2.1% vs. 0.6%; P = .3). There were no differences in hazard rates of all-cause mortality (P = .5) or heart failure (HF) hospitalizations (P = .07). In a subgroup of patients with ≥20% ventricular pacing, the average LVEF change during follow-up in the LBBAP group as opposed to the RVP group was +1.6% ± 12.9% versus -3.8% ± 12.0% (P = .03), the average left ventricular internal diameter at end-diastole change was -0.18 ± 0.73 cm versus +0.16 ± 0.45 cm (P = .006), and there were no differences in the hazard rate of all-cause mortality (P = .6) or HF hospitalizations (P = 1.0). Our results suggest there were no adverse consequences of the practice-wide switch from RVP to LBBAP. LBBAP was associated with longer procedure and fluoroscopy times but resulted in narrower paced QRS durations and less PICM.

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
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management
Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm Management Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
70
×
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