左束分支起搏对保留射血分数和中程射血分数心衰的临床影响。

IF 1.3
Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE Pub Date : 2022-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-03-03 DOI:10.1111/pace.14470
Yousaku Okubo, Shogo Miyamoto, Yukimi Uotani, Yoshihiro Ikeuchi, Shunsuke Miyauchi, Sho Okamura, Takehito Tokuyama, Yukiko Nakano
{"title":"左束分支起搏对保留射血分数和中程射血分数心衰的临床影响。","authors":"Yousaku Okubo,&nbsp;Shogo Miyamoto,&nbsp;Yukimi Uotani,&nbsp;Yoshihiro Ikeuchi,&nbsp;Shunsuke Miyauchi,&nbsp;Sho Okamura,&nbsp;Takehito Tokuyama,&nbsp;Yukiko Nakano","doi":"10.1111/pace.14470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recently, conduction system pacing, including His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as an alternative pacing procedure for right ventricular (RV) pacing. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP and conventional RV midseptal pacing (RVMSP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with midrange ejection (HFmrEF) requiring frequency RV pacing due to atrioventricular block (AVB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 89 patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB were enrolled between September 2018 and April 2021, among whom 43 and 46 underwent LBBAP and RVMSP, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The LBBAP group had a significantly shorter paced-QRS duration and paced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) compared to the RVMSP group (123.4 ± 10.4 ms vs. 152.3 ± 12.3 ms, p < .001 and 68.3 ± 10.0 ms vs. 95.2 ± 12.3 ms, p < .001, respectively). The LBBAP group had significantly lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at the 6-month follow-up compared to the RVMSP group [459.6 pg/ml (240.4-678.7) vs. 972.7 pg/ml (629.5-1315.9), p = .01]. More patients in the LBBAP group exhibited a significant improvement in NT-proBNP, defined as a > 50% decreased from baseline levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP maintains physiological ventricular activation and contributes to greater improvement in NT-proBNP value 6 months after implantation in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF compared to RVMSP.</p>","PeriodicalId":520740,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","volume":" ","pages":"499-508"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical impact of left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and mid-range ejection fraction.\",\"authors\":\"Yousaku Okubo,&nbsp;Shogo Miyamoto,&nbsp;Yukimi Uotani,&nbsp;Yoshihiro Ikeuchi,&nbsp;Shunsuke Miyauchi,&nbsp;Sho Okamura,&nbsp;Takehito Tokuyama,&nbsp;Yukiko Nakano\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/pace.14470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Recently, conduction system pacing, including His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as an alternative pacing procedure for right ventricular (RV) pacing. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP and conventional RV midseptal pacing (RVMSP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with midrange ejection (HFmrEF) requiring frequency RV pacing due to atrioventricular block (AVB).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A total of 89 patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB were enrolled between September 2018 and April 2021, among whom 43 and 46 underwent LBBAP and RVMSP, respectively.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The LBBAP group had a significantly shorter paced-QRS duration and paced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) compared to the RVMSP group (123.4 ± 10.4 ms vs. 152.3 ± 12.3 ms, p < .001 and 68.3 ± 10.0 ms vs. 95.2 ± 12.3 ms, p < .001, respectively). The LBBAP group had significantly lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at the 6-month follow-up compared to the RVMSP group [459.6 pg/ml (240.4-678.7) vs. 972.7 pg/ml (629.5-1315.9), p = .01]. More patients in the LBBAP group exhibited a significant improvement in NT-proBNP, defined as a > 50% decreased from baseline levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>LBBAP maintains physiological ventricular activation and contributes to greater improvement in NT-proBNP value 6 months after implantation in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF compared to RVMSP.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":520740,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"499-508\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"5\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14470\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/3/3 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","FirstCategoryId":"5","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.14470","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/3/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

背景:最近,传导系统起搏,包括他束和左束分支区起搏(LBBAP),已成为右心室起搏的替代起搏程序。本研究旨在比较LBBAP和常规心室间隔起搏(RVMSP)治疗因房室传导阻滞(AVB)导致的保留射血分数(HFpEF)和中程射血(HFmrEF)需要频率心室起搏的心力衰竭(HF)患者的临床结果。方法:2018年9月至2021年4月,共纳入89例因症状性AVB而需要HFpEF和HFmrEF的RV起搏患者,其中43例和46例分别接受了LBBAP和RVMSP。结果:两组患者的基线特征无显著差异。与RVMSP组相比,LBBAP组有节律性qrs持续时间和有节律性左心室激活时间(LVAT)显著缩短(123.4±10.4 ms比152.3±12.3 ms, p比基线水平降低50%)。结论:与RVMSP相比,LBBAP维持了HFpEF和HFmrEF患者植入后6个月的生理性心室激活,并有助于NT-proBNP值的改善。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Clinical impact of left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and mid-range ejection fraction.

Background: Recently, conduction system pacing, including His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as an alternative pacing procedure for right ventricular (RV) pacing. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP and conventional RV midseptal pacing (RVMSP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with midrange ejection (HFmrEF) requiring frequency RV pacing due to atrioventricular block (AVB).

Methods: A total of 89 patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB were enrolled between September 2018 and April 2021, among whom 43 and 46 underwent LBBAP and RVMSP, respectively.

Results: No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The LBBAP group had a significantly shorter paced-QRS duration and paced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) compared to the RVMSP group (123.4 ± 10.4 ms vs. 152.3 ± 12.3 ms, p < .001 and 68.3 ± 10.0 ms vs. 95.2 ± 12.3 ms, p < .001, respectively). The LBBAP group had significantly lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at the 6-month follow-up compared to the RVMSP group [459.6 pg/ml (240.4-678.7) vs. 972.7 pg/ml (629.5-1315.9), p = .01]. More patients in the LBBAP group exhibited a significant improvement in NT-proBNP, defined as a > 50% decreased from baseline levels.

Conclusion: LBBAP maintains physiological ventricular activation and contributes to greater improvement in NT-proBNP value 6 months after implantation in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF compared to RVMSP.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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