Department of Cardiology, Congenital Heart Disease and Electrotherapy, Silesian Medical University, Silesian Center for Heart Disease, Zabrze, Poland.
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2012 Nov;23(11):1228-36. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-8167.2012.02375.x. Epub 2012 May 31.
This substudy was to assess implantation feasibility and long-term safety of triple-site resynchronization therapy (CRT) in a series of consecutive patients included in a randomized trial.
One hundred consecutive patients enrolled into Triple-Site Versus Standard Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Randomized Trial were analyzed. Eligibility criteria included NYHA class III-IV, sinus rhythm, QRS ≥ 120 milliseconds, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and significant mechanical dyssynchrony. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to conventional or triple-site CRT with defibrillator-cardioverter. After 12 months of resynchronization 30% of patients with conventional resynchronization and 12.5% with triple-site CRT were in NYHA functional class III or IV (P < 0.05). Implantation of triple-site systems was significantly longer (median 125 minutes vs 96 minutes; P < 0.001), with higher fluoroscopic exposure, especially in patients with very enlarged left ventricle or pulmonary hypertension. Implantation success-rate was similar in the triple-site and conventional group (94% vs 98%; P = NS); however, additional techniques had to be used in a greater proportion of the triple-site patients (33.3% vs 16%; P < 0.05). Long-term lead performance tests revealed significantly higher pacing threshold and lower impedance in the triple-site group. The 1-year incidence of serious, CRT-related adverse events was similar in triple-site and conventional group (20.8% vs 30%; P = NS).
Triple-site CRT is associated with more pronounced functional improvement than standard resynchronization. This form of pacing is equally safe and feasible as the conventional CRT. However, triple-site procedure is more time-consuming, associated with higher radiation exposure and the need to use additional techniques. Triple-site resynchronization is associated with less favorable electrical lead characteristics.
本亚组研究旨在评估在一项随机试验中连续纳入的一系列患者中三重部位再同步治疗(CRT)的植入可行性和长期安全性。
对 Triple-Site Versus Standard Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Randomized Trial 中纳入的 100 例连续患者进行了分析。入选标准包括 NYHA 心功能 III-IV 级、窦性心律、QRS 波≥120ms、左心室射血分数≤35%以及存在显著机械不同步。患者以 1:1 的比例随机分为常规 CRT 或带除颤器的三部位 CRT 组。再同步 12 个月后,常规 CRT 组和三部位 CRT 组分别有 30%和 12.5%的患者 NYHA 心功能分级为 III 或 IV 级(P<0.05)。三部位系统的植入时间明显延长(中位数 125 分钟比 96 分钟;P<0.001),透视曝光量也较高,尤其是在左心室非常大或肺动脉高压的患者中。三部位组和常规组的植入成功率相似(94%比 98%;P=NS);然而,三部位组需要使用更多的附加技术(33.3%比 16%;P<0.05)。长期导线性能测试显示,三部位组的起搏阈值明显较高,阻抗较低。三部位组和常规组在 CRT 相关严重不良事件的 1 年发生率相似(20.8%比 30%;P=NS)。
三部位 CRT 与标准再同步相比,能显著改善心功能。这种起搏方式与常规 CRT 一样安全可行。然而,三部位手术耗时更长,辐射暴露量更高,需要使用更多的附加技术。三部位再同步与电导线性能较差有关。