Pastore Gianni, Zanon Francesco, Baracca Enrico, Aggio Silvio, Corbucci Giorgio, Boaretto Graziano, Roncon Loris, Noventa Franco, Barold S Serge
Department of Cardiology, Rovigo General Hospital, Via Tre Martiri, 140 45100 Rovigo, Italy
Department of Cardiology, Rovigo General Hospital, Via Tre Martiri, 140 45100 Rovigo, Italy.
Europace. 2016 Mar;18(3):353-8. doi: 10.1093/europace/euv268. Epub 2015 Oct 5.
Right ventricular pacing adversely affects left atrial (LA) structure and function that may trigger atrial fibrillation (AF). This study compares the occurrence of persistent/permanent AF during long-term Hisian area (HA), right ventricular septal (RVS), and right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing in patients with complete/advanced atrioventricular block (AVB).
We collected retrospective data from 477 consecutive patients who underwent pacemaker implantation for complete/advanced AVB. Ventricular pacing leads were located in the HA, RVS, and RVA in 148, 140, and 189 patients, respectively. The occurrence of persistent/permanent AF was observed in 114 (23.9%) patients (follow-up 58.5 ± 26.5 months). Hisian area groups presented a lower rate of AF occurrence (16.9%) compared with RVS and RVA groups (25.7 and 28.0%, respectively), P = 0.049. Cox's proportional hazard model was used to estimate HR. The risk of persistent/permanent AF was significantly lower in the patients paced from HA compared with those paced from RVA, HR = 0.28 (95% CI 0.16-0.48, P = 0.0001). The RVS and RVA pacing groups showed a similar AF risk: HR 1.04 (95% CI 0.66-1.64, P = 0.856). Other independent predictors of persistent/permanent AF occurrence included previous (before device implantation) paroxysmal AF (HR = 4.08; 95% CI 3.15-7.31, P = 0.0001), LA diameter, and age, whereas baseline bundle-branch block was associated with a lower risk of AF occurrence (HR = 0.56; 95% CI 0.35-0.81, P = 0.003).
HA pacing compared with RVA or RVS pacing seems to be associated with a lower risk of persistent/permanent AF occurrence. The risk of persistent/permanent AF was similar in the RVA vs. RVS groups.
右心室起搏会对左心房(LA)的结构和功能产生不利影响,这可能引发心房颤动(AF)。本研究比较了完全性/高度房室传导阻滞(AVB)患者在长期希氏束区域(HA)、右心室间隔部(RVS)和右心室心尖部(RVA)起搏期间持续性/永久性AF的发生率。
我们收集了477例因完全性/高度AVB接受起搏器植入的连续患者的回顾性数据。心室起搏导线分别植入148例、140例和189例患者的HA、RVS和RVA。114例(23.9%)患者观察到持续性/永久性AF的发生(随访58.5±26.5个月)。与RVS和RVA组(分别为25.7%和28.0%)相比,希氏束区域组的AF发生率较低(16.9%),P = 0.049。使用Cox比例风险模型估计风险比(HR)。与RVA起搏的患者相比,HA起搏的患者发生持续性/永久性AF的风险显著更低,HR = 0.28(95%置信区间0.16 - 0.48,P = 0.0001)。RVS和RVA起搏组显示出相似的AF风险:HR 1.04(95%置信区间0.66 - 1.64,P = 0.856)。持续性/永久性AF发生的其他独立预测因素包括既往(设备植入前)阵发性AF(HR = 4.08;95%置信区间3.15 - 7.31,P = 0.0001)、左心房直径和年龄,而基线束支传导阻滞与较低的AF发生风险相关(HR = 0.56;95%置信区间0.35 - 0.81,P = 0.003)。
与RVA或RVS起搏相比,HA起搏似乎与较低的持续性/永久性AF发生风险相关。RVA组与RVS组的持续性/永久性AF风险相似。