Suppr超能文献

选择性与非选择性希氏束起搏的临床转归。

Clinical Outcomes of Selective Versus Nonselective His Bundle Pacing.

机构信息

Division of Cardiology, Geisinger Heart Institute, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania.

Division of Cardiology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.

出版信息

JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;5(7):766-774. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2019.04.008. Epub 2019 May 10.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of nonselective (NS) His bundle pacing (HBP) compared with selective (S) HBP.

BACKGROUND

HBP is the most physiologic form of ventricular pacing. NS-HBP results in right ventricular septal pre-excitation due to fusion with myocardial capture in addition to His bundle capture resulting in widened QRS duration compared with S-HBP wherein there is exclusive His bundle capture and conduction.

METHODS

The Geisinger and Rush University HBP registries comprise 640 patients who underwent successful HBP. Our study population included 350 consecutive patients treated with HBP for bradyarrhythmic indications who demonstrated ≥20% ventricular pacing burden 3 months post-implantation. Patients were categorized into S-HBP or NS-HBP based on QRS morphology (NS-HBP n = 232; S-HBP n = 118) at the programmed output at the 3-month follow-up. The primary analysis outcome was a combined endpoint of all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization.

RESULTS

The NS-HBP group had a higher number of men (64% vs. 50%; p = 0.01), higher incidence of infranodal atrioventricular block (40% vs. 9%; p < 0.01), ischemic cardiomyopathy (24% vs. 14%; p = 0.03), and permanent atrial fibrillation (18% vs. 8%; p = 0.01). The primary endpoint occurred in 81 of 232 patients (35%) in the NS-HBP group compared with 23 of 118 patients (19%) in the S-HBP group (hazard ratio: 1.38; 95% confidence interval: 0.87 to 2.20; p = 0.17). Subgroup analyses of patients at greatest risk (higher pacing burden or lower left ventricular ejection fraction) revealed no incremental risk with NS-HBP.

CONCLUSIONS

NS-HBP was associated with similar outcomes of death or heart failure hospitalization when compared with S-HBP. Multicenter risk-matched clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估非选择性(NS)希氏束起搏(HBP)与选择性(S)HBP 的临床转归。

背景

HBP 是最生理性的心室起搏方式。NS-HBP 除了希氏束夺获外,还会因与心肌夺获融合而导致右心室间隔预激,导致 QRS 时限增宽,而 S-HBP 中仅存在希氏束夺获和传导。

方法

Geisinger 和 Rush 大学 HBP 注册研究包含 640 例成功接受 HBP 治疗的患者。我们的研究人群包括 350 例因缓慢性心律失常而接受 HBP 治疗的连续患者,这些患者在植入后 3 个月时显示 ≥20%的心室起搏负担。根据 3 个月随访时程控输出时的 QRS 形态(NS-HBP n=232;S-HBP n=118)将患者分为 S-HBP 或 NS-HBP。主要分析结果是全因死亡率或心力衰竭住院的联合终点。

结果

NS-HBP 组男性比例较高(64% vs. 50%;p=0.01),房室结下阻滞发生率较高(40% vs. 9%;p<0.01),缺血性心肌病发生率较高(24% vs. 14%;p=0.03),永久性心房颤动发生率较高(18% vs. 8%;p=0.01)。NS-HBP 组 232 例患者中有 81 例(35%)发生主要终点事件,而 S-HBP 组 118 例患者中有 23 例(19%)发生主要终点事件(风险比:1.38;95%置信区间:0.87 至 2.20;p=0.17)。在风险最高的患者(较高的起搏负担或较低的左心室射血分数)亚组分析中,NS-HBP 并未增加风险。

结论

与 S-HBP 相比,NS-HBP 与死亡或心力衰竭住院的结局相似。需要进行多中心风险匹配的临床研究来证实这些发现。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验