Das Asit, Islam Sk Sahidul, Pathak Sushant Kumar, Majumdar Ishita, Sharwar Shah Alam, Saha Ranita, Chatterjee Suman
Department of Cardiology, IPGME&R and SSKM Hospital, 244, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, 700020, India.
B.M Birla Heart Research Centre, Kolkata, India.
Heart Vessels. 2020 Nov;35(11):1563-1572. doi: 10.1007/s00380-020-01623-y. Epub 2020 May 27.
Chronic RV pacing may lead to pacing induced cardiomyopathy in some patients and results in a higher risk of development of LV systolic dysfunction, heart failure, mitral regurgitation and atrial fibrillation. His bundle pacing emerged as the most physiologic form of ventricular pacing. However, wide adoption of this technique in routine clinical practice is limited by higher capture thresholds at implant sometimes, lower R wave amplitudes, atrial over sensing and increased risk for late rise in pacing thresholds (resulting in the need for lead revisions). Some recent studies have focused on left bundle branch area pacing as a solution to these problems. In our study, we have compared left bundle branch area pacing (in 22 patients) with conventional right ventricular apical pacing (in 28 patients) who presented to us with conventional indications for pacemaker implantations in term of procedure and fluoroscopy time and short-term lead performance and left ventricular function. The results of our study showed that left bundle branch area pacing is associated with shortened QRS duration (22.36 ± 9.36 ms) and better LV function (higher left ventricular ejection fraction 64.00 ± 3.03 vs. 59.73 ± 6.73 with a p value of 0.013 and lower left ventricular diastolic internal diameter 4.58 ± 0.32 vs. 5.23 ± 0.40 cm with a p value of < 0.001) in comparison to right ventricular apical pacing. The total procedure time and fluoroscopy time was similar (63.15 ± 7.02 vs. 55.15 ± 6.16 min, p value 0.142 and 6.08 ± 1.42 vs. 5.06 ± 1.30 min, p value 0.332 respectively) in left bundle branch area pacing group. The results of this study indicate that left bundle branch area pacing may be an option for physiological pacing in patients requiring a high percentage of ventricular pacing.
慢性右心室起搏在某些患者中可能导致起搏诱导的心肌病,并导致左心室收缩功能障碍、心力衰竭、二尖瓣反流和心房颤动的发生风险更高。希氏束起搏成为心室起搏最生理性的形式。然而,该技术在常规临床实践中的广泛应用有时受到植入时较高的夺获阈值、较低的R波振幅、心房过度感知以及起搏阈值后期升高风险增加(导致需要更换导线)的限制。最近一些研究集中在左束支区域起搏作为解决这些问题的方法。在我们的研究中,我们比较了左束支区域起搏(22例患者)与传统右心室心尖起搏(28例患者),这些患者因起搏器植入的传统适应症前来就诊,比较内容包括手术和透视时间、短期导线性能及左心室功能。我们的研究结果表明,与右心室心尖起搏相比,左束支区域起搏与QRS时限缩短(22.36±9.36毫秒)及更好的左心室功能相关(左心室射血分数更高,64.00±3.03对59.73±6.73,p值为0.013;左心室舒张内径更低,4.58±0.32对5.23±0.40厘米,p值<0.001)。左束支区域起搏组的总手术时间和透视时间相似(分别为63.15±7.02对55.15±6.16分钟,p值0.142;6.08±1.42对5.06±1.30分钟,p值0.332)。这项研究的结果表明,对于需要高比例心室起搏的患者,左束支区域起搏可能是生理性起搏的一种选择。