State Key Laboratory of Cardiovascular Disease, Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Division of Cardiology, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA.
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Oct;6(10):1291-1299. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.05.008. Epub 2020 Aug 12.
The aim of this study was to assess pacing and electrophysiological parameters, as well as short-term outcomes, among patients undergoing left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) or His bundle pacing (HBP).
There are limited data directly comparing different conduction system pacing modalities.
Consecutive patients undergoing de novo conduction system pacing for bradycardia indications were evaluated. Procedural and fluoroscopic times and pacing characteristics were compared between groups at implantation and at 3-month follow-up.
This study included 251 subjects. HBP was successful in 109 (87.2%) of 125 patients, compared with 115 (91.3%) of 126 for LBBP. The mean procedure time (78 ± 36 min vs. 54 ± 24 min, p < 0.001) and fluoroscopy duration (12 ± 5 min vs. 5 ± 2.8 min, p < 0.001) were significantly longer for HBP compared with LBBP. The paced QRS duration (113.7 ± 24.4 ms vs. 114.1 ± 11.2 ms) were similar between groups (p = 0.87). Capture threshold was significantly lower (1.3 ± 0.6 V/1.0 ms vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 V/0.4 ms, p < 0.001), whereas R-wave amplitude was significantly higher (2.8 ± 3.0 mV vs. 12.5 ± 9.0 mV, p < 0.001) with LBBP compared with HBP at implantation. During follow-up, a capture threshold >3.0 V occurred in 8 HBP patients versus 0 LBBP patients (p = 0.003).
LBBP has similar paced QRS durations and success rates, but shorter procedure and fluoroscopy durations, as well as better pacing parameters compared with HBP. Further prospective study is needed to compare long-term outcomes, safety, and pacing stability with these 2 conduction system pacing modalities.
本研究旨在评估行左束支起搏(LBBP)或希氏束起搏(HBP)的患者的起搏和电生理参数以及短期结果。
目前直接比较不同心脏传导系统起搏方式的数据有限。
对因心动过缓而行初次心脏传导系统起搏的连续患者进行评估。在植入时和 3 个月随访时比较两组的手术和透视时间以及起搏特征。
本研究共纳入 251 例患者。在 125 例行 HBP 的患者中,有 109 例(87.2%)成功,而在 126 例行 LBBP 的患者中,有 115 例(91.3%)成功。HBP 的平均手术时间(78 ± 36 分钟比 54 ± 24 分钟,p < 0.001)和透视时间(12 ± 5 分钟比 5 ± 2.8 分钟,p < 0.001)显著长于 LBBP。两组起搏 QRS 时限(113.7 ± 24.4 毫秒比 114.1 ± 11.2 毫秒)相似(p = 0.87)。与 HBP 相比,LBBP 的捕获阈值显著更低(1.3 ± 0.6 V/1.0 毫秒比 0.6 ± 0.2 V/0.4 毫秒,p < 0.001),而 R 波振幅显著更高(2.8 ± 3.0 mV 比 12.5 ± 9.0 mV,p < 0.001)。在随访期间,8 例 HBP 患者出现阈值>3.0 V,而 LBBP 患者无一例出现(p = 0.003)。
与 HBP 相比,LBBP 具有相似的起搏 QRS 时限和成功率,但手术和透视时间更短,起搏参数更好。需要进一步的前瞻性研究来比较这两种心脏传导系统起搏方式的长期结果、安全性和起搏稳定性。