Suppr超能文献

电激动标测引导的导线植入对希氏束起搏术的程序结果的影响。

Impact of electroanatomical mapping-guided lead implantation on procedural outcome of His bundle pacing.

机构信息

Department of Electrophysiology, Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Strümpellstr. 39, 04289 Leipzig, Germany.

Department of Pediatric Cardiology, Heart Center, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.

出版信息

Europace. 2021 Mar 8;23(3):409-420. doi: 10.1093/europace/euaa292.

Abstract

AIMS

Conventional His bundle pacing (HBP) can be technically challenging and fluoroscopy-intense, particularly in patients with His-Purkinje conduction disease (HPCD). Three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping (EAM) facilitates non-fluoroscopic lead navigation and HB electrogram mapping. We sought to assess the procedural outcome of routine EAM-guided HBP compared with conventional HBP in a real-world population and evaluate the feasibility and safety of EAM-guided HBP in patients with HPCD.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 58 consecutive patients (72 ± 13 years; 71% male) who underwent an attempt to conventional (EAM- group; n = 29) or EAM-guided (EAM+ group; n = 29) HBP between June 2019 and April 2020. The centre's learning curve was initially determined (n = 40 cases) to define the conventional control group and minimize outcome bias favouring EAM-guided HBP. His bundle pacing was successful in 26 patients (90%) in the EAM+ and 27 patients (93%) in the EAM- group (P = 0.64). The procedure time was 90 (73-135) and 110 (70-130) min, respectively (P = 0.89). The total fluoroscopy time [0.7 (0.5-1.4) vs. 3.3 (1.4-6.5) min; P < 0.001] and fluoroscopy dose [21.9 (9.1-47.7) vs. 78.6 (27.2-144.9) cGycm2; P = 0.001] were significantly lower in the EAM+ than EAM- group. There were no significant differences between groups in His capture threshold (1.2 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0 V/1.0 ms; P = 0.33) and paced QRS duration (113 ± 15 vs. 113 ± 17 ms; P = 0.89). In patients with HPCD, paced QRS duration was similar in both groups (121 ± 15 vs. 123 ± 12 ms; P = 0.77). The bundle branch-block recruitment threshold tended to be lower in the EAM+ than EAM- group (1.3 ± 0.7 vs. 1.8 ± 1.2 V/1.0 ms; P = 0.31). No immediate procedure-related complications occurred. One patient (2%) experienced lead dislodgement during 4-week follow-up.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of routine EAM-guided HBP lead implantation is feasible and safe in a real-world cohort of patients with and without HPCD and results in a tremendous reduction in radiation exposure without prolonging procedure time or increasing procedure-related complications.

摘要

目的

传统希氏束起搏(HBP)在技术上具有挑战性,并且需要大量的透视,特别是在存在希氏-浦肯野传导疾病(HPCD)的患者中。三维电解剖标测(EAM)有助于非透视引导的导线导航和 HB 电图标测。我们旨在评估在真实人群中常规 EAM 引导的 HBP 与传统 HBP 的手术结果,并评估 EAM 引导的 HBP 在 HPCD 患者中的可行性和安全性。

方法和结果

我们纳入了 58 例连续患者(72±13 岁;71%为男性),他们在 2019 年 6 月至 2020 年 4 月期间尝试进行传统(EAM-组;n=29)或 EAM 引导的(EAM+组;n=29)HBP。最初确定了中心的学习曲线(n=40 例),以定义传统对照组并最大程度地减少有利于 EAM 引导的 HBP 的结果偏差。在 EAM+组中有 26 例(90%)和 EAM-组中有 27 例(93%)患者成功进行了 HBP(P=0.64)。手术时间分别为 90(73-135)和 110(70-130)分钟(P=0.89)。总透视时间[0.7(0.5-1.4)比 3.3(1.4-6.5)分钟;P<0.001]和透视剂量[21.9(9.1-47.7)比 78.6(27.2-144.9)cGycm2;P=0.001]在 EAM+组中明显低于 EAM-组。两组之间希氏束捕获阈值(1.2±0.6 比 1.4±1.0 V/1.0 ms;P=0.33)和起搏 QRS 持续时间(113±15 比 113±17 ms;P=0.89)无显著差异。在 HPCD 患者中,两组的起搏 QRS 持续时间相似(121±15 比 123±12 ms;P=0.77)。EAM+组的束支阻滞募集阈值趋于低于 EAM-组(1.3±0.7 比 1.8±1.2 V/1.0 ms;P=0.31)。没有立即出现与程序相关的并发症。一名患者(2%)在 4 周随访期间发生导线脱位。

结论

在存在和不存在 HPCD 的真实患者人群中,常规 EAM 引导的 HBP 导线植入是可行且安全的,并且可大大减少辐射暴露,而不会延长手术时间或增加与手术相关的并发症。

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