Suppr超能文献

房室传导阻滞患者中左束支起搏与右心室心尖部起搏的临床转归比较。

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with atrioventricular block.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, the First People's Hospital of ZhenJiang, Jiangsu University, ZhenJiang, JiangSu, China.

出版信息

Clin Cardiol. 2021 Apr;44(4):481-487. doi: 10.1002/clc.23513. Epub 2021 Mar 11.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can produce near normalization of QRS duration. This has recently emerged as alternative technique to right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing.

HYPOTHESIS

The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of LBBP compared to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP).

METHODS

A total of 70 AVB patients with indications for ventricular pacing were retrospectively studied. LBBP was attempted in 33 patients, classified as LBBP group. The other patients were classified as RVAP group. Pacing parameters, electrocardiogram and echocardiogram characteristics, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and atrial fibrillation (AF) were evaluated perioperatively and at follow-ups. Patients were followed in the device clinic for a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months at a 3-6 monthly interval.

RESULTS

LBBP was successful in 29 of 33(87.9%) patients while all 37 of the remaining patients successfully underwent RVAP. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower in the LBBP group compare to RVAP(110.75 ± 6.77 ms vs. 154.29 ± 6.96 ms, p = .000) at implantation, and the difference persisted during follow-ups. Pacing thresholds (at implantation: 0.68 ± 0.22 V in the LBBP group and 0.73 ± 0.23 V in the RVAP group, p = .620) remained low and stable during follow-ups. The cardiac function in the LBBP group remained stable during follow-ups (LVEF%:55.08 ± 4.32 pre-operation and 54.17 ± 4.34 at the end of follow-up, p = .609), and better than RVAP group (LVEF%: 54.17 ± 4.34 vs. 50.14 ± 2.14, p = .005). Less HFH was observed in the LBBP group (2/29,6.89%) compared to RVAP group (10/37,27.03%).

CONCLUSIONS

The present investigation demonstrates the safety and feasibility of LBBP that produces narrower paced QRS duration than RVAP. LBBP is associated with reduction in the occurrence of pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction and HFH compared to RVAP in patients requiring permanent pacemakers.

摘要

背景

左束支起搏(LBBP)可使 QRS 时限接近正常。这一技术最近已成为右心室起搏和希氏束起搏的替代技术。

假设

本研究的目的是评估 LBBP 与右室心尖部起搏(RVAP)的临床结果。

方法

回顾性研究了 70 例有房室传导阻滞(AVB)并需要心室起搏的患者。33 例患者尝试了 LBBP,分为 LBBP 组。其余患者分为 RVAP 组。评估围手术期和随访时的起搏参数、心电图和超声心动图特征、心力衰竭住院(HFH)和心房颤动(AF)。患者在器械门诊进行至少 12 个月至 24 个月的随访,随访间隔为 3-6 个月。

结果

33 例患者中,29 例(87.9%)LBBP 成功,其余 37 例患者均成功接受 RVAP。与 RVAP 相比,LBBP 组的起搏 QRS 时限明显更窄(植入时:110.75±6.77ms 比 154.29±6.96ms,p=0.000),随访时差异持续存在。起搏阈值(植入时:LBBP 组为 0.68±0.22V,RVAP 组为 0.73±0.23V,p=0.620)在随访期间保持较低且稳定。LBBP 组的心脏功能在随访期间保持稳定(LVEF%:术前 55.08±4.32%,随访结束时 54.17±4.34%,p=0.609),优于 RVAP 组(LVEF%:54.17±4.34%比 50.14±2.14%,p=0.005)。与 RVAP 组(10/37,27.03%)相比,LBBP 组(2/29,6.89%)HFH 发生率较低。

结论

本研究表明,LBBP 是一种安全可行的技术,可产生比 RVAP 更窄的起搏 QRS 时限。与 RVAP 相比,在需要永久性起搏器的患者中,LBBP 可减少起搏诱导的左心室功能障碍和 HFH 的发生。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/70db/8027573/5fc1c84a4780/CLC-44-481-g001.jpg

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