Suppr超能文献

左束支区域起搏与右心室起搏的临床结局比较:来自 Geisinger-Rush 传导系统起搏注册研究的结果。

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry.

机构信息

Division of Cardiac Electrophysiology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.

Wright Center for GME, Scranton, Pennsylvania.

出版信息

Heart Rhythm. 2022 Jan;19(1):3-11. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.08.033. Epub 2021 Sep 3.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for patients requiring ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and RVP among patients undergoing pacemaker implantation METHODS: This observational registry included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for bradycardia indications between April 2018 and October 2020. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), or upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with a prespecified burden of ventricular pacing and individual outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 703 patients met inclusion criteria (321 LBBAP and 382 RVP). QRS duration during LBBAP was similar to baseline (121 ± 23 ms vs 117 ± 30 ms; P = .302) and was narrower compared to RVP (121 ± 23 ms vs 156 ± 27 ms; P <.001). The primary composite outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (10.0%) compared to RVP (23.3%) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95%T confidence interval [CI] 0.306-0.695; P <.001). Among patients with ventricular pacing burden >20%, LBBAP was associated with significant reduction in the primary outcome compared to RVP (8.4% vs 26.1%; HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.187-0.540; P <.001). LBBAP was also associated with significant reduction in mortality (7.8% vs 15%; HR 0.59; P = .03) and HFH (3.7% vs 10.5%; HR 0.38; P = .004).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared to RVP. Higher burden of ventricular pacing (>20%) was the primary driver of these outcome differences.

摘要

背景

左束支区域起搏(LBBAP)已被证明是需要心室起搏的患者的可行选择。

目的

本研究的目的是比较 LBBAP 和 RVP 在接受起搏器植入的患者中的临床结果。

方法

本观察性注册研究纳入了 2018 年 4 月至 2020 年 10 月期间因心动过缓指征接受 LBBAP 或 RVP 起搏器植入的患者。主要复合终点包括全因死亡率、心力衰竭住院(HFH)或升级为双心室起搏。次要终点包括患者中有特定心室起搏负担的复合终点和个别结局。

结果

共有 703 名患者符合纳入标准(321 例 LBBAP 和 382 例 RVP)。LBBAP 时的 QRS 持续时间与基线相似(121±23ms 比 117±30ms;P=0.302),且比 RVP 更窄(121±23ms 比 156±27ms;P<0.001)。LBBAP 的主要复合终点显著低于 RVP(10.0%比 23.3%;风险比[HR]0.46;95%置信区间[CI]0.306-0.695;P<0.001)。在心室起搏负担>20%的患者中,LBBAP 与 RVP 相比,主要结局显著降低(8.4%比 26.1%;HR 0.32;95%CI 0.187-0.540;P<0.001)。LBBAP 还与死亡率(7.8%比 15%;HR 0.59;P=0.03)和 HFH(3.7%比 10.5%;HR 0.38;P=0.004)的显著降低相关。

结论

与 RVP 相比,LBBAP 导致临床结果改善。更高的心室起搏负担(>20%)是这些结果差异的主要驱动因素。

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