Cardiology Unit, "Card. G. Panico" Hospital, Tricase, Italy.
Istituto di Cardiologia, IRCCS Azienda Ospedaliero Universitaria di Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Heart Rhythm. 2023 Jul;20(7):984-991. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.03.009. Epub 2023 Mar 10.
Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Comparative data on the risk of complications between CSP and RVP are lacking.
This prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to compare the long-term risk of device-related complications between CSP and RVP.
A total of 1029 consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation with CSP (including HBP and LBBAP) or RVP were enrolled. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 201 matched pairs. The rate and nature of device-related complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups.
During a mean follow-up duration of 18 months, device-related complications were observed in 19 patients: 7 in RVP (3.5%) and 12 in CSP (6.0%) (P = .240). On dividing the matched cohort into 3 groups with similar baseline characteristics according to pacing modality (RVP, n = 201; HBP, n = 128; LBBAP, n = 73), patients with HBP showed a significantly higher rate of device-related complications than did patients with RVP (8.6% vs 3.5%; P = .047) and patients with LBBAP (8.6% vs 1.3%; P = .034). Patients with LBBAP showed a rate of device-related complications similar to that of patients with RVP (1.3% vs 3.5%; P = .358). Most of the complications observed in patients with HBP (63.6%) were lead related.
Globally, CSP was associated with a risk of complications similar to that of RVP. Considering HBP and LBBAP separately, HBP showed a significantly higher risk of complications than did both RVP and LBBAP whereas LBBAP showed a risk of complications similar to that of RVP.
希氏束起搏(HBP)或左束支区域起搏(LBBAP)的传导系统起搏(CSP)已成为右心室起搏(RVP)的替代方法。关于 CSP 和 RVP 之间并发症风险的比较数据尚缺乏。
本前瞻性、多中心、观察性研究旨在比较 CSP 和 RVP 之间与器械相关的并发症的长期风险。
共纳入 1029 例连续行起搏器植入术的患者,包括 CSP(包括 HBP 和 LBBAP)或 RVP。对基线特征进行倾向评分匹配,得出 201 对匹配对。前瞻性收集并比较两组患者随访期间发生的与器械相关的并发症的发生率和性质。
在平均 18 个月的随访期间,19 例患者发生了与器械相关的并发症:RVP 组 7 例(3.5%),CSP 组 12 例(6.0%)(P =.240)。根据起搏方式将匹配队列分为三组(RVP 组 n = 201;HBP 组 n = 128;LBBAP 组 n = 73),具有相似基线特征的患者中,HBP 组患者的与器械相关的并发症发生率明显高于 RVP 组(8.6% vs 3.5%;P =.047)和 LBBAP 组(8.6% vs 1.3%;P =.034)。LBBAP 组患者的与器械相关的并发症发生率与 RVP 组相似(1.3% vs 3.5%;P =.358)。HBP 组患者观察到的大多数并发症(63.6%)与导线有关。
总体而言,CSP 与 RVP 相关的并发症风险相似。分别考虑 HBP 和 LBBAP,HBP 组的并发症风险明显高于 RVP 组和 LBBAP 组,而 LBBAP 组的并发症风险与 RVP 组相似。