Suppr超能文献

左束支区域起搏与右心室起搏在缓慢性心律失常伴传导系统障碍患者中的安全性和有效性比较:系统评价和荟萃分析。

Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing compared with right ventricular pacing in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Patras, Rio, Patras, Greece.

Department of Cardiology, University Hospital of Patras, Rio, Patras, Greece; Department of Medicine, University of Patras, Patras, Greece.

出版信息

Int J Cardiol. 2023 Nov 1;390:131230. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2023.131230. Epub 2023 Jul 30.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Right Ventricular Pacing (RVP) may have detrimental effects in ventricular function. Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) is a new pacing strategy that appears to have better results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of LBBAP vs RVP in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Pubmed databases were searched for studies comparing LBBAP with RVP. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and complications. QRS duration, mechanical synchrony and LVEF changes were also assessed. Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using random and fixed effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials with 4250 patients (2127 LBBAP) were included in the analysis. LBBAP was associated with lower risk for HFH (RR:0.33, CI 95%:0.21 to 0.50; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (RR:0.52 CI 95%:0.34 to 0.80; p = 0.003), and AF occurrence (RR:0.43 CI 95%:0.27 to 0.68; p < 0.001) than RVP. Lead related complications were not different between the two groups (p = 0.780). QRSd was shorter in the LBBAP group at follow-up (WMD: -32.20 msec, CI 95%: -40.70 to -23.71; p < 0.001) and LBBAP achieved better intraventricular mechanical synchrony than RVP (SMD: -1.77, CI 95%: -2.45 to -1.09; p < 0.001). LBBAP had similar pacing thresholds (p = 0.860) and higher R wave amplitudes (p = 0.009) than RVP.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP has better clinical outcomes, preserves ventricular electrical and mechanical synchrony and has excellent pacing parameters, with no difference in complications compared to RVP.

摘要

背景

右心室起搏(RVP)可能对心室功能产生有害影响。左束支区域起搏(LBBAP)是一种新的起搏策略,似乎有更好的效果。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是比较 LBBAP 与 RVP 在缓慢性心律失常和传导系统障碍患者中的安全性和疗效。

方法

在 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 Pubmed 数据库中搜索比较 LBBAP 与 RVP 的研究。结局包括全因死亡率、心房颤动(AF)发生率、心力衰竭住院率(HFH)和并发症。还评估了 QRS 时限、机械同步性和 LVEF 变化。使用随机和固定效应模型进行成对荟萃分析。

结果

纳入了 25 项试验,共 4250 例患者(2127 例 LBBAP)。LBBAP 与 HFH 风险降低相关(RR:0.33,95%CI:0.21 至 0.50;p<0.001)、全因死亡率(RR:0.52,95%CI:0.34 至 0.80;p=0.003)和 AF 发生率(RR:0.43,95%CI:0.27 至 0.68;p<0.001)低于 RVP。两组间与导联相关的并发症无差异(p=0.780)。LBBAP 组在随访时 QRSd 较短(WMD:-32.20ms,95%CI:-40.70 至 -23.71;p<0.001),且 LBBAP 实现了比 RVP 更好的室内机械同步性(SMD:-1.77,95%CI:-2.45 至 -1.09;p<0.001)。LBBAP 的起搏阈值与 RVP 相似(p=0.860),R 波幅度更高(p=0.009)。

结论

与 RVP 相比,LBBAP 具有更好的临床结局,保留心室电和机械同步性,具有出色的起搏参数,且并发症无差异。

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