Suppr超能文献

左心室短轴缩短率、左心室基底部短轴缩短率与整体缩短率的心室同步性差异:斑点追踪超声心动图研究。

Difference of ventricular synchrony between LBBP, LBFP and LVSP: A speckle tracking echocardiographic study.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Heart Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China.

Department of Ultrasound Medicine, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100020, Beijing, China.

出版信息

J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2024 Apr;67(3):539-547. doi: 10.1007/s10840-023-01620-x. Epub 2023 Aug 14.

Abstract

PURPOSE

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiological and stable form of pacing. We aim to compare the mechanical ventricular synchrony of LBBP, LBFP, and LVSP.

METHODS

Proximal Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), left bundle fascicular pacing (LBFP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were identified in patients with bradycardia who successfully underwent LBBAP. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% or QRS duration (QRSd) ≥ 120 ms were excluded. By using electrocardiograms, the left ventricular activation time (LVAT) and QRS duration (QRSd) were measured to examine electrophysiological synchrony. As indications of mechanical synchrony, global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS), global radial strain (GRS), and peak strain dispersion (PSD) were evaluated by using 2-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE).

RESULTS

In 56 patients, data were collected during LBBP (n = 18), LBFP (n = 16), and LVSP (n = 22). LVSP resulted in a longer LVAT (91.3 ± 14.9 ms) than LBBP (77.1 ± 10.8 ms, P < 0.05) and LBFP (72.1 ± 9.6 ms, P < 0.05), but all three groups had similar QRSd. There were no differences in GLS, GCS, GRS, or PSD between LBBP, LBFP, and LVSP.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with normal cardiac function and narrow QRS, though LBBAP with LBB capture resulted in better electrophysiological synchrony than without, the mechanical synchrony of the three groups was comparable.

摘要

目的

左束支区域起搏(LBBAP)已成为一种生理性和稳定的起搏形式。我们旨在比较 LBBAP、LBFP 和 LVSP 的机械心室同步性。

方法

在成功接受 LBBAP 的心动过缓患者中识别出近端左束支起搏(LBBP)、左束支纤维起搏(LBFP)和左心室间隔起搏(LVSP)。排除左心室射血分数(LVEF)<50%或 QRS 时限(QRSd)≥120ms 的患者。通过心电图测量左心室激活时间(LVAT)和 QRS 时限(QRSd),以检查电生理同步性。通过二维斑点追踪超声心动图(2D-STE)评估整体纵向应变(GLS)、整体圆周应变(GCS)、整体径向应变(GRS)和峰值应变离散度(PSD)作为机械同步性的指标。

结果

在 56 例患者中,收集了 LBBP(n=18)、LBFP(n=16)和 LVSP(n=22)期间的数据。LVSP 导致 LVAT 较长(91.3±14.9ms),明显长于 LBBP(77.1±10.8ms,P<0.05)和 LBFP(72.1±9.6ms,P<0.05),但三组 QRSd 相似。LBBP、LBFP 和 LVSP 之间的 GLS、GCS、GRS 或 PSD 无差异。

结论

在心脏功能正常和 QRS 狭窄的患者中,尽管 LBBAP 伴 LBB 捕获导致电生理同步性优于无 LBB 捕获,但三组的机械同步性相当。

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