• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

与右心室流出道间隔部起搏相比,左束支区域起搏可改善依赖起搏的患者的左心房结局。

Left bundle branch area pacing improving the left atrial outcomes in pace-dependent patients compared with right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing.

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Second Hospital of Hebei Medical University, Hebei, China.

出版信息

Clin Cardiol. 2024 Feb;47(2):e24185. doi: 10.1002/clc.24185. Epub 2023 Nov 17.

DOI:10.1002/clc.24185
PMID:37975409
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10823449/
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggested that the left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has a better efficacy to reduce QRS duration and produce a lower pacing threshold than the conventional right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing (RVOP), which resulted in a better cardiac function and ventricular synchronization. However, whether the LBBAP has a better efficacy in improving left atrial structure, function in pace-dependent patients compared with RVOP has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the atrial outcomes of pace-dependent patients who received LBBAP or RVOP procedures.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 72 patients (including II° AVB, high AVB, and III° AVB, excluding atrial fibrillation patients with atrioventricular block) consecutively enrolled in this single-center prospective clinical study and randomly assigned to the RVOP group and the LBBP group with 36 patients. All patients were pace-dependent. The changes in echocardiogram, speckle-tracking echocardiography, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and 6-min walking distance were documented and compared between two groups at baseline, 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after the implantation. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The results of the study were as following: (1) left atrial structure index: Our study indicated that there are no significant differences in left atrial anteroposterior dimension (LAAPD), left atrial superoinferior dimension, and left atrial mediolateral dimension between two groups. While the LAAPD in the LBBAP group was significantly reduced at 6 months after implantation ([38.22 ± 2.17] mm vs. [34.13 ± 1.59] mm, p < .05). (2) Left atrial strain index: We observed that the S% was significantly improved in both groups at 3 and 6 months after implantation but more prominent in the LBBAP group at 6 months (36.94 ± 11.67 vs. 25.87 ± 8.93, p = .01). SRs, SRe were improved in the RVOP group at 6 months after implantation but was further significantly increased in the LBBAP group. Similarly, the SRa in the LBBAP group was significantly better than the RVOP group after 6 months (-2.11 ± 0.75 vs. -2.51 ± 0.70, p = .04). (3) Left atrial ejection index: LAEF% in the LBBAP group was significantly improved compared with the RVOP group (60.02 ± 1.88 vs. 53.65 ± 2.45, p = .047) and baseline (60.02 ± 1.88 vs. 49.68 ± 2.75, p < .05) at 6 months after the surgery. (4) Left ventricular ejection index: The LVEF% in the LBBAP group was significantly increased than the RVOP group after 6 months (69.14 ± 4.99 vs. 64.60 ± 4.84, p = .01) and the BNP level was significantly lower in the LBBAP group compared with the RVOP group at 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after implantation (p < .05). (5) 6-min walking distance: the 6-min walking distance was significantly increased at 3 and 6 months after implantation compared with that before (p < .05) in both groups, but was more prominent in LBBAP groups ([483.03 ± 11.02] m vs. [431.09 ± 10.69] m,p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the traditional RVOP, the LBBAP procedure increased left atrial myocardial stress as well as left atrial ejection in pace-dependent patients at follow-up to 6 months.

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2a32/10823449/796c095e9387/CLC-47-e24185-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2a32/10823449/fd6bf5f3eafa/CLC-47-e24185-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2a32/10823449/796c095e9387/CLC-47-e24185-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2a32/10823449/fd6bf5f3eafa/CLC-47-e24185-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/2a32/10823449/796c095e9387/CLC-47-e24185-g001.jpg
摘要

背景

最近的研究表明,与传统的右心室流出道间隔起搏(RVOP)相比,左束支区域起搏(LBBAP)在减少 QRS 时限和产生更低的起搏阈值方面具有更好的疗效,从而导致更好的心脏功能和心室同步性。然而,在依赖起搏器的患者中,LBBAP 是否在改善左心房结构和功能方面比 RVOP 更有效,尚未得到很好的研究。

目的

本研究旨在比较依赖起搏器的患者接受 LBBAP 或 RVOP 治疗后的心房结局。

方法和结果

本研究共纳入 72 例(包括 II°AVB、高 AVB 和 III°AVB,不包括伴有房室阻滞的心房颤动患者)连续入组的单中心前瞻性临床研究患者,并随机分为 RVOP 组和 LBBP 组,每组 36 例。所有患者均为依赖起搏器的患者。记录并比较两组患者在植入前后的超声心动图、斑点追踪超声心动图、脑利钠肽(BNP)和 6 分钟步行距离的变化。两组患者的基线特征无显著差异。研究结果如下:(1)左心房结构指数:我们的研究表明,两组间左心房前后径(LAAPD)、左心房上下径和左心房内外径无显著差异。而 LBBAP 组在植入后 6 个月时 LAAPD 明显减小[38.22±2.17]mm 比[34.13±1.59]mm,p<0.05]。(2)左心房应变指数:我们观察到两组患者在植入后 3 个月和 6 个月时 S%均显著改善,但 LBBAP 组在 6 个月时更为明显[36.94±11.67 比 25.87±8.93,p=0.01]。SRs、SRe 在 RVOP 组植入后 6 个月时改善,但在 LBBAP 组进一步显著增加。同样,LBBAP 组的 SRa 在 6 个月时也明显优于 RVOP 组[-2.11±0.75 比-2.51±0.70,p=0.04]。(3)左心房射血指数:LBBAP 组的左心房射血分数(LAEF%)与 RVOP 组相比明显改善(60.02±1.88 比 53.65±2.45,p=0.047),与基线相比(60.02±1.88 比 49.68±2.75,p<0.05)在术后 6 个月时明显改善。(4)左心室射血指数:LBBAP 组的左心室射血分数(LVEF%)在植入后 6 个月时明显高于 RVOP 组(69.14±4.99 比 64.60±4.84,p=0.01),植入后 7 天、1 个月、3 个月和 6 个月时 LBBAP 组的 BNP 水平明显低于 RVOP 组(p<0.05)。(5)6 分钟步行距离:两组患者在植入后 3 个月和 6 个月时的 6 分钟步行距离均明显高于植入前(p<0.05),但 LBBAP 组更为显著[(483.03±11.02)m 比(431.09±10.69)m,p<0.05]。

结论

与传统的 RVOP 相比,LBBAP 术式在随访 6 个月时增加了依赖起搏器患者的左心房心肌张力和左心房射血。

相似文献

1
Left bundle branch area pacing improving the left atrial outcomes in pace-dependent patients compared with right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing.与右心室流出道间隔部起搏相比,左束支区域起搏可改善依赖起搏的患者的左心房结局。
Clin Cardiol. 2024 Feb;47(2):e24185. doi: 10.1002/clc.24185. Epub 2023 Nov 17.
2
Comparison of cardiac function between left bundle branch pacing and right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing in the short-term: A registered controlled clinical trial.左束支起搏与右室流出道间隔部起搏短期心功能比较:一项注册对照临床试验。
Int J Cardiol. 2021 Jan 1;322:70-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.08.048. Epub 2020 Aug 27.
3
New-onset atrial high-rate episodes in left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing for patients with atrioventricular block.房室传导阻滞患者左束支区域起搏与右心室起搏的新发心房高频事件。
Kardiol Pol. 2024;82(6):632-639. doi: 10.33963/v.phj.100403. Epub 2024 May 7.
4
Permanent left bundle branch area pacing improves mitral regurgitation and cardiac function in patients with right bundle branch block.永久性左束支区域起搏改善右束支传导阻滞患者的二尖瓣反流和心功能。
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2024 Sep 19;24(1):501. doi: 10.1186/s12872-024-04175-5.
5
Feasibility and safety of both His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing in atrial fibrillation patients: intermediate term follow-up.希氏束起搏和左束支区域起搏在心房颤动患者中的可行性和安全性:中期随访。
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2023 Mar;66(2):271-280. doi: 10.1007/s10840-021-00964-6. Epub 2021 Mar 15.
6
Comparison between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing: ventricular electromechanical synchrony and risk of atrial high-rate episodes.左束支区域起搏与右心室起搏的比较:心室机电同步性及房性快速心律失常事件风险
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2024 Apr 25;11:1267076. doi: 10.3389/fcvm.2024.1267076. eCollection 2024.
7
Cardiac resynchronization therapy by left bundle branch area pacing in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block.左束支区域起搏治疗心力衰竭伴左束支传导阻滞患者的心脏再同步治疗。
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Dec;16(12):1783-1790. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2019.09.006. Epub 2019 Sep 9.
8
Clinical impact of left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and mid-range ejection fraction.左束支区域起搏对射血分数保留和中等射血分数心力衰竭的临床影响。
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2022 Apr;45(4):499-508. doi: 10.1111/pace.14470. Epub 2022 Mar 3.
9
Left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation requiring ventricular pacing.持续性心房颤动需要心室起搏的患者中,左侧束支区域起搏与右侧心室起搏的比较。
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Dec;44(12):2024-2030. doi: 10.1111/pace.14394. Epub 2021 Nov 15.
10
[Comparing the impact of left bundle branch area pacing and traditional left ventricular pacing on right heart function following dual-chamber pacemaker implantation].[比较双腔起搏器植入后左束支区域起搏与传统左心室起搏对右心功能的影响]
Zhonghua Xin Xue Guan Bing Za Zhi. 2024 Feb 24;52(2):180-184. doi: 10.3760/cma.j.cn112148-20230912-00153.

引用本文的文献

1
The Risk of New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Conduction System Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: A Meta-Analysis.传导系统起搏与右心室起搏患者新发心房颤动的风险:一项荟萃分析。
Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2025 Apr 18;26(4):27921. doi: 10.31083/RCM27921. eCollection 2025 Apr.
2
Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Left Atrial Enlargement in Patients Requiring Right Ventricular Pacing: A Retrospective Study of 461 Cases from 2012 to 2020.2012 年至 2020 年 461 例右心室起搏患者左心房扩大的发生率、危险因素和转归:一项回顾性研究。
Med Sci Monit. 2024 May 22;30:e944114. doi: 10.12659/MSM.944114.
3

本文引用的文献

1
Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A New Alternative to Resynchronization Therapy in the 2020 Pacing Armamentarium.左束支起搏:2020年起搏手段中再同步治疗的一种新选择。
JACC Case Rep. 2020 Sep 2;2(14):2225-2229. doi: 10.1016/j.jaccas.2020.07.014. eCollection 2020 Nov 18.
2
Relationship between paced QRS duration and myocardial relaxation of the left ventricle in patients with chronic right ventricular apical pacing.慢性右心室心尖部起搏患者起搏 QRS 时限与左心室心肌弛豫的关系。
J Electrocardiol. 2021 May-Jun;66:54-61. doi: 10.1016/j.jelectrocard.2021.02.012. Epub 2021 Mar 3.
3
Feasibility, safety and outcomes of left bundle branch pacing in octogenarians.
Detailed One-Year Follow-Up in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Echocardiography, Natriuretic Peptide, Electrical Parameters and Complications.
左束支区域起搏的一年详细随访:超声心动图、利钠肽、电参数及并发症
J Clin Med. 2024 Mar 7;13(6):1532. doi: 10.3390/jcm13061532.
八十岁以上老年人行左束支区域起搏的可行性、安全性和临床结果。
Indian Heart J. 2021 Jan-Feb;73(1):117-120. doi: 10.1016/j.ihj.2020.12.017. Epub 2021 Jan 6.
4
Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with atrioventricular block.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。
Clin Cardiol. 2021 Apr;44(4):481-487. doi: 10.1002/clc.23513. Epub 2021 Mar 11.
5
Long-Term Safety and Feasibility of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Large Single-Center Study.大型单中心研究中的左束支起搏的长期安全性和可行性。
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021 Feb;14(2):e009261. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.120.009261. Epub 2021 Jan 9.
6
Comparison of cardiac function between left bundle branch pacing and right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing in the short-term: A registered controlled clinical trial.左束支起搏与右室流出道间隔部起搏短期心功能比较:一项注册对照临床试验。
Int J Cardiol. 2021 Jan 1;322:70-76. doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2020.08.048. Epub 2020 Aug 27.
7
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Using Left Bundle Branch Pacing.左束支区域起搏治疗非缺血性心肌病患者的心脏再同步治疗。
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jul;6(7):849-858. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.04.011.
8
A comparison of left bundle branch pacing with His bundle pacing in a patient with heart failure and left bundle branch block.心力衰竭合并左束支传导阻滞患者左束支起搏与希氏束起搏的比较。
HeartRhythm Case Rep. 2019 Oct 18;6(6):293-296. doi: 10.1016/j.hrcr.2019.10.007. eCollection 2020 Jun.
9
Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Nonrandomized On-Treatment Comparison With His Bundle Pacing and Biventricular Pacing.用于心脏再同步治疗的左束支起搏:与希氏束起搏和双心室起搏的非随机治疗中比较
Can J Cardiol. 2021 Feb;37(2):319-328. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2020.04.037. Epub 2020 May 7.
10
Peri-left bundle branch pacing in a patient with right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and atrioventricular infra-Hisian block.右心室起搏诱发心肌病和希氏束下房室传导阻滞患者的左束支旁起搏
Europace. 2019 Jul 1;21(7):1038. doi: 10.1093/europace/euz031.