Batta Akash, Hatwal Juniali
Department of Cardiology, Dayanand Medical College and Hospital, Ludhiana 141001, India.
Department of Internal Medicine, Advanced Cardiac Centre, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research, Chandigarh 160012, India.
World J Cardiol. 2024 Apr 26;16(4):186-190. doi: 10.4330/wjc.v16.i4.186.
The deleterious effects of long-term right ventricular pacing necessitated the search for alternative pacing sites which could prevent or alleviate pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Until recently, biventricular pacing (BiVP) was the only modality which could mitigate or prevent pacing induced dysfunction. Further, BiVP could resynchronize the baseline electromechanical dssynchrony in heart failure and improve outcomes. However, the high non-response rate of around 20%-30% remains a major limitation. This non-response has been largely attributable to the direct non-physiological stimulation of the left ventricular myocardium bypassing the conduction system. To overcome this limitation, the concept of conduction system pacing (CSP) came up. Despite initial success of the first CSP His bundle pacing (HBP), certain drawbacks including lead instability and dislodgements, steep learning curve and rapid battery depletion on many occasions prevented its widespread use for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Subsequently, CSP left bundle branch-area pacing (LBBP) was developed in 2018, which over the last few years has shown efficacy comparable to BiVP-CRT in small observational studies. Further, its safety has also been well established and is largely free of the pitfalls of the HBP-CRT. In the recent metanalysis by Yasmin , comprising of 6 studies with 389 participants, LBBP-CRT was superior to BiVP-CRT in terms of QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac chamber dimensions, lead thresholds, and functional status amongst heart failure patients with left bundle branch block. However, there are important limitations of the study including the small overall numbers, inclusion of only a single small randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a small follow-up duration. Further, the entire study population analyzed was from China which makes generalizability a concern. Despite the concerns, the meta-analysis adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of LBBP-CRT. At this stage, one must acknowledge that the fact that still our opinions on this technique are largely based on observational data and there is a dire need for larger RCTs to ascertain the position of LBBP-CRT in management of heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.
长期右心室起搏的有害影响促使人们寻找能够预防或减轻起搏诱导性心肌病的替代起搏部位。直到最近,双心室起搏(BiVP)仍是唯一能够减轻或预防起搏诱导性功能障碍的方式。此外,BiVP能够使心力衰竭患者的基线机电不同步重新同步,并改善预后。然而,约20%-30%的高无反应率仍然是一个主要限制。这种无反应在很大程度上归因于绕过传导系统对左心室心肌的直接非生理性刺激。为克服这一限制,传导系统起搏(CSP)的概念应运而生。尽管首例CSP——希氏束起搏(HBP)取得了初步成功,但包括导线不稳定和脱位、学习曲线陡峭以及在许多情况下电池快速耗尽等某些缺点,阻碍了其在心脏再同步治疗(CRT)中的广泛应用。随后,2018年开发了CSP——左束支区域起搏(LBBP),在过去几年的小型观察性研究中,其疗效已显示出与BiVP-CRT相当。此外,其安全性也已得到充分证实,并且在很大程度上没有HBP-CRT的缺陷。在Yasmin最近的荟萃分析中,纳入了6项研究共389名参与者,在左束支传导阻滞的心力衰竭患者中,LBBP-CRT在QRS波时限、左心室射血分数、心腔大小、导线阈值和功能状态方面优于BiVP-CRT。然而,该研究存在重要局限性,包括总体数量较少、仅纳入了一项小型随机对照试验(RCT)且随访时间较短。此外,整个分析的研究人群均来自中国,这使得研究结果的普遍性受到关注。尽管存在这些担忧,但该荟萃分析增加了越来越多的证据,证明了LBBP-CRT的疗效。在现阶段,必须承认的是,我们对该技术的看法在很大程度上仍基于观察性数据,迫切需要进行更大规模的RCT来确定LBBP-CRT在左束支传导阻滞心力衰竭患者管理中的地位。