Okubo Yousaku, Sakai Takumi, Miyamoto Shogo, Uotani Yukimi, Oguri Naoto, Furutani Motoki, Miyauchi Shunsuke, Okamura Sho, Tokuyama Takehito, Nakano Yukiko
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Hiroshima University Graduate School of Biomedical and Health Sciences, Hiroshima, Japan.
J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2025 Jan;68(1):55-63. doi: 10.1007/s10840-024-01890-z. Epub 2024 Jul 29.
Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) reportedly results in fewer adverse outcomes after implantation than conventional stylet-guided right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), previous studies have not compared LBBAP with accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and accurate RVSP among patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).
This single-center observational study enrolled 160 patients requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB between September 2018 and December 2021. Primary composite outcomes included all-cause death, hospitalization due to heart failure (HF), and upgrading to biventricular pacing. Secondary composite outcomes included any procedural and postprocedural complications.
Overall, 160 patients were analyzed (LBBAP, n = 81; RVSP, n = 79). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The RV pacing burden at 1 year after implantation was 90.8% ± 20.4% and 86.2% ± 22.6%, respectively (p = 0.21). During a mean follow-up of 840 ± 369 days, the incidence of the primary outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (4.9%) compared to RVSP (22.8%) (Log-rank p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the secondary outcome between the two groups (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, baseline QRS duration, RV pacing burden, and LBBAP were independently associated with the primary outcome (baseline QRS duration: hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; RV pacing burden: HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; LBBAP: HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.64; p < 0.001).
In patients requiring frequent RV pacing, LBBAP was associated with reduced adverse clinical outcome compared to accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter.
尽管据报道,与传统的探条引导右心室间隔起搏(RVSP)相比,左束支区域起搏(LBBAP)植入后不良后果更少,但以往研究未将LBBAP与使用输送导管的精准RVSP进行比较。本研究旨在比较房室传导阻滞(AVB)患者中LBBAP与精准RVSP的临床结局。
本单中心观察性研究纳入了2018年9月至2021年12月期间因症状性AVB需要进行RV起搏的160例患者。主要复合结局包括全因死亡、因心力衰竭(HF)住院以及升级为双心室起搏。次要复合结局包括任何手术中和术后并发症。
总体上,对160例患者进行了分析(LBBAP组,n = 81;RVSP组,n = 79)。两组间基线特征未观察到显著差异。植入后1年时的RV起搏负担分别为90.8%±20.4%和86.2%±22.6%(p = 0.21)。在平均840±369天的随访期间,LBBAP组主要结局的发生率(4.9%)显著低于RVSP组(22.8%)(对数秩检验p = 0.02)。两组间次要结局的发生率无显著差异(3.7%对5.1%,p = 0.65)。在多变量分析中,基线QRS时限、RV起搏负担和LBBAP与主要结局独立相关(基线QRS时限:风险比[HR]为1.01;95%置信区间[CI]为1.00 - 1.02;p < 0.001;RV起搏负担:HR为1.01;95% CI为1.00 - 1.02;p < 0.001;LBBAP:HR为0.45;95% CI为0.31 - 0.64;p < 0.001)。
在需要频繁进行RV起搏的患者中,与使用输送导管的精准RVSP相比,LBBAP与不良临床结局减少相关。