Suppr超能文献

左束支区域起搏与右心室起搏及双心室起搏后发生心房颤动的风险:一项系统评价和荟萃分析

Risk of Atrial Fibrillation Following Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing and Biventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

作者信息

Liu Bing, Dai Wenlong, Lou Yake, Li Yulin, Wu Yongquan, Du Jie

机构信息

Department of Cardiology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, 100029 Beijing, China.

Department of Cardiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, 400010 Chongqing, China.

出版信息

Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2023 Aug 1;24(8):220. doi: 10.31083/j.rcm2408220. eCollection 2023 Aug.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a relatively novel physiological pacing strategy with better electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters than other pacing strategies. At present, no meta-analysis or systematic review has examined the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) after LBBP compared to other pacing strategies.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception through September 18, 2022 to identify relevant studies reporting AF incidence rates after LBBP. The incidence of AF following LBBP and that associated with other pacing strategies were extracted and summarized for the meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as summary estimates.

RESULTS

Five studies with 1144 participants were included. The pooled rate of AF was 3.7% (95% CI, 0.8%-8.0%) in the LBBP group and 15.5% (95% CI: 9.6%-22.4%) in the other pacing strategies (right ventricular pacing [RVP] and biventricular pacing [BVP]). Compared with other pacing strategies, LBBP was associated with a lower AF risk (OR, 0.33; 95% CI: 0.22-0.51, = 0.0%; = 0.485). Similar results were observed for LBBP when compared with RVP (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.51, = 0.0%, = 0.641) and BVP (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.01-15.22, = 60.4%, = 0.112).

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with BVP and RVP, LBBP was associated with a significantly lower risk of AF. However, further large-sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm that LBBP is superior to other pacing strategies in reducing AF risk.

摘要

背景

左束支起搏(LBBP)是一种相对新颖的生理性起搏策略,与其他起搏策略相比,具有更好的心电图特征和起搏参数。目前,尚无荟萃分析或系统评价比较LBBP与其他起搏策略后房颤(AF)的发生风险。

方法

我们检索了PubMed、Embase和Cochrane图书馆数据库,从数据库建立至2022年9月18日,以识别报告LBBP后房颤发生率的相关研究。提取并汇总LBBP后房颤的发生率以及与其他起搏策略相关的房颤发生率,用于荟萃分析。我们使用比值比(OR)和95%置信区间(CI)作为汇总估计值。

结果

纳入了5项研究,共1144名参与者。LBBP组房颤的合并发生率为3.7%(95%CI,0.8%-8.0%),其他起搏策略(右心室起搏[RVP]和双心室起搏[BVP])组为15.5%(95%CI:9.6%-22.4%)。与其他起搏策略相比,LBBP与较低的房颤风险相关(OR,0.33;95%CI:0.22-0.51,I² = 0.0%,P = 0.485)。与RVP(OR:0.33,95%CI:0.22-0.51,I² = 0.0%,P = 0.641)和BVP(OR:0.47,95%CI:0.01-15.22,I² = 60.4%,P = 0.112)相比,LBBP也观察到类似结果。

结论

与BVP和RVP相比,LBBP与显著更低的房颤风险相关。然而,需要进一步的大样本随机对照试验来证实LBBP在降低房颤风险方面优于其他起搏策略。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/113c/11266765/71bb14f8d754/2153-8174-24-8-220-g1.jpg

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