Department of Cardiology, National University Heart Centre, 5 Lower Kent Ridge Road, Singapore, 119074, Singapore.
Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Sci Rep. 2024 Aug 13;14(1):18755. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-69388-2.
The impact of age (≥ 85 vs < 85 years) on clinical outcomes and pacemaker performance of conduction system pacing (CSP) compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP) were examined. Consecutive patients from a prospective, observational, multicenter study with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia were studied. The primary endpoint was a composite of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations, pacing-induced cardiomyopathy requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy or all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were acutely successful CSP, absence of pacing-complications, optimal pacemaker performance defined as pacing thresholds < 2.5 V, R-wave amplitude ≥ 5 V and absence of complications, threshold stability (no increases of > 1 V) and persistence of His-Purkinje capture on follow-up. Among 984 patients (age 74.1 ± 11.2 years, 41% CSP, 16% ≥ 85 years), CSP was independently associated with reduced hazard of the primary endpoint compared to RVP, regardless of age-group (< 85 years: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.98; ≥ 85 years: AHR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.94). Among patients with CSP, age did not significantly impact the secondary endpoints of acute CSP success (86% vs 88%), pacing complications (19% vs 11%), optimal pacemaker performance (64% vs 69%), threshold stability (96% vs 96%) and persistent His-Purkinje capture (86% vs 91%) on follow-up (all p > 0.05). CSP improves clinical outcomes in all age-groups, without compromising procedural safety or pacemaker performance in the very elderly.
研究了年龄(≥85 岁与<85 岁)对传导系统起搏(CSP)与右心室起搏(RVP)相比的临床结果和起搏器性能的影响。对一项前瞻性、观察性、多中心研究中因心动过缓植入起搏器的连续患者进行了研究。主要终点是心力衰竭(HF)-住院、需要心脏再同步治疗的起搏诱导心肌病或全因死亡率的复合终点。次要终点是急性成功的 CSP、无起搏并发症、定义为起搏阈值<2.5V、R 波振幅≥5V 且无并发症、阈值稳定性(无增加>1V)和在随访中保持希氏-浦肯野传导。在 984 例患者(年龄 74.1±11.2 岁,41%为 CSP,16%≥85 岁)中,与 RVP 相比,CSP 与降低主要终点的风险独立相关,而与年龄组无关(<85 岁:调整后的危险比[HR]0.63,95%置信区间[CI]0.40-0.98;≥85 岁:HR 0.40,95%CI 0.17-0.94)。在接受 CSP 的患者中,年龄对急性 CSP 成功(86%比 88%)、起搏并发症(19%比 11%)、最佳起搏器性能(64%比 69%)、阈值稳定性(96%比 96%)和随访中持续希氏-浦肯野传导(86%比 91%)的次要终点没有显著影响(所有 p>0.05)。CSP 改善了所有年龄组的临床结果,同时在高龄患者中不影响程序安全性或起搏器性能。