Suppr超能文献

传导系统起搏与双心室起搏用于心力衰竭且左心室射血分数轻度降低患者心脏再同步治疗的比较:国际协作性左束支区域起搏研究(I-CLAS)组的结果

Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Results from International Collaborative LBBAP Study (I-CLAS) Group.

作者信息

Vijayaraman Pugazhendhi, Zanon Francesco, Ponnusamy Shunmuga Sundaram, Herweg Bengt, Sharma Parikshit, Molina-Lerma Manuel, Jastrzębski Marek, Whinnett Zachary, Vernooy Kevin, Pathak Rajeev K, Tung Roderick, Upadhyay Gaurav, Curila Karol, Zalavadia Dipen, Shah Nischay, Marcantoni Lina, Gad Mohamed, Morcos Ramez, Moskal Pawel, Naraen Akriti, Mumtaz Mishal, Skeete Jamario R, Katrapati Praneet S, Kolominsky Jeffrey, van Koll Johan, Chelu Mihail G, Ellenbogen Kenneth A, Cano Oscar

机构信息

Geisinger Heart Institute, Wilkes Barre, Pennsylvania.

Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital, Rovigo, Italy.

出版信息

Heart Rhythm. 2024 Sep 27. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.09.030.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a guideline-recommended therapy in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF, 36%-50%) and left bundle branch block or indication for ventricular pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using left bundle branch area pacing or His bundle pacing has been shown to be a safe and physiologic alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP).

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and CSP for patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who underwent BVP or CSP with HFmrEF between January 2018 and June 2023 at 16 international centers were included. The primary outcome was the composite end point of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary end points included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and individual end points of death and HFH.

RESULTS

A total of 1004 patients met inclusion criteria: BVP, 178; CSP, 826 (His bundle pacing, 154; left bundle branch area pacing, 672). Mean age was 73 ± 13 years; female, 34%; and LVEF, 42% ± 5%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower compared with BVP (129 ± 21 ms vs 144 ± 19 ms; P < .001). LVEF improved during follow-up in both groups (49% ± 10% vs 48% ± 10%; P = .32). CSP was independently associated with significant reduction in the primary end point of time to death or HFH compared with BVP (22% vs 34%; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.94; P = .025).

CONCLUSION

CSP was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in this large cohort of patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT. Randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP will be necessary to confirm these results.

摘要

背景

心脏再同步治疗(CRT)是射血分数轻度降低(HFmrEF,36%-50%)且伴有左束支传导阻滞或有心室起搏指征的心力衰竭患者的指南推荐治疗方法。使用左束支区域起搏或希氏束起搏的传导系统起搏(CSP)已被证明是双心室起搏(BVP)的一种安全且符合生理的替代方法。

目的

本研究旨在比较接受CRT的HFmrEF患者中BVP和CSP的临床结局。

方法

纳入2018年1月至2023年6月期间在16个国际中心接受BVP或CSP治疗的连续性HFmrEF患者。主要结局是死亡或心力衰竭住院(HFH)时间的复合终点。次要终点包括左心室射血分数(LVEF)的变化以及死亡和HFH的个体终点。

结果

共有1004例患者符合纳入标准:BVP组178例;CSP组826例(希氏束起搏154例,左束支区域起搏672例)。平均年龄为73±13岁;女性占34%;LVEF为42%±5%。与BVP相比,CSP的起搏QRS时限明显更窄(129±21毫秒对144±19毫秒;P<.001)。两组随访期间LVEF均有所改善(49%±10%对48%±10%;P=.32)。与BVP相比,CSP与死亡或HFH时间的主要终点显著降低独立相关(22%对34%;风险比,0.64;95%置信区间,0.43-0.94;P=.025)。

结论

在这一接受CRT的大量HFmrEF患者队列中,与BVP相比,CSP与改善的临床结局相关。需要进行比较CSP与BVP的随机对照试验来证实这些结果。

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