Zhang Donghui, Zhao Qi, Hou Shenglong, Qu Chao, Zhang Ruoxi, Gao Yanhui, Yang Ou, Xian Huimin
Department of Cardiology, Second Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150007, China.
Department of Cardiology, First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University, Harbin, 150086, China.
BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2025 Mar 20;25(1):202. doi: 10.1186/s12872-025-04643-6.
To assess and compare the clinical outcomes of His bundle pacing (HBP) versus right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients who develop conduction disturbances following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR).
In this retrospective study, 120 patients who developed CD following TAVR were enrolled, and were implanted with HBP or RVP between January 2015 and December 2024. To adjust for variations in initial risk factors and baseline characteristics between patients who underwent HBP or RVP, we employed the propensity score matching. Each patient was matched in a 1:1 ratio with replacement. Patients who either received HBP or RVP, but could not be adequately matched, were excluded from the study population. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared among different modalities at pacing implantation and12-month follow-up.
Paced QRS duration, R-wave amplitude at implantation and at follow-up, impedance at follow-up were lower in HBP group compared to RVP group. At12-month follow-up, the decrease in pacing burden was significantly greater in the HBP group than in the RVP group. Pacing threshold at implantation and at follow-up and capture threshold at implantation and at follow-up were higher in HBP group compared to RVP group. During follow-up, the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) area in the HBP group showed a significant improvement compared to preoperative values, while no significant increase in LVEF was observed in the RVP group, with a clear statistical difference between the two groups. At 12-month follow-up, NT-proBNP levels in the HBP group were significantly lower than those in the RVP group. The rates of NYHA functional class II were higher, while the rates of NYHA functional class III and MACE were lower in the HBP group compared to the RVP group during follow-up.
HBP was feasible and safe in patients after TAVR, demonstrating a reduction in the composite outcome of MACE and better cardiac function compared to RVP.
评估和比较经导管主动脉瓣置换术(TAVR)后发生传导障碍的患者中希氏束起搏(HBP)与右心室起搏(RVP)的临床结局。
在这项回顾性研究中,纳入了120例TAVR后发生传导障碍的患者,这些患者于2015年1月至2024年12月期间植入了HBP或RVP。为了调整接受HBP或RVP的患者之间初始危险因素和基线特征的差异,我们采用了倾向评分匹配法。每位患者按1:1比例进行匹配替换。接受HBP或RVP但无法充分匹配的患者被排除在研究人群之外。比较了起搏植入时和12个月随访时不同起搏方式的手术和临床结局。
与RVP组相比,HBP组的起搏QRS时限、植入时和随访时的R波振幅、随访时的阻抗较低。在12个月随访时,HBP组起搏负担的降低明显大于RVP组。与RVP组相比,HBP组植入时和随访时的起搏阈值以及植入时和随访时的夺获阈值较高。在随访期间,HBP组的左心室射血分数(LVEF)和三尖瓣反流(TR)面积与术前值相比有显著改善,而RVP组未观察到LVEF有显著增加,两组之间存在明显的统计学差异。在12个月随访时,HBP组的NT-proBNP水平显著低于RVP组。随访期间,与RVP组相比,HBP组纽约心脏协会(NYHA)功能分级II级的发生率较高,而NYHA功能分级III级和主要不良心血管事件(MACE)的发生率较低。
HBP在TAVR术后患者中可行且安全,与RVP相比,可降低MACE复合结局并改善心功能。