Yang Po-Wei, Chen Uei, Wu Po-Jui, Chong Shaur-Zheng, Fang Yen-Nan, Chen Yung-Lung, Chen Mien-Cheng, Chen Huang-Chung
Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, College of Medicine, Chang Gung University, 123, Dapi Road, Niao-Sung District, Kaohsiung City 833, Taiwan.
J Clin Med. 2025 Jul 24;14(15):5256. doi: 10.3390/jcm14155256.
: Long-term right ventricular pacing (RVP) can cause electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony, resulting in adverse outcomes. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiological pacing modality and is considered a promising alternative. To date, the long-term outcomes of LBBAP compared with RVP, particularly with respect to sex differences, remain unclear. : Between January 2017 and July 2024, 1211 patients who underwent de novo pacemaker implantation were enrolled and categorized into RVP ( = 789) and LBBAP ( = 422). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to minimize the selection bias and achieve comparability among the study population. A post hoc power analysis based on the observed effect size and sample size showed a power of 80%, confirming sufficient sensitivity to detect group differences. : After PSM, 764 patients were analyzed. The mean age of the patients was 74.6 ± 10.5 years in RVP and 74.5 ± 9.8 years in LBBAP, respectively, and 52.3% patients were male. Patients with LBBAP had a lower incidence of the primary outcome (8.6% vs. 24.6%, < 0.001), HFH (2.6% vs. 13.6%, < 0.001), and all-cause mortality (6.5% vs. 13.9%, < 0.001) compared with RVP. There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes, including the primary outcome, HFH and all-cause mortality, between the sexes in the group with either RVP or LBBAP. However, during a 2-year follow-up period for survival analysis, male patients with LBBAP had a significant lower incidence of all the endpoints, whereas female patients with LBBAP had a lower incidence of HFH [HR 0.14 (95% CI 0.06-0.32), = 0.001] compared with those with RVP. : Regardless of sex, patients with LBBAP had a lower risk of poor clinical outcomes, including HFH and all-cause mortality, compared to those with RVP. Moreover, compared with RVP, LBBAP decreased the risks of all the major endpoints in male patients and the risk of HFH particularly in female patients. Further research is needed to establish the sex-specific responses to LBBAP.
长期右心室起搏(RVP)可导致电和机械不同步,从而产生不良后果。最近,左束支区域起搏(LBBAP)已成为一种生理性起搏方式,并被认为是一种有前景的替代方法。迄今为止,与RVP相比,LBBAP的长期结局,尤其是关于性别差异,仍不明确。
在2017年1月至2024年7月期间,纳入1211例接受初次起搏器植入的患者,并将其分为RVP组(n = 789)和LBBAP组(n = 422)。主要结局是全因死亡率、心力衰竭住院(HFH)和起搏诱导的心肌病(PICM)的复合结局。采用倾向得分匹配(PSM)以最小化选择偏倚并使研究人群具有可比性。基于观察到的效应大小和样本量进行的事后功效分析显示功效为80%,证实有足够的敏感性来检测组间差异。
经过PSM后,对764例患者进行了分析。RVP组患者的平均年龄为74.6±10.5岁,LBBAP组为74.5±9.8岁,男性患者占52.3%。与RVP相比,LBBAP组患者的主要结局发生率较低(8.6%对24.6%,P<0.001),HFH发生率较低(2.6%对13.6%,P<0.001),全因死亡率较低(6.5%对13.9%,P<0.001)。在RVP组或LBBAP组中,性别之间在包括主要结局、HFH和全因死亡率在内的临床结局方面没有显著差异。然而,在为期2年的生存分析随访期间,与RVP组相比,LBBAP组男性患者所有终点的发生率显著较低,而LBBAP组女性患者的HFH发生率较低[风险比0.14(95%置信区间0.06 - 0.32),P = 0.001]。
无论性别如何,与RVP组患者相比,LBBAP组患者出现包括HFH和全因死亡率在内的不良临床结局的风险较低。此外,与RVP相比,LBBAP降低了男性患者所有主要终点的风险,尤其降低了女性患者的HFH风险。需要进一步研究以确定对LBBAP的性别特异性反应。