Indian pacing and electrophysiology journal · 2026
Left bundle cardiac resynchronization therapy versus left bundle optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Parale Chinmay, Sukumaran Suresh Kumar, Bootla Dinakar, Sivavignesh K E, Jain Ashish, Balaguru Sridhar, Satheesh Santhosh, Anantharaj Avinash, Ahmed A Shaheer, Selvaraj Raja
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: In patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (LB-CRT), addition of a coronary sinus lead i.e. Left bundle optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) might confer additional benefit.
OBJECTIVES: To compare echocardiographic and clinical characteristics between LB-CRT and LOT-CRT at a 6 month follow up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single center randomized controlled trial included patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% who underwent implantation of an atrial lead, a left bundle lead and a coronary sinus lead. Patients were randomized to LB-CRT or LOT-CRT 48 h after implant and followed-up for 6 months. LVEF, LV end systolic volume (LVESV), NYHA class, 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and response rates were compared between the two pacing modalities.
RESULTS: 26 patients (12 in the LB-CRT group and 14 in the LOT-CRT group) were recruited in the study. The mean QRS duration of the population was 169.8 ± 20.6 ms and the mean LVEF was 21 ± 6.6%. Change in LVEF at 6 months (delta LVEF) in the LB-CRT group (15.7 ± 12.8%) was not significantly different from that in the LOT-CRT group (11.4 ± 14.2%; p = 0.43). Response rate in LB-CRT group (72.7%%), was comparable to that in the LOT-CRT group (71.4%; p = 0.94). LVESV, change in LVESV and 6MWD were also not significantly different between the two modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB, there was no additional benefit with LOT-CRT compared to LB-CRT.
OBJECTIVES: To compare echocardiographic and clinical characteristics between LB-CRT and LOT-CRT at a 6 month follow up.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: This single center randomized controlled trial included patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 35% who underwent implantation of an atrial lead, a left bundle lead and a coronary sinus lead. Patients were randomized to LB-CRT or LOT-CRT 48 h after implant and followed-up for 6 months. LVEF, LV end systolic volume (LVESV), NYHA class, 6-min walk distance (6MWD) and response rates were compared between the two pacing modalities.
RESULTS: 26 patients (12 in the LB-CRT group and 14 in the LOT-CRT group) were recruited in the study. The mean QRS duration of the population was 169.8 ± 20.6 ms and the mean LVEF was 21 ± 6.6%. Change in LVEF at 6 months (delta LVEF) in the LB-CRT group (15.7 ± 12.8%) was not significantly different from that in the LOT-CRT group (11.4 ± 14.2%; p = 0.43). Response rate in LB-CRT group (72.7%%), was comparable to that in the LOT-CRT group (71.4%; p = 0.94). LVESV, change in LVESV and 6MWD were also not significantly different between the two modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: In patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB, there was no additional benefit with LOT-CRT compared to LB-CRT.