MedElevator
Войти в исследования Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2021
Safety and feasibility of conduction system pacing in patients with congenital heart disease.
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.
Cano Óscar, Dandamudi Gopi, Schaller Robert D, Pérez-Roselló Víctor, Ayala Hebert D, Izquierdo Maite, Osca Joaquín, Sancho-Tello María-José, Rueda Joaquín, Ruiz Eladio, Insa Beatriz, Martínez-Dolz Luis, Vijayaraman Pugazhendhi
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an ideal physiologic pacing strategy for patients with permanent pacing indications. We sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of CSP in a consecutive series of unselected patients with congenital heart disease (CHD).
METHODS: Consecutive patients with CHD in which CSP was attempted were included. Safety and feasibility, implant tools and electrical parameters at implant and at follow-up were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included (10 with a previous device). A total of 10 patients had complex forms of CHD, 9 moderate defects and 1 a simple defect. CSP was achieved in 75% of cases (10 His bundle pacing, 5 left bundle branch pacing) with left ventricular septal pacing in the remaining 5 patients. Procedure times and fluoroscopy times were prolongued (126 ± 82 min and 27 ± 30 min, respectively). Ventricular lead implant times widely varied ranging from 4 to 115 min, (mean 31 ± 28 min) and the use of multiple delivery sheaths was frequent (50%). The QRS width was reduced from 145 ± 36 ms at baseline to 116 ± 18 ms with CSP. Implant electrical parameters included: CSP pacing threshold 0.95 ± 0.65 V; R wave amplitude 9.2 ± 8.8 mV and pacing impedance 632 ± 183 Ohms, and remained stable at a median follow-up of 478 days (interquartile range: 225-567). Systemic ventricle systolic function and NYHA class (1.50 ± 0.51 vs. 1.10 ± 0.31; p = .008) significantly improved at follow-up. Lead revision was required in one patient at Day 4.
CONCLUSIONS: Permanent CSP is safe and feasible in patients with CHD although implant technique is complex.
METHODS: Consecutive patients with CHD in which CSP was attempted were included. Safety and feasibility, implant tools and electrical parameters at implant and at follow-up were evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 20 patients were included (10 with a previous device). A total of 10 patients had complex forms of CHD, 9 moderate defects and 1 a simple defect. CSP was achieved in 75% of cases (10 His bundle pacing, 5 left bundle branch pacing) with left ventricular septal pacing in the remaining 5 patients. Procedure times and fluoroscopy times were prolongued (126 ± 82 min and 27 ± 30 min, respectively). Ventricular lead implant times widely varied ranging from 4 to 115 min, (mean 31 ± 28 min) and the use of multiple delivery sheaths was frequent (50%). The QRS width was reduced from 145 ± 36 ms at baseline to 116 ± 18 ms with CSP. Implant electrical parameters included: CSP pacing threshold 0.95 ± 0.65 V; R wave amplitude 9.2 ± 8.8 mV and pacing impedance 632 ± 183 Ohms, and remained stable at a median follow-up of 478 days (interquartile range: 225-567). Systemic ventricle systolic function and NYHA class (1.50 ± 0.51 vs. 1.10 ± 0.31; p = .008) significantly improved at follow-up. Lead revision was required in one patient at Day 4.
CONCLUSIONS: Permanent CSP is safe and feasible in patients with CHD although implant technique is complex.