Heart rhythm · 2017
Permanent His-bundle pacing: Long-term lead performance and clinical outcomes.
СтатьяМногоцентровое исследованиеНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Vijayaraman Pugazhendhi, Naperkowski Angela, Subzposh Faiz A, Abdelrahman Mohamed, Sharma Parikshit S, Oren Jess W, Dandamudi Gopi, Ellenbogen Kenneth A
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is associated with heart failure and increased mortality. His-bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to RVP.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report long-term performance and compare the clinical outcomes of permanent HBP vs RVP.
METHODS: All patients requiring pacemaker implantation underwent an attempt at permanent HBP in 2011 at one hospital and RVP at the sister hospital. Patients were followed from implantation, 2 weeks, 2 months, and yearly for 5 years. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pacing thresholds, lead revision, and generator change were tracked. Primary outcome was the combined endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) at 5 years.
RESULTS: HBP was attempted in 94 consecutive patients and was successful in 75 (80%); 98 patients underwent RVP. LVEF remained unchanged in the HBP group (55% ± 8% vs 57% ± 6%; P = .13), whereas significant decline was noted in the RVP group (57% ± 7% vs 52% ± 11%; P = .002). Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy was significantly lower in HBP compared to RVP patients (2% vs 22%; P = .04). At 5 years, death or HFH was significantly lower in HBP compared to RVP patients with >40% ventricular pacing (32% vs 53%; hazard ratio 1.9; P = .04). At 5 years, the need for lead revisions (6.7% vs 3%) and for generator change (9% vs 1%) were higher in the HBP group.
CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing pacemaker implantation, permanent HBP was associated with reduction in death or HFH during long-term follow-up compared to RVP. HBP was associated with higher rates of lead revisions and generator change.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to report long-term performance and compare the clinical outcomes of permanent HBP vs RVP.
METHODS: All patients requiring pacemaker implantation underwent an attempt at permanent HBP in 2011 at one hospital and RVP at the sister hospital. Patients were followed from implantation, 2 weeks, 2 months, and yearly for 5 years. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pacing thresholds, lead revision, and generator change were tracked. Primary outcome was the combined endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) at 5 years.
RESULTS: HBP was attempted in 94 consecutive patients and was successful in 75 (80%); 98 patients underwent RVP. LVEF remained unchanged in the HBP group (55% ± 8% vs 57% ± 6%; P = .13), whereas significant decline was noted in the RVP group (57% ± 7% vs 52% ± 11%; P = .002). Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy was significantly lower in HBP compared to RVP patients (2% vs 22%; P = .04). At 5 years, death or HFH was significantly lower in HBP compared to RVP patients with >40% ventricular pacing (32% vs 53%; hazard ratio 1.9; P = .04). At 5 years, the need for lead revisions (6.7% vs 3%) and for generator change (9% vs 1%) were higher in the HBP group.
CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing pacemaker implantation, permanent HBP was associated with reduction in death or HFH during long-term follow-up compared to RVP. HBP was associated with higher rates of lead revisions and generator change.