Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2025
Incidence and Predictors of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Paced Patients Undergoing Attempted Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hayashi Katsuhide, Paul Aritra, Chung Roy, Nakhla Shady, Tabaja Chadi, Martin David O, Callahan Thomas, Baranowki Bryan, Kanj Mohamed, Taigen Tyler, Varma Niraj, Wazni Oussama, Rickard John
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The incidence and predictors of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients undergoing attempted left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are unknown.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence and predictors of PICM in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and atrioventricular block (AVB) undergoing attempted LBBAP.
METHODS: The study cohort included consecutive patients undergoing an attempt at LBBAP at the Cleveland Clinic from 2018 until 2022 with preserved LVEF and AVB. PICM was defined as post-PM LVEF decrease to < 50% and > 5%, > 10% decrease from pre-PM implantation. Patients who had alternative reasons for a decrease in LVEF during follow-up were excluded. LBBAP was defined as meeting common criteria for LBBAP and the incidence of PICM was evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included. PICM developed in 13/173 (7.5%) of patients at 26 (IQR 7-70) weeks after PM implantation. In total, 12 (6.9%) patients experienced LVEF > 10% decrease. Of 173 patients, 118 (68.2%) patients met criteria for LBBAP. The LBBAP group had a significantly lower incidence of PICM compared with the non-LBBAP group (log rank p = 0.048). The optimal V6RWPT for predicting PICM was 80 ms and the incidence of PICM increased in proportion to the increase in V6RWPT. In multivariate analysis, non-LBBA capture (HR: 5.58, 95% CI: 1.46-24.32; p = 0.01) and LVEF at pre-PM implant per 10% (HR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02-0.40; p = 0.0003) were independent predictors for the development of PICM.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of PICM with LBBAP in paced patients undergoing PM implant with AVB and preserved LVEF is low. LBBA capture was associated with freedom from PICM.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the incidence and predictors of PICM in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and atrioventricular block (AVB) undergoing attempted LBBAP.
METHODS: The study cohort included consecutive patients undergoing an attempt at LBBAP at the Cleveland Clinic from 2018 until 2022 with preserved LVEF and AVB. PICM was defined as post-PM LVEF decrease to < 50% and > 5%, > 10% decrease from pre-PM implantation. Patients who had alternative reasons for a decrease in LVEF during follow-up were excluded. LBBAP was defined as meeting common criteria for LBBAP and the incidence of PICM was evaluated.
RESULTS: A total of 173 patients were included. PICM developed in 13/173 (7.5%) of patients at 26 (IQR 7-70) weeks after PM implantation. In total, 12 (6.9%) patients experienced LVEF > 10% decrease. Of 173 patients, 118 (68.2%) patients met criteria for LBBAP. The LBBAP group had a significantly lower incidence of PICM compared with the non-LBBAP group (log rank p = 0.048). The optimal V6RWPT for predicting PICM was 80 ms and the incidence of PICM increased in proportion to the increase in V6RWPT. In multivariate analysis, non-LBBA capture (HR: 5.58, 95% CI: 1.46-24.32; p = 0.01) and LVEF at pre-PM implant per 10% (HR: 0.11, 95% CI: 0.02-0.40; p = 0.0003) were independent predictors for the development of PICM.
CONCLUSION: The incidence of PICM with LBBAP in paced patients undergoing PM implant with AVB and preserved LVEF is low. LBBA capture was associated with freedom from PICM.