Current problems in cardiology · 2024
Comparison of left bundle branch area pacing between patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеОбзорНазвание 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.
Perea-Armijo Jorge, Gutiérrez-Ballesteros Guillermo, Mazuelos-Bellido Francisco, González-Manzanares Rafael, Huelva Jose María, López-Aguilera Jose, Pan Manuel, Segura Saint-Gerons José María
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) seems to be an alternative to coronary sinus pacing in patients with non-ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy (NI-DCM) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). The aim of the study was to compare the response of LBBAP in severe forms of both entities.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study of patients with severe forms of PICM and NI-DCM in NYHA II-IV who underwent LBBAP. Clinical, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic and electrical parameters were analysed and the medium-term prognostic impact was assessed.
RESULTS: Eighty patients were included, 25 with PICM and 55 with NI-DCM. PICM patients were older (PICM 75 [IQR 71-83.5] y.o vs NI-DCM 72 [IQR 60-78.5] y.o;p=0.01) and with longer baseline QRS duration (PICM 180 [IQR 167-194] ms vs NI-DCM 168 [IQR 153-178] ms;p<0.01), with no differences in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or medical treatment. QRS reduction occurred in both groups, being greater in PICM (PICM CI 95% 54±20 ms, p<0.01; NI-DCM CI 95% 40±15 ms;p<0.01). A NT-ProBNP levels reduction and LVEF improvement were observed without differences between groups. At follow-up, there were no differences in admissions for HF (PICM 4.2% vs NI-DCM 11%;p=0.413), cardiac mortality (PICM 14.9% vs NI-DCM 2.9%;p=0.13) and all-cause mortality (PICM 21.7% vs NI-DCM 10.9%;p=0.08).
CONCLUSION: LBBAP is an effective technique with a NT-ProBNP levels reduction and LVEF improvement in both groups without differences. At follow-up, both groups had a low rate of HF readmissions and there was a non-significant trend toward higher total mortality in PICM.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prospective study of patients with severe forms of PICM and NI-DCM in NYHA II-IV who underwent LBBAP. Clinical, electrocardiographic, echocardiographic and electrical parameters were analysed and the medium-term prognostic impact was assessed.
RESULTS: Eighty patients were included, 25 with PICM and 55 with NI-DCM. PICM patients were older (PICM 75 [IQR 71-83.5] y.o vs NI-DCM 72 [IQR 60-78.5] y.o;p=0.01) and with longer baseline QRS duration (PICM 180 [IQR 167-194] ms vs NI-DCM 168 [IQR 153-178] ms;p<0.01), with no differences in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) or medical treatment. QRS reduction occurred in both groups, being greater in PICM (PICM CI 95% 54±20 ms, p<0.01; NI-DCM CI 95% 40±15 ms;p<0.01). A NT-ProBNP levels reduction and LVEF improvement were observed without differences between groups. At follow-up, there were no differences in admissions for HF (PICM 4.2% vs NI-DCM 11%;p=0.413), cardiac mortality (PICM 14.9% vs NI-DCM 2.9%;p=0.13) and all-cause mortality (PICM 21.7% vs NI-DCM 10.9%;p=0.08).
CONCLUSION: LBBAP is an effective technique with a NT-ProBNP levels reduction and LVEF improvement in both groups without differences. At follow-up, both groups had a low rate of HF readmissions and there was a non-significant trend toward higher total mortality in PICM.