Heart rhythm · 2024
Relationship of different left bundle branch pacing sites and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Liu Wen, Fulati Zibire, Tian Fangyan, Xu Nuo, Cheng Yufei, Zhao Yingjie, Chen Haiyan, Shu Xianhong
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing modality. However, whether it delivers comparable efficacy with different capture sites in patients with heart failure remains unclear.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the association between different pacing sites and the response of LBBP.
METHODS: Forty-three consecutive patients with heart failure, referred for successful LBBP implantation, were prospectively recruited in this study. Patients were assigned to 3 subgroups according to the paced QRS complex morphology (left bundle branch trunk pacing [LBTP], left posterior fascicular pacing, or left anterior fascicular pacing groups). Echocardiograms and electrocardiograms were recorded and analyzed at baseline and 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: The response rate was 95.0%, 88.2%, and 83.3% in LBTP, left posterior fascicular pacing, and left anterior fascicular pacing groups, respectively. All subgroups were efficient in narrowing the QRS complex (QRS complex narrowing: 38.1 ± 10.8 ms, 36.4 ± 12.6 ms, and 40.8 ± 10.8 ms) and improving cardiac function (LVEF improvement： 25.7% ± 8.1%, 15.3% ± 8.1%, and 18.8% ± 4.4%). Compared with left fascicular pacing, LBTP resulted in longer peak left ventricular activation time (76.5 ± 10.2 ms vs 82.3 ± 6.5 ms; P = .037) and shorter duration from intrinsicoid deflection in V1 or V2 to QRS end (128.0 ± 6.0 ms vs 113.3 ± 5.2 ms; P＜.0001), along with better improvement in septal systolic longitudinal strain (P = .007) and lateral-septal myocardial loading inhomogeneity (P = .036). Linear regression analysis further revealed that left bundle branch capture sites were strongly associated with the improvement in peak strain dispersion (model R2 = 0.586; P = .042) and LVEF (model R2 = 0.425; P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: Different left bundle branch capture sites led to a subtle difference in mechanical synchrony, which may, in turn, affect LVEF improvement in patients with heart failure.
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the association between different pacing sites and the response of LBBP.
METHODS: Forty-three consecutive patients with heart failure, referred for successful LBBP implantation, were prospectively recruited in this study. Patients were assigned to 3 subgroups according to the paced QRS complex morphology (left bundle branch trunk pacing [LBTP], left posterior fascicular pacing, or left anterior fascicular pacing groups). Echocardiograms and electrocardiograms were recorded and analyzed at baseline and 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: The response rate was 95.0%, 88.2%, and 83.3% in LBTP, left posterior fascicular pacing, and left anterior fascicular pacing groups, respectively. All subgroups were efficient in narrowing the QRS complex (QRS complex narrowing: 38.1 ± 10.8 ms, 36.4 ± 12.6 ms, and 40.8 ± 10.8 ms) and improving cardiac function (LVEF improvement： 25.7% ± 8.1%, 15.3% ± 8.1%, and 18.8% ± 4.4%). Compared with left fascicular pacing, LBTP resulted in longer peak left ventricular activation time (76.5 ± 10.2 ms vs 82.3 ± 6.5 ms; P = .037) and shorter duration from intrinsicoid deflection in V1 or V2 to QRS end (128.0 ± 6.0 ms vs 113.3 ± 5.2 ms; P＜.0001), along with better improvement in septal systolic longitudinal strain (P = .007) and lateral-septal myocardial loading inhomogeneity (P = .036). Linear regression analysis further revealed that left bundle branch capture sites were strongly associated with the improvement in peak strain dispersion (model R2 = 0.586; P = .042) and LVEF (model R2 = 0.425; P < .0001).
CONCLUSION: Different left bundle branch capture sites led to a subtle difference in mechanical synchrony, which may, in turn, affect LVEF improvement in patients with heart failure.