Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE · 2021
Left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation requiring ventricular pacing.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Wang Zhao, Zhu Haojie, Li Xiaofei, Yao Yan, Liu Zhimin, Fan Xiaohan
Аннотация
PURPOSE: This study aims to assess whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) can result in favorable clinical and echocardiographic outcomes among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF).
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with PeAF if they required ventricular pacing and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 35%. During the same period, two experienced operators performed LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP). All-cause death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) were routinely followed after procedure. The primary outcome was the composite endpoints of all-cause death or HFH.
RESULTS: LBBAP was successful in 49 of 52 patients (94.2%), whereas 44 patients received RVP. During a mean follow-up of 13.9 ± 7.0 months, LBBAP group presented with higher ventricular pacing percentage (80% vs. 50.9%, p = .04) and narrower paced QRS duration (117.2 ± 18.8 ms vs. 151.8 ± 13.7 ms, p < .001) than RVP group. The primary endpoint was slightly reduced in LBBAP group than RVP without reaching statistical significance (7.7% vs. 11.4%, p = .48). Compared with baseline, we observed significant changes in LVEF (+0.7% vs. -2.2%, p = .007) and left atrial diameter (-1.63 mm vs. +1.23 mm, p = .011) between LBBAP and RVP.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate possible effect of LBBAP on reverse remodeling of left atrium and a trend towards favorable clinical outcomes in patients with PeAF requiring high burden of ventricular pacing when compared with RVP.
METHODS: We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with PeAF if they required ventricular pacing and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 35%. During the same period, two experienced operators performed LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP). All-cause death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) were routinely followed after procedure. The primary outcome was the composite endpoints of all-cause death or HFH.
RESULTS: LBBAP was successful in 49 of 52 patients (94.2%), whereas 44 patients received RVP. During a mean follow-up of 13.9 ± 7.0 months, LBBAP group presented with higher ventricular pacing percentage (80% vs. 50.9%, p = .04) and narrower paced QRS duration (117.2 ± 18.8 ms vs. 151.8 ± 13.7 ms, p < .001) than RVP group. The primary endpoint was slightly reduced in LBBAP group than RVP without reaching statistical significance (7.7% vs. 11.4%, p = .48). Compared with baseline, we observed significant changes in LVEF (+0.7% vs. -2.2%, p = .007) and left atrial diameter (-1.63 mm vs. +1.23 mm, p = .011) between LBBAP and RVP.
CONCLUSION: Our results indicate possible effect of LBBAP on reverse remodeling of left atrium and a trend towards favorable clinical outcomes in patients with PeAF requiring high burden of ventricular pacing when compared with RVP.