Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.) · 2023
Biventricular versus left ventricular only stimulation: an echocardiographic substudy of the B-LEFT HF trial.
ОбзорСтатьяПоддержка 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.
Ansalone Gerardo, Boriani Giuseppe, Sassone Biagio, Camastra Giovanni, Donal Erwan, Calò Leonardo, Casella Michela, Delarche Nicolas, Lozano Ignacio Fernandez, Biffi Mauro, Boulogne Eric, Guidotto Tiziana, Leclercq Christophe, B-LEFT HF study group
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The noninferiority of left ventricular pacing alone (LVp) compared with biventricular pacing (BIV) has not been yet definitely documented. In this study, we reviewed all the original echocardiographic measures of the Biventricular versus Left Univentricular Pacing with ICD Back-up in Heart Failure Patients (B-LEFT HF) trial in order to investigate mechanisms underlying LV remodelling with both pacing modalities.
METHODS: Patients with New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) III or IV despite optimal medical therapy, LVEF 35% or less, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) more than 55 mm, QRS duration at least 130 ms were randomized to BIV or LVp for 6 months. The primary end point was a composite of at least 1 point decrease in NYHA class and at least 5 mm decrease in left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD). An additional end point was a LVp reverse remodelling defined as at least 10% decrease in LVESD. Mitral regurgitation and all echocardiographic measures were reassessed after 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients were enrolled. Seventy-six patients were in the BIV and 67 were in the LVp group. Left ventricular volumes decreased significantly without difference between groups (P = 0.8447). Similarly, left ventricular diameters decreased significantly in both groups with a significant decrease in LVESD with BIV (P < 0.0001), but not with LVp (P = 0.1383). LVEF improved in both groups without difference (P = 0.8072). Mitral regurgitation did not improve either with BIV, or with LVp.
CONCLUSION: The echocardiographic sub-analysis of B-LEFT study showed the substantial equivalence of LVp in favouring left ventricular reverse remodelling as compared with BIV.
METHODS: Patients with New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA) III or IV despite optimal medical therapy, LVEF 35% or less, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) more than 55 mm, QRS duration at least 130 ms were randomized to BIV or LVp for 6 months. The primary end point was a composite of at least 1 point decrease in NYHA class and at least 5 mm decrease in left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD). An additional end point was a LVp reverse remodelling defined as at least 10% decrease in LVESD. Mitral regurgitation and all echocardiographic measures were reassessed after 6-month follow-up.
RESULTS: One hundred and forty-three patients were enrolled. Seventy-six patients were in the BIV and 67 were in the LVp group. Left ventricular volumes decreased significantly without difference between groups (P = 0.8447). Similarly, left ventricular diameters decreased significantly in both groups with a significant decrease in LVESD with BIV (P < 0.0001), but not with LVp (P = 0.1383). LVEF improved in both groups without difference (P = 0.8072). Mitral regurgitation did not improve either with BIV, or with LVp.
CONCLUSION: The echocardiographic sub-analysis of B-LEFT study showed the substantial equivalence of LVp in favouring left ventricular reverse remodelling as compared with BIV.