Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology · 2023
Conduction system versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with non-left bundle branch block.
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.
Tan Eugene S J, Soh Rodney, Lee Jie-Ying, Boey Elaine, de Leon Jhobeleen, Chan Siew Pang, Yeo Wee Tiong, Lim Toon Wei, Seow Swee-Chong, Kojodjojo Pipin
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiV) is significantly lower when applied to heart failure (HF) patients with non-left bundle branch block (LBBB) conduction delay. We investigated clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing (CSP) for CRT in non-LBBB HF.
METHODS: Consecutive HF patients with non-LBBB conduction delay undergoing CSP were propensity matched for age, sex, HF-etiology, and atrial fibrillation (AF) in a 1:1 ratio to BiV from a prospective registry of CRT recipients. Echocardiographic response was defined as an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by ≥10%. The primary outcome was the composite of HF-hospitalizations or all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were recruited (mean age 70 ± 11years, 22% female, 68% ischemic HF and 49% AF). Significant reductions in QRS duration and LV dimensions were seen only after CSP, while LVEF improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.05). Echocardiographic response occurred more frequently in CSP than BiV (51% vs. 21%, p < 0.01), with CSP independently associated with four-fold increased odds (adjusted odds ratio 4.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-12.41). The primary outcome occurred more frequently in BiV than CSP (69% vs. 27%, p < 0.001), with CSP independently associated with 58% risk reduction (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.84, p = 0.01), driven by reduced all-cause mortality (AHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.68, p < 0.01), and a trend toward reduced HF-hospitalization (AHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.21-1.21, p = 0.12).
CONCLUSIONS: CSP provided greater electrical synchrony, reverse remodeling, improved cardiac function and survival compared to BiV in non-LBBB, and may be the preferred CRT strategy for non-LBBB HF.
METHODS: Consecutive HF patients with non-LBBB conduction delay undergoing CSP were propensity matched for age, sex, HF-etiology, and atrial fibrillation (AF) in a 1:1 ratio to BiV from a prospective registry of CRT recipients. Echocardiographic response was defined as an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by ≥10%. The primary outcome was the composite of HF-hospitalizations or all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were recruited (mean age 70 ± 11years, 22% female, 68% ischemic HF and 49% AF). Significant reductions in QRS duration and LV dimensions were seen only after CSP, while LVEF improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.05). Echocardiographic response occurred more frequently in CSP than BiV (51% vs. 21%, p < 0.01), with CSP independently associated with four-fold increased odds (adjusted odds ratio 4.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-12.41). The primary outcome occurred more frequently in BiV than CSP (69% vs. 27%, p < 0.001), with CSP independently associated with 58% risk reduction (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.84, p = 0.01), driven by reduced all-cause mortality (AHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.68, p < 0.01), and a trend toward reduced HF-hospitalization (AHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.21-1.21, p = 0.12).
CONCLUSIONS: CSP provided greater electrical synchrony, reverse remodeling, improved cardiac function and survival compared to BiV in non-LBBB, and may be the preferred CRT strategy for non-LBBB HF.