Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology · 2020
Feasibility and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing in patients indicated for cardiac resynchronization therapy.
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.
Li Yuqiu, Yan Lirong, Dai Yan, Zhou Yu'an, Sun Qi, Chen Ruohan, Lin Jinxuan, Jin Yuanhao, Chen Feng, Guo Xiaogang, Chen Keping, Zhang Shu
Аннотация
AIMS: The present study was to evaluate the feasibility and clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-indicated patients.
METHODS AND RESULTS: LBBAP was performed via transventricular septal approach in 25 patients as a rescue strategy in 5 patients with failed left ventricular (LV) lead placement and as a primary strategy in the remaining 20 patients. Pacing parameters, procedural characteristics, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were assessed at implantation and follow-up. Of 25 enrolled CRT-indicated patients, 14 had left bundle branch block (LBBB, 56.0%), 3 right bundle branch block (RBBB, 12.0%), 4 intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD, 16.0%), and 4 ventricular pacing dependence (16.0%). The QRS duration (QRSd) was significantly shortened by LBBAP (intrinsic 163.6 ± 29.4 ms vs. LBBAP 123.0 ± 10.8 ms, P < 0.001). During the mean follow-up of 9.1 months, New York Heart Association functional class was improved to 1.4 ± 0.6 from baseline 2.6 ± 0.6 (P < 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased to 46.9 ± 10.2% from baseline 35.2 ± 7.0% (P < 0.001), and LV end-diastolic dimensions (LVEDD) decreased to 56.8 ± 9.7 mm from baseline 64.1 ± 9.9 mm (P < 0.001). There was a significant improvement (34.1 ± 7.4% vs. 50.0 ± 12.2%, P < 0.001) in LVEF in patients with LBBB.
CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates the clinical feasibility of LBBAP in CRT-indicated patients. Left bundle branch area pacing generated narrow QRSd and led to reversal remodelling of LV with improvement in cardiac function. LBBAP may be an alternative to CRT in patients with failure of LV lead placement and a first-line option in selected patients such as those with LBBB and heart failure.
METHODS AND RESULTS: LBBAP was performed via transventricular septal approach in 25 patients as a rescue strategy in 5 patients with failed left ventricular (LV) lead placement and as a primary strategy in the remaining 20 patients. Pacing parameters, procedural characteristics, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were assessed at implantation and follow-up. Of 25 enrolled CRT-indicated patients, 14 had left bundle branch block (LBBB, 56.0%), 3 right bundle branch block (RBBB, 12.0%), 4 intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD, 16.0%), and 4 ventricular pacing dependence (16.0%). The QRS duration (QRSd) was significantly shortened by LBBAP (intrinsic 163.6 ± 29.4 ms vs. LBBAP 123.0 ± 10.8 ms, P < 0.001). During the mean follow-up of 9.1 months, New York Heart Association functional class was improved to 1.4 ± 0.6 from baseline 2.6 ± 0.6 (P < 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased to 46.9 ± 10.2% from baseline 35.2 ± 7.0% (P < 0.001), and LV end-diastolic dimensions (LVEDD) decreased to 56.8 ± 9.7 mm from baseline 64.1 ± 9.9 mm (P < 0.001). There was a significant improvement (34.1 ± 7.4% vs. 50.0 ± 12.2%, P < 0.001) in LVEF in patients with LBBB.
CONCLUSION: The present study demonstrates the clinical feasibility of LBBAP in CRT-indicated patients. Left bundle branch area pacing generated narrow QRSd and led to reversal remodelling of LV with improvement in cardiac function. LBBAP may be an alternative to CRT in patients with failure of LV lead placement and a first-line option in selected patients such as those with LBBB and heart failure.