Heart rhythm · 2023
Outcomes of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure: A multicenter experience.
Многоцентровое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка NIH: внешняя программаНазвание 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.
Ezzeddine Fatima M, Pistiolis Serafim M, Pujol-Lopez Margarida, Lavelle Michael, Wan Elaine Y, Patton Kristen K, Robinson Melissa, Lador Adi, Tamirisa Kamala, Karim Saima, Linde Cecilia, Parkash Ratika, Birgersdotter-Green Ulrika, Russo Andrea M, Chung Mina, Cha Yong-Mei
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Whether conduction system pacing (CSP) is an alternative option for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure remains an area of active investigation.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of CSP compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP).
METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients who fulfilled CRT indications and received CSP. Patients with CSP were matched using propensity score matching and compared in a 1:1 ratio to patients who received BiVP. Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Response to CRT was defined as an absolute increase of ≥5% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months post-CRT.
RESULTS: A total of 238 patients were included. Mean age was 69.8 ± 12.5 years, and 66 (27.7%) were female. Sixty-nine patients (29%) had His-bundle pacing, 50 (21%) had left bundle branch area pacing, and 119 (50%) had BiVP. Mean follow-up duration in the CSP and BiVP groups was 269 ± 202 days and 304 ± 262 days, respectively (P = .293). The proportion of CRT responders was greater in the CSP group than in the BiVP group (74% vs 60%, respectively; P = .042). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the time to first heart failure hospitalization (log-rank P = .78) and overall survival (log-rank P = .68) between the CSP and BiVP groups.
CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, CSP resulted in greater improvement in LVEF compared to BiVP. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these outcomes and further investigate the different options available for CSP.
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of CSP compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP).
METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients who fulfilled CRT indications and received CSP. Patients with CSP were matched using propensity score matching and compared in a 1:1 ratio to patients who received BiVP. Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Response to CRT was defined as an absolute increase of ≥5% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months post-CRT.
RESULTS: A total of 238 patients were included. Mean age was 69.8 ± 12.5 years, and 66 (27.7%) were female. Sixty-nine patients (29%) had His-bundle pacing, 50 (21%) had left bundle branch area pacing, and 119 (50%) had BiVP. Mean follow-up duration in the CSP and BiVP groups was 269 ± 202 days and 304 ± 262 days, respectively (P = .293). The proportion of CRT responders was greater in the CSP group than in the BiVP group (74% vs 60%, respectively; P = .042). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the time to first heart failure hospitalization (log-rank P = .78) and overall survival (log-rank P = .68) between the CSP and BiVP groups.
CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, CSP resulted in greater improvement in LVEF compared to BiVP. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these outcomes and further investigate the different options available for CSP.