Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing · 2022
Conduction system pacing in prosthetic heart valves.
Систематический обзорСтатьяНазвание 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.
Shah Kuldeep, Williamson Brian D, Kutinsky Ilana, Bhardwaj Rahul, Contractor Tahmeed, Turagam Mohit K, Mandapati Ravi, Lakkireddy Dhanunjaya, Garg Jalaj
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in physiologic pacing techniques that directly activate the specialized conduction system. We aimed to assess outcomes of conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients with prosthetic heart valves.
METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation with the random-effect model was used to summarize the data. Outcomes studied were 1) implant success (defined as ability to recruit the His-Purkinje system or the distal Purkinje system); (2) lead parameters at implant and follow-up; and (3) procedure-related complications.
RESULTS: This systematic review of 7 studies included 267 unique patients in whom CSP was attempted with either HBP or LBBAP for pacing indications after a prosthetic valve. HBP was attempted in 38% (n = 108), while LBBAP in 62% (n = 175) patients. The overall success rate of CSP was 87%, while in patients post-TAVR, the overall success rate was 83.2%. In the subgroup analysis, LBBAP had a significant higher overall success rate compared to HBP (94.3% vs. 76.5%, p interaction = 0.02) and post-TAVR patients (94.3 vs. 66.9%, p interaction < 0.01), respectively. The LBBAP thresholds were significantly lower compared to HBP both at implant (0.67 ± 0.4 @ 0.44 ms vs. 1.35 ± 1 @ 0.85 ms, p interaction < 0.01) and at a mean follow-up of 12.4 ± 8 months (0.73 ± 0.1 @ 0.44 ms vs. 1.39 ± 1 @ 0.85 ms, p interaction < 0.01), respectively.
CONCLUSION: CSP is safe and feasible in patients with a prosthetic valve, with a significantly higher success rate and superior lead parameters with LBBAP than HBP, especially in patients post-TAVR.
METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation with the random-effect model was used to summarize the data. Outcomes studied were 1) implant success (defined as ability to recruit the His-Purkinje system or the distal Purkinje system); (2) lead parameters at implant and follow-up; and (3) procedure-related complications.
RESULTS: This systematic review of 7 studies included 267 unique patients in whom CSP was attempted with either HBP or LBBAP for pacing indications after a prosthetic valve. HBP was attempted in 38% (n = 108), while LBBAP in 62% (n = 175) patients. The overall success rate of CSP was 87%, while in patients post-TAVR, the overall success rate was 83.2%. In the subgroup analysis, LBBAP had a significant higher overall success rate compared to HBP (94.3% vs. 76.5%, p interaction = 0.02) and post-TAVR patients (94.3 vs. 66.9%, p interaction < 0.01), respectively. The LBBAP thresholds were significantly lower compared to HBP both at implant (0.67 ± 0.4 @ 0.44 ms vs. 1.35 ± 1 @ 0.85 ms, p interaction < 0.01) and at a mean follow-up of 12.4 ± 8 months (0.73 ± 0.1 @ 0.44 ms vs. 1.39 ± 1 @ 0.85 ms, p interaction < 0.01), respectively.
CONCLUSION: CSP is safe and feasible in patients with a prosthetic valve, with a significantly higher success rate and superior lead parameters with LBBAP than HBP, especially in patients post-TAVR.