Annals of noninvasive electrocardiology : the official journal of the International Society for Holter and Noninvasive Electrocardiology, Inc · 2022
Acute echocardiographic and hemodynamic response to his-bundle pacing in patients with first-degree atrioventricular 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.
Loring Zak, Holmqvist Fredrik, Sze Edward, Alenezi Fawaz, Campbell Kristen, Koontz Jason I, Velazquez Eric J, Atwater Brett D, Bahnson Tristram D, Daubert James P
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Atrial pacing and right ventricular (RV) pacing are both associated with adverse outcomes among patients with first-degree atrioventricular block (1°AVB). His-bundle pacing (HBP) provides physiological activation of the ventricle and may be able to improve both atrioventricular (AV) and inter-ventricular synchrony in 1°AVB patients. This study evaluates the acute echocardiographic and hemodynamic effects of atrial, atrial-His-bundle sequential (AH), and atrial-ventricular (AV) sequential pacing in 1°AVB patients.
METHODS: Patients with 1°AVB undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation were included. Following left atrial (LA) catheterization, patients underwent atrial, AH- and AV-sequential pacing. LA/left ventricular (LV) pressure and echocardiographic measurements during the pacing protocols were compared.
RESULTS: Thirteen patients with 1°AVB (mean PR 221 ± 26 ms) were included. The PR interval was prolonged with atrial pacing compared to baseline (275 ± 73 ms, p = .005). LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was highest during atrial pacing (62 ± 11%), intermediate with AH-sequential pacing (59 ± 7%), and lowest with AV-sequential pacing (57 ± 12%) though these differences were not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in LA or LV mean pressures or LV dP/dT. LA and LV volumes, isovolumetric times, electromechanical delays, and global longitudinal strains were similar across pacing protocols.
CONCLUSION: Despite pronounced PR prolongation, the acute effects of atrial pacing were not significantly different than AH- or AV-sequential pacing. Normalizing atrioventricular and/or inter-ventricular dyssynchrony did not result in acute improvements in cardiac output or loading conditions.
METHODS: Patients with 1°AVB undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation were included. Following left atrial (LA) catheterization, patients underwent atrial, AH- and AV-sequential pacing. LA/left ventricular (LV) pressure and echocardiographic measurements during the pacing protocols were compared.
RESULTS: Thirteen patients with 1°AVB (mean PR 221 ± 26 ms) were included. The PR interval was prolonged with atrial pacing compared to baseline (275 ± 73 ms, p = .005). LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was highest during atrial pacing (62 ± 11%), intermediate with AH-sequential pacing (59 ± 7%), and lowest with AV-sequential pacing (57 ± 12%) though these differences were not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in LA or LV mean pressures or LV dP/dT. LA and LV volumes, isovolumetric times, electromechanical delays, and global longitudinal strains were similar across pacing protocols.
CONCLUSION: Despite pronounced PR prolongation, the acute effects of atrial pacing were not significantly different than AH- or AV-sequential pacing. Normalizing atrioventricular and/or inter-ventricular dyssynchrony did not result in acute improvements in cardiac output or loading conditions.