JACC. Clinical electrophysiology · 2026
Direct His/LBB Pacing as an Alternative to Biventricular Pacing in Patients With HFrEF and a Typical LBBB: The His-Alternative II Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
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.
Vinther Michael, Philbert Berit Thornvig, Svendsen Jesper Hastrup, Linde Jesper James, Winsløw Ulrik, Saffi Hillah, Frandsen Emil Anton, Zuhair Mohamed, Kaza Nandita, Whinnett Zachary, Keene Daniel, Risum Niels
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with symptomatic heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB) can be achieved with biventricular pacing (BIV-CRT) or conduction system pacing (CSP-CRT).
OBJECTIVES: The present study examined if CSP-CRT was feasible and noninferior to BIV-CRT.
METHODS: A total of 150 patients with symptomatic heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, and LBBB (Strauss criteria) were included. Patients were randomized 1:2 to either BiV-CRT or CSP-CRT (HIS-CRT or LBB-CRT) and followed for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the relative change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). Two patients withdrew their consent before implant.
RESULTS: At implantation, 15 patients (15 %) crossed over from the CSP-CRT group to the BiV-CRT group and 1 patient crossed over from BiV-CRT to the CSP-CRT group. Accordingly, 85 patients (57 %) were treated with CSP-CRT (26 His-CRT, 59 patients LBB-CRT) and 63 patients (43 %) with BiV-CRT. For the primary endpoint, intention-to-treat 6-month follow-up LVESV decreased by 35% ± 22% with CSP-CRT vs 34% ± 22% with BiV-CRT (between-group differences 0.9%, 95% CI: -6.0% to 7.8%; P < 0.01 for noninferiority, P = 0.80 for superiority). Furthermore, LVEF increased by 14% ± 8% with CSP-CRT vs 14% ± 9% with BiV-CRT (P = NS). QRS duration shortening (-31 ± 22 ms vs -31 ± 21 ms), 6-min walking distance increase (37 ± 53 m vs 24 ± 48 m), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score reduction (-16 ± 18 vs -13 ± 15), NYHA functional class improvement (-0.6 ± 0.6 vs -0.6 ± 0.7), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide reductions (-72 ± 152 pmol/l vs -110 ± 116 pmol/l) were similar between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In heart failure patients with LBBB, CSP-CRT was noninferior to BiV-CRT in reducing LVESV and both treatment modalities provided similar and excellent improvements in LVEF, QRS duration, heart failure symptoms, and functional capacity.
OBJECTIVES: The present study examined if CSP-CRT was feasible and noninferior to BIV-CRT.
METHODS: A total of 150 patients with symptomatic heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, and LBBB (Strauss criteria) were included. Patients were randomized 1:2 to either BiV-CRT or CSP-CRT (HIS-CRT or LBB-CRT) and followed for 6 months. The primary endpoint was the relative change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). Two patients withdrew their consent before implant.
RESULTS: At implantation, 15 patients (15 %) crossed over from the CSP-CRT group to the BiV-CRT group and 1 patient crossed over from BiV-CRT to the CSP-CRT group. Accordingly, 85 patients (57 %) were treated with CSP-CRT (26 His-CRT, 59 patients LBB-CRT) and 63 patients (43 %) with BiV-CRT. For the primary endpoint, intention-to-treat 6-month follow-up LVESV decreased by 35% ± 22% with CSP-CRT vs 34% ± 22% with BiV-CRT (between-group differences 0.9%, 95% CI: -6.0% to 7.8%; P < 0.01 for noninferiority, P = 0.80 for superiority). Furthermore, LVEF increased by 14% ± 8% with CSP-CRT vs 14% ± 9% with BiV-CRT (P = NS). QRS duration shortening (-31 ± 22 ms vs -31 ± 21 ms), 6-min walking distance increase (37 ± 53 m vs 24 ± 48 m), Minnesota Living with Heart Failure score reduction (-16 ± 18 vs -13 ± 15), NYHA functional class improvement (-0.6 ± 0.6 vs -0.6 ± 0.7), and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide reductions (-72 ± 152 pmol/l vs -110 ± 116 pmol/l) were similar between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: In heart failure patients with LBBB, CSP-CRT was noninferior to BiV-CRT in reducing LVESV and both treatment modalities provided similar and excellent improvements in LVEF, QRS duration, heart failure symptoms, and functional capacity.