MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.jacc.2025.06.043

Медицинская библиотека · Journal of the American College of Cardiology · 2025

Clinical Outcomes of Conduction System Pacing vs Right Ventricular Septal Pacing in Atrioventricular Block: The CSPACE Randomized Controlled Trial.

Chow Chee Loong Dominic, Wong Chiew, Sutherland Nigel, Obeyesekere Manoj Niranjan, Wong Geoffrey R, Eastwood Charles M, Abduloska Julie, Davey Christian M, Bhutani Amandeep Singh, Tran Victoria, Asari Fari, Patel Aakaash D, Zahin Muhtasim Rahman, Singh Amarpal Karamjit, Tacey Mark A, van Gaal William J, Vijayaraman Pugazhendhi, Lim Han S, Mohamed Uwais

СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеПеревод в очереди

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

Patients with atrioventricular (AV) block receiving right ventricular (RV) pacing are at risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM), need for upgrade to biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and mortality. Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a promising pacing strategy to mitigate these adverse outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between RV septal pacing (RVsP) and CSP.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed in 202 consecutive patients with pacing indication for AV block without CRT indication, with a 1:1 randomization allocation ratio between RVsP and CSP. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of PICM, upgrade to biventricular CRT, HFH, and all-cause mortality. This trial was registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry.

RESULTS

CSP was successful in 89 of 101 patients (88.1%). After a mean follow-up period of 25.2 ± 11.8 months, CSP was associated with lower composite endpoint (7.17 vs 20.69 events per 100 person-years; HR: 0.35; 95% CI: 0.19-0.64; P < 0.001) primarily driven by lower PICM (CSP 4.58 vs RVsP 14.69 events per 100-person-years; HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.15-0.67; P = 0.002) and need for CRT upgrade (0 vs 1.92 events per 100-person-years; HR: 1.65e-9; 95% CI: 0-∞; P = 0.043). There was no difference in HFH (CSP 0.48 vs RVsP 2.92 events per 100-person years; HR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02-1.37, P = 0.057) or all-cause mortality (CSP 2.86 vs RVsP 4.72 events per 100-person-years; HR: 0.61; 95% CI: 0.22-1.69; P = 0.337). Lead revision occurred more with CSP (8 patients [7.9%] vs 1 patient [1.0%]; P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

This RCT demonstrates the superiority of CSP over RVsP in achieving improved clinical outcomes and supports the indication of CSP as an upfront pacing technique for patients with AV block. (CSPACE: A Randomised Controlled Trial Comparing Right Ventricular Pacing with Conduction System Pacing; ACTRN12619001613190).

Для цитирования: Chow Chee Loong Dominic, Wong Chiew, Sutherland Nigel, Obeyesekere Manoj Niranjan, Wong Geoffrey R, Eastwood Charles M, Abduloska Julie, Davey Christian M, Bhutani Amandeep Singh, Tran Victoria, Asari Fari, Patel Aakaash D, Zahin Muhtasim Rahman, Singh Amarpal Karamjit, Tacey Mark A, van Gaal William J, Vijayaraman Pugazhendhi, Lim Han S, Mohamed Uwais. Clinical Outcomes of Conduction System Pacing vs Right Ventricular Septal Pacing in Atrioventricular Block: The CSPACE Randomized Controlled Trial.. Journal of the American College of Cardiology. 2025. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2025.06.043.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.