4.1 Article

Conduction system pacing vs. biventricular pacing in patients with ventricular dysfunction and AV block

期刊

PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY
卷 45, 期 9, 页码 1115-1123

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/pace.14535

关键词

AV block; cardiac resynchronization therapy; His-Purkinje conduction system pacing; left ventricular dysfunction; mitral regurgitation

资金

  1. Grant of the Catalan Society of Cardiology 2019/2020
  2. Research Grant Josep Font 2019, Hospital Clinic Barcelona
  3. Instituto de Salud Carlos III [FIS PI21/00615]
  4. Research Grant Emili Letang - Josep Font 2020, Hospital Clinic Barcelona

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the echocardiographic response and clinical improvement between His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) and biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (BiVCRT) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. The results showed that HPCSP improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and induced a similar response to BiVCRT in patients with LVEF ≤ 45% and atrioventricular block. Additionally, HPCSP significantly improved mitral regurgitation and NYHA functional class.
Background: It is unknown whether His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP), as either His bundle or left bundle branch pacing, could be an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (BiVCRT) for patients with left ventricular dysfunction needing ventricular pacing due to atrioventricular block. The aim of the study is to compare the echocardiographic response and clinical improvement between HPCSP and BiVCRT. Methods: Consecutive patients who successfully received HPCSP were compared with a historical cohort of BiVCRT patients. Patients were 1:1 matched by age, LVEF, atrial fibrillation, renal function and cardiomyopathy type. Responders were defined as patients who survived, did not require heart transplantation and increased LVEF >= 5 points at 6-month follow-up. Results: HPCSP was successfully achieved in 92.5% (25/27) of patients. During followup, 8% (2/25) of HPCSP patients died and 4% (1/25) received a heart transplant, whereas 4% (1/25) of those in the BiVCRT cohort died. LVEF improvement was 10% +/- 8% HPCSP versus 7% +/- 5% BiVCRT (p = .24), and the percentage of responders was 76% (19/25) HPCSP versus 64% (16/25) BiVCRT (p = .33). Among survivors, the percentage of patients who improved from baseline II-IV mitral regurgitation (MR) to 0-I MR was 9/11 (82%) versus 2/8 (25%) (p = .02). Compared to those with BiVCRT, patients with HPCSP achieved better NYHA improvement: 1 point versus 0.5 (OR 0.34; p = .02). Conclusion: HPCSP in patients with LVEF <= 45% and atrioventricular block improved the LVEF and induced a response similar to that of BiVCRT. HPCSP significantly improved MR and NYHA functional class. HPCSP may be an alternative to BiVCRT in these patients. (Figure 1. Central Illustration).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据