Zhongxiu Chen, Yuanning Xu, Lingyun Jiang, Ran Zhang, Hongsen Zhao, Ran Liu, Lei Zhang, Yajiao Li, Xingbin Liu
{"title":"房室传导阻滞患者左束分支区起搏与右心室起搏:一项观察性队列研究。","authors":"Zhongxiu Chen, Yuanning Xu, Lingyun Jiang, Ran Zhang, Hongsen Zhao, Ran Liu, Lei Zhang, Yajiao Li, Xingbin Liu","doi":"10.1155/2023/6659048","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective We aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) regimens for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Methods This observational cohort study included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for AVB indications from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, lead failure, or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). The secondary outcome included periprocedure complication, cardiac death, or recurrent unexplained syncope. A 1 : 1 propensity score–matched cohort was conducted for left ventricular (LV) function analysis. Results A total of 903 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed clinical follow-up. After adjusting for the possible confounders, LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009), including a lower risk of all-cause mortality and HFH. No significant difference in the secondary outcome was detected between the groups except that LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of recurrent unexplained syncope. In the propensity-score matching cohort of echocardiographic analysis, the LV systolic dyssynchrony index was lower in LBBAP compared with that in RVP (5.68 ± 1.92 vs. 6.50 ± 2.28%, p = 0.012). Conclusions Compared to conventional RVP, LBBAP is a feasible novel pacing model associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome. Moreover, LBBAP significantly reduces the risk of recurrent unexplained syncope and improves LV systolic synchrony. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05722379.","PeriodicalId":9582,"journal":{"name":"Cardiovascular Therapeutics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462439/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with Atrioventricular Block: An Observational Cohort Study.\",\"authors\":\"Zhongxiu Chen, Yuanning Xu, Lingyun Jiang, Ran Zhang, Hongsen Zhao, Ran Liu, Lei Zhang, Yajiao Li, Xingbin Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1155/2023/6659048\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective We aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) regimens for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Methods This observational cohort study included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for AVB indications from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, lead failure, or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). The secondary outcome included periprocedure complication, cardiac death, or recurrent unexplained syncope. A 1 : 1 propensity score–matched cohort was conducted for left ventricular (LV) function analysis. Results A total of 903 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed clinical follow-up. After adjusting for the possible confounders, LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009), including a lower risk of all-cause mortality and HFH. No significant difference in the secondary outcome was detected between the groups except that LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of recurrent unexplained syncope. In the propensity-score matching cohort of echocardiographic analysis, the LV systolic dyssynchrony index was lower in LBBAP compared with that in RVP (5.68 ± 1.92 vs. 6.50 ± 2.28%, p = 0.012). Conclusions Compared to conventional RVP, LBBAP is a feasible novel pacing model associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome. Moreover, LBBAP significantly reduces the risk of recurrent unexplained syncope and improves LV systolic synchrony. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05722379.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9582,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cardiovascular Therapeutics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10462439/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cardiovascular Therapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6659048\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cardiovascular Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1155/2023/6659048","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:比较左束分支区起搏(LBBAP)和右心室起搏(RVP)治疗房室传导阻滞(AVB)患者的安全性和有效性。方法:本观察性队列研究纳入2018年1月1日至2021年11月18日在华西医院接受LBBAP或RVP起搏器植入治疗AVB指征的患者。主要综合结局包括全因死亡率、导联衰竭或心力衰竭住院(HFH)。次要结局包括围手术期并发症、心源性死亡或复发性不明原因晕厥。采用1:1倾向评分匹配队列进行左室功能分析。结果:903例患者符合纳入标准,完成临床随访。在调整了可能的混杂因素后,LBBAP与主要结局的较低风险独立相关(OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28至0.83,p = 0.009),包括全因死亡率和HFH的较低风险。除了LBBAP与复发不明原因晕厥的风险较低独立相关外,两组间的次要结局无显著差异。在超声心动图分析的倾向评分匹配队列中,LBBAP组左室收缩非同步化指数低于RVP组(5.68±1.92∶6.50±2.28%,p = 0.012)。结论:与常规RVP相比,LBBAP是一种可行的新型起搏模型,其主要综合预后显著降低。此外,LBBAP可显著降低复发不明原因晕厥的风险,改善左室收缩同步。该研究已在ClinicalTrials.gov注册NCT05722379。
Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with Atrioventricular Block: An Observational Cohort Study.
Objective We aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) regimens for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Methods This observational cohort study included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for AVB indications from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, lead failure, or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). The secondary outcome included periprocedure complication, cardiac death, or recurrent unexplained syncope. A 1 : 1 propensity score–matched cohort was conducted for left ventricular (LV) function analysis. Results A total of 903 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed clinical follow-up. After adjusting for the possible confounders, LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009), including a lower risk of all-cause mortality and HFH. No significant difference in the secondary outcome was detected between the groups except that LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of recurrent unexplained syncope. In the propensity-score matching cohort of echocardiographic analysis, the LV systolic dyssynchrony index was lower in LBBAP compared with that in RVP (5.68 ± 1.92 vs. 6.50 ± 2.28%, p = 0.012). Conclusions Compared to conventional RVP, LBBAP is a feasible novel pacing model associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome. Moreover, LBBAP significantly reduces the risk of recurrent unexplained syncope and improves LV systolic synchrony. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05722379.
期刊介绍:
Cardiovascular Therapeutics (formerly Cardiovascular Drug Reviews) is a peer-reviewed, Open Access journal that publishes original research and review articles focusing on cardiovascular and clinical pharmacology, as well as clinical trials of new cardiovascular therapies. Articles on translational research, pharmacogenomics and personalized medicine, device, gene and cell therapies, and pharmacoepidemiology are also encouraged.
Subject areas include (but are by no means limited to):
Acute coronary syndrome
Arrhythmias
Atherosclerosis
Basic cardiac electrophysiology
Cardiac catheterization
Cardiac remodeling
Coagulation and thrombosis
Diabetic cardiovascular disease
Heart failure (systolic HF, HFrEF, diastolic HF, HFpEF)
Hyperlipidemia
Hypertension
Ischemic heart disease
Vascular biology
Ventricular assist devices
Molecular cardio-biology
Myocardial regeneration
Lipoprotein metabolism
Radial artery access
Percutaneous coronary intervention
Transcatheter aortic and mitral valve replacement.