G. Dell'Era, Matteo Baroni, Antonio Frontera, C. Ghiglieno, Marco Carbonaro, Diego Penela Maceda, Carmine Romano, Federica Giordano, G. Del Monaco, Paola Galimberti, Patrizio Mazzone, Giuseppe Patti
{"title":"主动脉瓣狭窄经导管瓣膜植入术后左束支区与传统起搏的比较:LATVIA 研究。","authors":"G. Dell'Era, Matteo Baroni, Antonio Frontera, C. Ghiglieno, Marco Carbonaro, Diego Penela Maceda, Carmine Romano, Federica Giordano, G. Del Monaco, Paola Galimberti, Patrizio Mazzone, Giuseppe Patti","doi":"10.2459/JCM.0000000000001619","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND\nAtrioventricular block (AVB) is a frequent complication in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Right apex ventricular pacing (RVP) represents the standard treatment but may induce cardiomyopathy over the long term. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising alternative, minimizing the risk of desynchrony. However, available evidence with LBBAP after TAVI is still low.\n\n\nOBJECTIVE\nTo assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP for AVB post-TAVI compared with RVP.\n\n\nMETHODS\nConsecutive patients developing AVB early after TAVI were enrolled between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 at three high-volume hospitals and received LBBAP or RVP. Data on procedure and at short-term follow-up (at least 3 months) were collected.\n\n\nRESULTS\nA total of 38 patients (61% men, mean age 83 ± 6 years) were included; 20 patients (53%) received LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in all patients according to chosen pacing strategy. Electrical pacing performance at implant and after a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 2.8 months was clinically equivalent for both pacing modalities. In the LBBAP group, procedural time was longer (70 ± 17 versus 58 ± 15 min in the RVP group, P = 0.02) and paced QRS was shorter (120 ± 19 versus 155 ± 12 ms at implant, P < 0.001; 119 ± 18 versus 157 ± 9 ms at follow-up, P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the two groups.\n\n\nCONCLUSION\nIn patients with AVB after TAVI, LBBAP is feasible and safe, resulting in a narrow QRS duration, either acutely and during the follow-up, compared with RVP. Further studies are needed to evaluate if LBBAP reduces pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this clinical setting.","PeriodicalId":15228,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Left bundle branch area versus conventional pacing after transcatheter valve implant for aortic stenosis: the LATVIA study.\",\"authors\":\"G. Dell'Era, Matteo Baroni, Antonio Frontera, C. Ghiglieno, Marco Carbonaro, Diego Penela Maceda, Carmine Romano, Federica Giordano, G. Del Monaco, Paola Galimberti, Patrizio Mazzone, Giuseppe Patti\",\"doi\":\"10.2459/JCM.0000000000001619\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"BACKGROUND\\nAtrioventricular block (AVB) is a frequent complication in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Right apex ventricular pacing (RVP) represents the standard treatment but may induce cardiomyopathy over the long term. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising alternative, minimizing the risk of desynchrony. However, available evidence with LBBAP after TAVI is still low.\\n\\n\\nOBJECTIVE\\nTo assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP for AVB post-TAVI compared with RVP.\\n\\n\\nMETHODS\\nConsecutive patients developing AVB early after TAVI were enrolled between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 at three high-volume hospitals and received LBBAP or RVP. Data on procedure and at short-term follow-up (at least 3 months) were collected.\\n\\n\\nRESULTS\\nA total of 38 patients (61% men, mean age 83 ± 6 years) were included; 20 patients (53%) received LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in all patients according to chosen pacing strategy. Electrical pacing performance at implant and after a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 2.8 months was clinically equivalent for both pacing modalities. In the LBBAP group, procedural time was longer (70 ± 17 versus 58 ± 15 min in the RVP group, P = 0.02) and paced QRS was shorter (120 ± 19 versus 155 ± 12 ms at implant, P < 0.001; 119 ± 18 versus 157 ± 9 ms at follow-up, P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the two groups.\\n\\n\\nCONCLUSION\\nIn patients with AVB after TAVI, LBBAP is feasible and safe, resulting in a narrow QRS duration, either acutely and during the follow-up, compared with RVP. Further studies are needed to evaluate if LBBAP reduces pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this clinical setting.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15228,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000001619\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"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":"Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2459/JCM.0000000000001619","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
Left bundle branch area versus conventional pacing after transcatheter valve implant for aortic stenosis: the LATVIA study.
BACKGROUND
Atrioventricular block (AVB) is a frequent complication in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Right apex ventricular pacing (RVP) represents the standard treatment but may induce cardiomyopathy over the long term. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising alternative, minimizing the risk of desynchrony. However, available evidence with LBBAP after TAVI is still low.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP for AVB post-TAVI compared with RVP.
METHODS
Consecutive patients developing AVB early after TAVI were enrolled between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 at three high-volume hospitals and received LBBAP or RVP. Data on procedure and at short-term follow-up (at least 3 months) were collected.
RESULTS
A total of 38 patients (61% men, mean age 83 ± 6 years) were included; 20 patients (53%) received LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in all patients according to chosen pacing strategy. Electrical pacing performance at implant and after a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 2.8 months was clinically equivalent for both pacing modalities. In the LBBAP group, procedural time was longer (70 ± 17 versus 58 ± 15 min in the RVP group, P = 0.02) and paced QRS was shorter (120 ± 19 versus 155 ± 12 ms at implant, P < 0.001; 119 ± 18 versus 157 ± 9 ms at follow-up, P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the two groups.
CONCLUSION
In patients with AVB after TAVI, LBBAP is feasible and safe, resulting in a narrow QRS duration, either acutely and during the follow-up, compared with RVP. Further studies are needed to evaluate if LBBAP reduces pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this clinical setting.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine is a monthly publication of the Italian Federation of Cardiology. It publishes original research articles, epidemiological studies, new methodological clinical approaches, case reports, design and goals of clinical trials, review articles, points of view, editorials and Images in cardiovascular medicine.
Submitted articles undergo a preliminary review by the editor. Some articles may be returned to authors without further consideration. Those being considered for publication will undergo further assessment and peer-review by the editors and those invited to do so from a reviewer pool.