关于尽量减少右心室起搏的设备算法对疗效影响的系统回顾和荟萃分析。

IF 7.9 1区 医学 Q1 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS Europace Pub Date : 2024-08-03 DOI:10.1093/europace/euae212
Davide Antonio Mei, Jacopo Francesco Imberti, Marco Vitolo, Niccolò Bonini, Kevin Serafini, Marta Mantovani, Enrico Tartaglia, Chiara Birtolo, Marco Zuin, Matteo Bertini, Giuseppe Boriani
{"title":"关于尽量减少右心室起搏的设备算法对疗效影响的系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Davide Antonio Mei, Jacopo Francesco Imberti, Marco Vitolo, Niccolò Bonini, Kevin Serafini, Marta Mantovani, Enrico Tartaglia, Chiara Birtolo, Marco Zuin, Matteo Bertini, Giuseppe Boriani","doi":"10.1093/europace/euae212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Physiological activation of the heart using algorithms to minimize right ventricular pacing (RVPm) may be an effective strategy to reduce adverse events in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate current evidence on clinical outcomes for patients treated with RVPm algorithms compared to dual-chamber pacing (DDD).</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database. The predefined endpoints were the occurrence of persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, all-cause death, and adverse symptoms. We also aimed to explore the differential effects of algorithms in studies enrolling a high percentage of atrioventricular block (AVB) patients. Eight studies (7229 patients) were included in the analysis. Compared to DDD pacing, patients using RVPm algorithms showed a lower risk of PerAF [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.97] and CV hospitalization (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.97). No significant difference was found for all-cause death (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.78-1.30) or adverse symptoms (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81-1.29). No significant interaction was found between the use of the RVPm strategy and studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients. The pooled mean RVP percentage for RVPm algorithms was 7.96% (95% CI 3.13-20.25), as compared with 45.11% (95% CI 26.64-76.38) of DDD pacing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Algorithms for RVPm may be effective in reducing the risk of PerAF and CV hospitalization in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies, without an increased risk of adverse symptoms. These results are also consistent for studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":11981,"journal":{"name":"Europace","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11346371/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact on outcomes of device algorithms for minimizing right ventricular pacing.\",\"authors\":\"Davide Antonio Mei, Jacopo Francesco Imberti, Marco Vitolo, Niccolò Bonini, Kevin Serafini, Marta Mantovani, Enrico Tartaglia, Chiara Birtolo, Marco Zuin, Matteo Bertini, Giuseppe Boriani\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/europace/euae212\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Physiological activation of the heart using algorithms to minimize right ventricular pacing (RVPm) may be an effective strategy to reduce adverse events in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate current evidence on clinical outcomes for patients treated with RVPm algorithms compared to dual-chamber pacing (DDD).</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database. The predefined endpoints were the occurrence of persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, all-cause death, and adverse symptoms. We also aimed to explore the differential effects of algorithms in studies enrolling a high percentage of atrioventricular block (AVB) patients. Eight studies (7229 patients) were included in the analysis. Compared to DDD pacing, patients using RVPm algorithms showed a lower risk of PerAF [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.97] and CV hospitalization (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.97). No significant difference was found for all-cause death (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.78-1.30) or adverse symptoms (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81-1.29). No significant interaction was found between the use of the RVPm strategy and studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients. The pooled mean RVP percentage for RVPm algorithms was 7.96% (95% CI 3.13-20.25), as compared with 45.11% (95% CI 26.64-76.38) of DDD pacing.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Algorithms for RVPm may be effective in reducing the risk of PerAF and CV hospitalization in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies, without an increased risk of adverse symptoms. These results are also consistent for studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11981,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Europace\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11346371/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Europace\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae212\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Europace","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/europace/euae212","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:使用算法最大限度地减少右心室起搏(RVPm)对心脏的生理激活可能是减少需要抗心动过缓治疗的患者不良事件的有效策略。本系统综述和荟萃分析旨在评估与双腔起搏(DDD)相比,采用 RVPm 算法治疗患者的临床效果的现有证据:我们对PubMed数据库进行了系统检索。预设终点为持续/永久性心房颤动(PerAF)的发生、心血管(CV)住院、全因死亡和不良症状。我们的另一个目的是探索在纳入高比例房室传导阻滞(AVB)患者的研究中算法的不同效果。八项研究(7229 名患者)被纳入分析。与 DDD 起搏相比,使用 RVPm 算法的患者发生 PerAF(Odds Ratio [OR] 0.74,95% 置信区间 [CI] 0.57-0.97)和 CV 住院(OR 0.77,95% CI 0.61-0.97)的风险较低。在全因死亡(OR 1.01,95% CI 0.78-1.30)或不良症状(OR 1.03,95% CI 0.81-1.29)方面没有发现明显差异。在使用 RVPm 策略与纳入高比例 AVB 患者的研究之间没有发现明显的交互作用。RVPm算法的汇总平均RVP百分比为7.96%(95% CI 3.13-20.25),而DDD起搏为45.11%(95% CI 26.64-76.38):RVPm算法可有效降低需要抗心动过缓治疗的患者发生PerAF和CV住院的风险,同时不会增加不良症状的风险。这些结果与纳入高比例 AVB 患者的研究结果也是一致的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact on outcomes of device algorithms for minimizing right ventricular pacing.

Aims: Physiological activation of the heart using algorithms to minimize right ventricular pacing (RVPm) may be an effective strategy to reduce adverse events in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate current evidence on clinical outcomes for patients treated with RVPm algorithms compared to dual-chamber pacing (DDD).

Methods and results: We conducted a systematic search of the PubMed database. The predefined endpoints were the occurrence of persistent/permanent atrial fibrillation (PerAF), cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, all-cause death, and adverse symptoms. We also aimed to explore the differential effects of algorithms in studies enrolling a high percentage of atrioventricular block (AVB) patients. Eight studies (7229 patients) were included in the analysis. Compared to DDD pacing, patients using RVPm algorithms showed a lower risk of PerAF [odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57-0.97] and CV hospitalization (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.61-0.97). No significant difference was found for all-cause death (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.78-1.30) or adverse symptoms (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81-1.29). No significant interaction was found between the use of the RVPm strategy and studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients. The pooled mean RVP percentage for RVPm algorithms was 7.96% (95% CI 3.13-20.25), as compared with 45.11% (95% CI 26.64-76.38) of DDD pacing.

Conclusion: Algorithms for RVPm may be effective in reducing the risk of PerAF and CV hospitalization in patients requiring anti-bradycardia therapies, without an increased risk of adverse symptoms. These results are also consistent for studies enrolling a high percentage of AVB patients.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Europace
Europace 医学-心血管系统
CiteScore
10.30
自引率
8.20%
发文量
851
审稿时长
3-6 weeks
期刊介绍: EP - Europace - European Journal of Pacing, Arrhythmias and Cardiac Electrophysiology of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the European Society of Cardiology. The journal aims to provide an avenue of communication of top quality European and international original scientific work and reviews in the fields of Arrhythmias, Pacing and Cellular Electrophysiology. The Journal offers the reader a collection of contemporary original peer-reviewed papers, invited papers and editorial comments together with book reviews and correspondence.
期刊最新文献
Using computed tomogram atrial myocardial thickness maps in cryoballoon pulmonary vein isolation: The UTMOST AF II Randomized Clinical Trial. Multielectrode Catheter-Based Pulsed Electric Field Versus Cryoballoon For Atrial Fibrillation Ablation: A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis. Familial risk of sinus node dysfunction indicating pacemaker implantation: A nation-wide cohort study. Increased Pacemaker Implantation and Mortality Rates in Relatives of Patients with Early-Onset Sinus Node Dysfunction: Can Genetics Explain All? aTrial arrhythmias in inhEriTed aRrhythmIa Syndromes: results from the TETRIS study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1