Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients with mid-range ejection fraction.
Conduction system pacing
Heart failure
His bundle pacing
Left bundle branch area pacing
Mid-range EF
Journal
Journal of interventional cardiac electrophysiology : an international journal of arrhythmias and pacing
ISSN: 1572-8595
Titre abrégé: J Interv Card Electrophysiol
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9708966
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
17 Aug 2024
17 Aug 2024
Historique:
received:
25
03
2024
accepted:
15
07
2024
medline:
17
8
2024
pubmed:
17
8
2024
entrez:
17
8
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
There is a paucity of data comparing conduction system pacing (CSP) to biventricular pacing (BiVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Compare the clinical outcomes of patients with mid-range LVEF undergoing CSP versus BiVP. Patients with mid-range LVEF (> 35 to 50%) undergoing CSP or BiVP were retrospectively identified. Lead performance, LVEF, HF hospitalization, and clinical composite outcome including upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy and mortality were compared. A total of 36 patients (20 BiVP, 16 CSP--14 His bundle pacing, 4 left bundle branch area pacing) were analyzed. The mean age was 73 ± 15, 44% were female, and the mean LVEF was 42 ± 5%. Procedural and fluoroscopy time was comparable between the two groups. QRS duration was significantly shorter for the CSP group compared to the BiVP group (P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 47 ± 36 months, no significant differences were found in thresholds or need for generator change due to early battery depletion. LVEF improved in both groups (41.5 ± 4.5% to 53.9 ± 10.9% BiVP, P < 0.001; 41.6 ± 5.3% to 52.5 ± 8.3% CSP, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in HF hospitalizations (P = 0.71) or clinical composite outcomes (P = 0.07). Among patients with HF with moderately reduced ejection fraction, CSP appears associated with similar improvements in LVEF and had similar clinical outcomes as BiVP in mid-term follow-up.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
There is a paucity of data comparing conduction system pacing (CSP) to biventricular pacing (BiVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
Compare the clinical outcomes of patients with mid-range LVEF undergoing CSP versus BiVP.
METHODS
METHODS
Patients with mid-range LVEF (> 35 to 50%) undergoing CSP or BiVP were retrospectively identified. Lead performance, LVEF, HF hospitalization, and clinical composite outcome including upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy and mortality were compared.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 36 patients (20 BiVP, 16 CSP--14 His bundle pacing, 4 left bundle branch area pacing) were analyzed. The mean age was 73 ± 15, 44% were female, and the mean LVEF was 42 ± 5%. Procedural and fluoroscopy time was comparable between the two groups. QRS duration was significantly shorter for the CSP group compared to the BiVP group (P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 47 ± 36 months, no significant differences were found in thresholds or need for generator change due to early battery depletion. LVEF improved in both groups (41.5 ± 4.5% to 53.9 ± 10.9% BiVP, P < 0.001; 41.6 ± 5.3% to 52.5 ± 8.3% CSP, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in HF hospitalizations (P = 0.71) or clinical composite outcomes (P = 0.07).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Among patients with HF with moderately reduced ejection fraction, CSP appears associated with similar improvements in LVEF and had similar clinical outcomes as BiVP in mid-term follow-up.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39153133
doi: 10.1007/s10840-024-01882-z
pii: 10.1007/s10840-024-01882-z
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Tabrizi F, et al. Influence of left bundle branch block on long-term mortality in a population with heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2007;28(20):2449–55.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehm262
pubmed: 17670760
Kusumoto FM, et al. 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS guideline on the evaluation and management of patients with bradycardia and cardiac conduction delay: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society. Circulation. 2019;140(8):e382–482.
pubmed: 30586772
Deshmukh P, et al. Permanent, direct His-bundle pacing: a novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His-Purkinje activation. Circulation. 2000;101(8):869–77.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.101.8.869
pubmed: 10694526
Sharma PS, et al. Permanent His-bundle pacing is feasible, safe, and superior to right ventricular pacing in routine clinical practice. Heart Rhythm. 2015;12(2):305–12.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.10.021
pubmed: 25446158
Ajijola OA, et al. Permanent His-bundle pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: initial feasibility study in lieu of left ventricular lead. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14(9):1353–61.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.04.003
pubmed: 28400315
Zanon F, et al. Direct His bundle pacing preserves coronary perfusion compared with right ventricular apical pacing: a prospective, cross-over mid-term study. Europace. 2008;10(5):580–7.
doi: 10.1093/europace/eun089
pubmed: 18407969
Zheng R, Yao H, Lian L. His-Purkinje conduction system pacing for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 2023;66(4):1005–13.
doi: 10.1007/s10840-022-01296-9
pubmed: 35804257
Upadhyay GA, et al. His corrective pacing or biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74(1):157–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2019.04.026
pubmed: 31078637
Vinther M, et al. A randomized trial of His pacing versus biventricular pacing in symptomatic HF patients with left bundle branch block (His-alternative). JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;7(11):1422–32.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2021.04.003
pubmed: 34167929
Vijayaraman P, et al. Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. 2022;19(8):1263–71.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2022.04.023
pubmed: 35500791
Pujol-Lopez M, et al. Conduction system pacing vs biventricular pacing in heart failure and wide QRS patients. JACC: Clin Electrophysiol. 2022;8(11):1431–45.
pubmed: 36424012
Upadhyay GA, et al. Intracardiac delineation of septal conduction in left bundle-branch block patterns. Circulation. 2019;139(16):1876–88.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.038648
pubmed: 30704273
Burri H, et al. EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), and Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). Europace. 2023;25(4):1208–36.
doi: 10.1093/europace/euad043
pubmed: 37061848
pmcid: 10105878
Sweeney MO, et al. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003;107(23):2932–7.
doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000072769.17295.B1
pubmed: 12782566
Sweeney MO, et al. Minimizing ventricular pacing to reduce atrial fibrillation in sinus-node disease. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(10):1000–8.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa071880
pubmed: 17804844
Yu C-M, et al. Biventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and normal ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(22):2123–34.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa0907555
pubmed: 19915220
The DAVID Trial Investigators. Dual-chamber pacing or ventricular backup pacing in patients with an implantable defibrillator the Dual Chamber and VVI Implantable Defibrillator (DAVID) trial. JAMA. 2002;288(24):3115–23.
doi: 10.1001/jama.288.24.3115
Curtis AB, et al. Biventricular pacing for atrioventricular block and systolic dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2013;368(17):1585–93.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1210356
pubmed: 23614585
Chan JY, et al. Biventricular pacing is superior to right ventricular pacing in bradycardia patients with preserved systolic function: 2-year results of the PACE trial. Eur Heart J. 2011;32(20):2533–40.
doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehr336
pubmed: 21875860
Lu W, et al. The therapeutic effects of upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy or chronic right ventricular pacing patients: a meta-analysis. Heart Fail Rev. 2022;27(2):507–16.
doi: 10.1007/s10741-021-10091-z
pubmed: 33638772
Chung MK, et al. 2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure. Heart Rhythm. 2023;20(9):e17–91.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.03.1538
pubmed: 37283271
pmcid: 11062890
Huang W, et al. Benefits of permanent his bundle pacing combined with atrioventricular node ablation in atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure with both preserved and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction. J Am Heart Assoc. 2017;6(4) https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.116.005309
Su L, et al. Long-term safety and feasibility of left bundle branch pacing in a large single-center study. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021;14(2):e009261.
doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.120.009261
pubmed: 33426907