Cargando…
Impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: Left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing
BACKGROUND: The novel method of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been reported to achieve better electrical and mechanical synchrony in the left ventricle than conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown. METHODS: Consec...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10091979/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36124394 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.15675 |
_version_ | 1785023240801878016 |
---|---|
author | Huang, Xinyi Lin, Manxin Huang, Shufen Guo, Jincun Li, Linlin Chen, Simei Huang, Kunhui Wu, Jian Su, Maolong Cai, Binni |
author_facet | Huang, Xinyi Lin, Manxin Huang, Shufen Guo, Jincun Li, Linlin Chen, Simei Huang, Kunhui Wu, Jian Su, Maolong Cai, Binni |
author_sort | Huang, Xinyi |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The novel method of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been reported to achieve better electrical and mechanical synchrony in the left ventricle than conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing dual‐chamber pacemaker (PM) implantation for sick sinus syndrome (SSS) with normal cardiac function and a narrow QRS complex were recruited for the study. The pacing characteristics and echocardiogram parameters were measured to evaluate RV function, interventricular and RV synchrony, and were compared between ventricular pacing‐on and native‐conduction modes. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients diagnosed with SSS and an indication for pacing therapy were enrolled. Forty‐two patients (50%; mean age 65.50 ± 9.30 years; 35% male) underwent successful LBBP and 42 patients (50%; mean age 69.26 ± 10.08 years; 33% male) RVSP, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. We found no significant differences in RV function [RV‐FAC (Fractional Area Change)%, 47.13 ± 5.69 versus 48.60 ± 5.83, p = .069; Endo‐GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)%, −28.88 ± 4.94 versus −29.82 ± 5.35, p = .114; Myo‐GLS%, −25.72 ± 4.75 versus −25.72 ± 5.21, p = .559; Free Wall St%, 27.40 ± 8.03 versus −28.71 ± 7.34, p = .304] between the native‐conduction and LBBP capture modes, while the RVSP capture mode was associated with a significant reduction in the above parameters compared with the native‐conduction mode (p < .0001). The interventricular synchrony in the LBBP group was also superior to the RVSP group significantly. CONCLUSION: LBBP is a pacing technique that seems to associate with a positive and protective impact on RV performance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10091979 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-100919792023-04-13 Impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: Left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing Huang, Xinyi Lin, Manxin Huang, Shufen Guo, Jincun Li, Linlin Chen, Simei Huang, Kunhui Wu, Jian Su, Maolong Cai, Binni J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol Original Articles BACKGROUND: The novel method of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been reported to achieve better electrical and mechanical synchrony in the left ventricle than conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing dual‐chamber pacemaker (PM) implantation for sick sinus syndrome (SSS) with normal cardiac function and a narrow QRS complex were recruited for the study. The pacing characteristics and echocardiogram parameters were measured to evaluate RV function, interventricular and RV synchrony, and were compared between ventricular pacing‐on and native‐conduction modes. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients diagnosed with SSS and an indication for pacing therapy were enrolled. Forty‐two patients (50%; mean age 65.50 ± 9.30 years; 35% male) underwent successful LBBP and 42 patients (50%; mean age 69.26 ± 10.08 years; 33% male) RVSP, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. We found no significant differences in RV function [RV‐FAC (Fractional Area Change)%, 47.13 ± 5.69 versus 48.60 ± 5.83, p = .069; Endo‐GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)%, −28.88 ± 4.94 versus −29.82 ± 5.35, p = .114; Myo‐GLS%, −25.72 ± 4.75 versus −25.72 ± 5.21, p = .559; Free Wall St%, 27.40 ± 8.03 versus −28.71 ± 7.34, p = .304] between the native‐conduction and LBBP capture modes, while the RVSP capture mode was associated with a significant reduction in the above parameters compared with the native‐conduction mode (p < .0001). The interventricular synchrony in the LBBP group was also superior to the RVSP group significantly. CONCLUSION: LBBP is a pacing technique that seems to associate with a positive and protective impact on RV performance. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-30 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC10091979/ /pubmed/36124394 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.15675 Text en © 2022 The Authors. Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Huang, Xinyi Lin, Manxin Huang, Shufen Guo, Jincun Li, Linlin Chen, Simei Huang, Kunhui Wu, Jian Su, Maolong Cai, Binni Impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: Left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing |
title | Impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: Left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing |
title_full | Impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: Left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing |
title_fullStr | Impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: Left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing |
title_full_unstemmed | Impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: Left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing |
title_short | Impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: Left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing |
title_sort | impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10091979/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36124394 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jce.15675 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT huangxinyi impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing AT linmanxin impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing AT huangshufen impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing AT guojincun impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing AT lilinlin impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing AT chensimei impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing AT huangkunhui impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing AT wujian impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing AT sumaolong impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing AT caibinni impactonrightventricularperformanceinpatientsundergoingpermanentpacemakerimplantationleftbundlebranchpacingversusrightventricularseptumpacing |