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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Huang, Xinyi, Lin, Manxin, Huang, Shufen, Guo, Jincun, Li, Linlin, Chen, Simei, Huang, Kunhui, Wu, Jian, Su, Maolong, Cai, Binni
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