Cargando…
Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing
BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing strategy that produces comparable clinical effects to His bundle pacing (HBP). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate clinical outcomes of LBBaP vs RVP. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 201...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6671779/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31184785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23215 |
_version_ | 1783440543871664128 |
---|---|
author | Zhang, JunMeng Wang, Zefeng Cheng, Liting Zu, Linna Liang, Zhuo Hang, Fei Wang, Xinlu Li, Xiaoyan Su, Ruijuan Du, Jie Wu, Yongquan |
author_facet | Zhang, JunMeng Wang, Zefeng Cheng, Liting Zu, Linna Liang, Zhuo Hang, Fei Wang, Xinlu Li, Xiaoyan Su, Ruijuan Du, Jie Wu, Yongquan |
author_sort | Zhang, JunMeng |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing strategy that produces comparable clinical effects to His bundle pacing (HBP). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate clinical outcomes of LBBaP vs RVP. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2018 to September 2018, we included 44 patients under continuous pacemaker implantation. Patients were randomly divided into the LBBaP group and conventional RVP group. Compared to the RVP group, the LBBaP group displayed significantly increased operative (90.10 ± 19.68 minutes vs 61.57 ± 6.62 minutes, P < .001) and X‐ray exposure times (15.55 ± 5.62 minutes vs 4.67 ± 2.06 minutes, P < .001). The lead threshold of the LBBaP group was increased (0.68 ± 0.20 mV vs 0.51 ± 0.0 mV, P = .001), while the R‐wave amplitude and ventricular impedance did not significantly differ between the two groups. The conventional RVP procedure significantly widened the QRS complex (93.62 ± 8.28 ms vs 135.19 ± 12.21 ms, P = .001), whereas the LBBaP had no effect on QRS complex (130.13 ± 43.30 ms vs 112.63 ± 12.14 ms, P = .904). Furthermore, the LBBaP procedure significantly narrowed the QRS complex in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) (168.43 ± 38.870 ms vs 119.86 ± 6.69 ms, P = .019). CONCLUSION: LBBaP is a new physiological, safe and effective pacing procedure with a high overall success rate. Compared to conventional RVP, LBBaP can correct LBBB, thereby improving cardiac electrical dyssynchrony. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6671779 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Wiley Periodicals, Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-66717792019-08-28 Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing Zhang, JunMeng Wang, Zefeng Cheng, Liting Zu, Linna Liang, Zhuo Hang, Fei Wang, Xinlu Li, Xiaoyan Su, Ruijuan Du, Jie Wu, Yongquan Clin Cardiol Clinical Investigations BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing strategy that produces comparable clinical effects to His bundle pacing (HBP). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate clinical outcomes of LBBaP vs RVP. METHODS AND RESULTS: From April 2018 to September 2018, we included 44 patients under continuous pacemaker implantation. Patients were randomly divided into the LBBaP group and conventional RVP group. Compared to the RVP group, the LBBaP group displayed significantly increased operative (90.10 ± 19.68 minutes vs 61.57 ± 6.62 minutes, P < .001) and X‐ray exposure times (15.55 ± 5.62 minutes vs 4.67 ± 2.06 minutes, P < .001). The lead threshold of the LBBaP group was increased (0.68 ± 0.20 mV vs 0.51 ± 0.0 mV, P = .001), while the R‐wave amplitude and ventricular impedance did not significantly differ between the two groups. The conventional RVP procedure significantly widened the QRS complex (93.62 ± 8.28 ms vs 135.19 ± 12.21 ms, P = .001), whereas the LBBaP had no effect on QRS complex (130.13 ± 43.30 ms vs 112.63 ± 12.14 ms, P = .904). Furthermore, the LBBaP procedure significantly narrowed the QRS complex in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) (168.43 ± 38.870 ms vs 119.86 ± 6.69 ms, P = .019). CONCLUSION: LBBaP is a new physiological, safe and effective pacing procedure with a high overall success rate. Compared to conventional RVP, LBBaP can correct LBBB, thereby improving cardiac electrical dyssynchrony. Wiley Periodicals, Inc. 2019-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6671779/ /pubmed/31184785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23215 Text en © 2019 The Authors. Clinical Cardiology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Clinical Investigations Zhang, JunMeng Wang, Zefeng Cheng, Liting Zu, Linna Liang, Zhuo Hang, Fei Wang, Xinlu Li, Xiaoyan Su, Ruijuan Du, Jie Wu, Yongquan Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing |
title | Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing |
title_full | Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing |
title_fullStr | Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing |
title_full_unstemmed | Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing |
title_short | Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing |
title_sort | immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing |
topic | Clinical Investigations |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6671779/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31184785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/clc.23215 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT zhangjunmeng immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT wangzefeng immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT chengliting immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT zulinna immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT liangzhuo immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT hangfei immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT wangxinlu immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT lixiaoyan immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT suruijuan immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT dujie immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing AT wuyongquan immediateclinicaloutcomesofleftbundlebranchareapacingvsconventionalrightventricularpacing |