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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhang, JunMeng, Wang, Zefeng, Cheng, Liting, Zu, Linna, Liang, Zhuo, Hang, Fei, Wang, Xinlu, Li, Xiaoyan, Su, Ruijuan, Du, Jie, Wu, Yongquan
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