Cargando…
Development of New‐Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry
BACKGROUND: Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to compare the occurrence of new‐onset AF and assessed AF disease progression during long‐term follow‐up between His bundle pacing (HBP) and RVP. METHODS AND...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7763709/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33174509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.018478 |
_version_ | 1783628082708480000 |
---|---|
author | Ravi, Venkatesh Beer, Dominik Pietrasik, Grzegorz M. Hanifin, Jillian L. Ooms, Sara Ayub, Muhammad Talha Larsen, Timothy Huang, Henry D. Krishnan, Kousik Trohman, Richard G. Vijayaraman, Pugazhendhi Sharma, Parikshit S. |
author_facet | Ravi, Venkatesh Beer, Dominik Pietrasik, Grzegorz M. Hanifin, Jillian L. Ooms, Sara Ayub, Muhammad Talha Larsen, Timothy Huang, Henry D. Krishnan, Kousik Trohman, Richard G. Vijayaraman, Pugazhendhi Sharma, Parikshit S. |
author_sort | Ravi, Venkatesh |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to compare the occurrence of new‐onset AF and assessed AF disease progression during long‐term follow‐up between His bundle pacing (HBP) and RVP. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included patients undergoing initial dual‐chamber pacemaker implants at Rush University Medical Center between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019. A total of 360 patients were evaluated, and 225 patients (HBP, n=105; RVP, n=120) were included in the study. Among the 148 patients (HBP, n=72; RVP, n=76) with no history of AF, HBP demonstrated a lower risk of new‐onset AF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28–0.99; P=0.046) compared with traditional RVP. This benefit was observed with His or RVP burden exceeding 20% (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13–0.64; P=0.002), ≥40% (HR, 0.31; P=0.007), ≥60% (HR, 0.35; P=0.015), and ≥80% (HR, 0.40; P=0.038). There was no difference with His or RV pacing burden <20% (HR, 0.613; 95% CI, 0.213–1.864; P=0.404). In patients with a prior history of AF, there was no difference in AF progression (P=0.715); however, in a subgroup of patients with a pacing burden ≥40%, HBP demonstrated a trend toward a lower risk of AF progression (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03–1.16; P=0.072). CONCLUSIONS: HBP demonstrated a lower risk of new‐onset AF compared with RVP, which was primarily observed at a higher pacing burden. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7763709 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-77637092020-12-28 Development of New‐Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry Ravi, Venkatesh Beer, Dominik Pietrasik, Grzegorz M. Hanifin, Jillian L. Ooms, Sara Ayub, Muhammad Talha Larsen, Timothy Huang, Henry D. Krishnan, Kousik Trohman, Richard G. Vijayaraman, Pugazhendhi Sharma, Parikshit S. J Am Heart Assoc Original Research BACKGROUND: Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to compare the occurrence of new‐onset AF and assessed AF disease progression during long‐term follow‐up between His bundle pacing (HBP) and RVP. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included patients undergoing initial dual‐chamber pacemaker implants at Rush University Medical Center between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019. A total of 360 patients were evaluated, and 225 patients (HBP, n=105; RVP, n=120) were included in the study. Among the 148 patients (HBP, n=72; RVP, n=76) with no history of AF, HBP demonstrated a lower risk of new‐onset AF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28–0.99; P=0.046) compared with traditional RVP. This benefit was observed with His or RVP burden exceeding 20% (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13–0.64; P=0.002), ≥40% (HR, 0.31; P=0.007), ≥60% (HR, 0.35; P=0.015), and ≥80% (HR, 0.40; P=0.038). There was no difference with His or RV pacing burden <20% (HR, 0.613; 95% CI, 0.213–1.864; P=0.404). In patients with a prior history of AF, there was no difference in AF progression (P=0.715); however, in a subgroup of patients with a pacing burden ≥40%, HBP demonstrated a trend toward a lower risk of AF progression (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03–1.16; P=0.072). CONCLUSIONS: HBP demonstrated a lower risk of new‐onset AF compared with RVP, which was primarily observed at a higher pacing burden. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020-11-11 /pmc/articles/PMC7763709/ /pubmed/33174509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.018478 Text en © 2020 The Authors. Published on behalf of the American Heart Association, Inc., by Wiley. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. |
spellingShingle | Original Research Ravi, Venkatesh Beer, Dominik Pietrasik, Grzegorz M. Hanifin, Jillian L. Ooms, Sara Ayub, Muhammad Talha Larsen, Timothy Huang, Henry D. Krishnan, Kousik Trohman, Richard G. Vijayaraman, Pugazhendhi Sharma, Parikshit S. Development of New‐Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry |
title | Development of New‐Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry |
title_full | Development of New‐Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry |
title_fullStr | Development of New‐Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry |
title_full_unstemmed | Development of New‐Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry |
title_short | Development of New‐Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry |
title_sort | development of new‐onset or progressive atrial fibrillation in patients with permanent his bundle pacing versus right ventricular pacing: results from the rush hbp registry |
topic | Original Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7763709/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33174509 http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.120.018478 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ravivenkatesh developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT beerdominik developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT pietrasikgrzegorzm developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT hanifinjillianl developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT oomssara developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT ayubmuhammadtalha developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT larsentimothy developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT huanghenryd developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT krishnankousik developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT trohmanrichardg developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT vijayaramanpugazhendhi developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry AT sharmaparikshits developmentofnewonsetorprogressiveatrialfibrillationinpatientswithpermanenthisbundlepacingversusrightventricularpacingresultsfromtherushhbpregistry |