Cargando…
The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy
Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is among the most common right ventricular pacing complications. Upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the recommended treatment option. Conduction system pacing with His bundle pacing (HBP) has the potential to restore synchronous ventricular a...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9573163/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36233590 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195723 |
_version_ | 1784810799669182464 |
---|---|
author | Gardas, Rafal Golba, Krzysztof S. Soral, Tomasz Biernat, Jolanta Kulesza, Piotr Sajdok, Mateusz Zub, Kamil |
author_facet | Gardas, Rafal Golba, Krzysztof S. Soral, Tomasz Biernat, Jolanta Kulesza, Piotr Sajdok, Mateusz Zub, Kamil |
author_sort | Gardas, Rafal |
collection | PubMed |
description | Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is among the most common right ventricular pacing complications. Upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the recommended treatment option. Conduction system pacing with His bundle pacing (HBP) has the potential to restore synchronous ventricular activation and can be an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). Patients with PICM scheduled for a system upgrade to CRT were included in the prospective cohort study. Either HBP or BVP was used for CRT. Electrocardiographic, clinical, and echocardiographic measurements were recorded at baseline and six-month follow-up. HBP was successful in 44 of 53 patients (83%). Thirty-nine patients with HBP and 22 with BVP completed a 6-month follow-up. HBP led to a higher reduction in QRS duration than BVP, 118.3 ± 14.20 ms vs. 150.5 ± 18.64 ms, p < 0.0001. The improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class by one or two was more common in patients with HBP than those with BiV (p = 0.04). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in BVP patients from 32.9 ± 7.93% to 43.9 ± 8.07%, p < 0.0001, and in HBP patients from 34.9 ± 6.45% to 48.6 ± 7.73%, p < 0.0001. The improvement in LVEF was more considerable in HBP patients than in BVP patients, p = 0.019. The improvement in clinical outcomes and left ventricle reverse remodeling was more significant with HBP than BVP. HBP can be a valid alternative to BVP for upgrade procedures in PICM patients. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9573163 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-95731632022-10-17 The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy Gardas, Rafal Golba, Krzysztof S. Soral, Tomasz Biernat, Jolanta Kulesza, Piotr Sajdok, Mateusz Zub, Kamil J Clin Med Article Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is among the most common right ventricular pacing complications. Upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the recommended treatment option. Conduction system pacing with His bundle pacing (HBP) has the potential to restore synchronous ventricular activation and can be an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). Patients with PICM scheduled for a system upgrade to CRT were included in the prospective cohort study. Either HBP or BVP was used for CRT. Electrocardiographic, clinical, and echocardiographic measurements were recorded at baseline and six-month follow-up. HBP was successful in 44 of 53 patients (83%). Thirty-nine patients with HBP and 22 with BVP completed a 6-month follow-up. HBP led to a higher reduction in QRS duration than BVP, 118.3 ± 14.20 ms vs. 150.5 ± 18.64 ms, p < 0.0001. The improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class by one or two was more common in patients with HBP than those with BiV (p = 0.04). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in BVP patients from 32.9 ± 7.93% to 43.9 ± 8.07%, p < 0.0001, and in HBP patients from 34.9 ± 6.45% to 48.6 ± 7.73%, p < 0.0001. The improvement in LVEF was more considerable in HBP patients than in BVP patients, p = 0.019. The improvement in clinical outcomes and left ventricle reverse remodeling was more significant with HBP than BVP. HBP can be a valid alternative to BVP for upgrade procedures in PICM patients. MDPI 2022-09-27 /pmc/articles/PMC9573163/ /pubmed/36233590 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195723 Text en © 2022 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Gardas, Rafal Golba, Krzysztof S. Soral, Tomasz Biernat, Jolanta Kulesza, Piotr Sajdok, Mateusz Zub, Kamil The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy |
title | The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy |
title_full | The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy |
title_fullStr | The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy |
title_full_unstemmed | The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy |
title_short | The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy |
title_sort | effects of his bundle pacing compared to classic resynchronization therapy in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9573163/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36233590 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11195723 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT gardasrafal theeffectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT golbakrzysztofs theeffectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT soraltomasz theeffectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT biernatjolanta theeffectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT kuleszapiotr theeffectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT sajdokmateusz theeffectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT zubkamil theeffectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT gardasrafal effectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT golbakrzysztofs effectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT soraltomasz effectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT biernatjolanta effectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT kuleszapiotr effectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT sajdokmateusz effectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy AT zubkamil effectsofhisbundlepacingcomparedtoclassicresynchronizationtherapyinpatientswithpacinginducedcardiomyopathy |