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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gardas, Rafal, Golba, Krzysztof S., Soral, Tomasz, Biernat, Jolanta, Kulesza, Piotr, Sajdok, Mateusz, Zub, Kamil
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