Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Vijayaraman, Pugazhendhi
• Zalavadia, Dipen
• Haseeb, Abdul
• Dye, Cicely
• Madan, Nidhi
• Skeete, Jamario Renaldo
• Vipparthy, Sharath C.
• Young, Wilson
• Ravi, Venkatesh
• Rajakumar, Clement
• Pokharel, Parash
• Larsen, Timothy
• Huang, Henry D.
• Storm, Randle H.
• Oren, Jess W.
• Batul, Syeda Atiqa
• Trohman, Richard G.
• Subzposh, Faiz A.
• Sharma, Parikshit S.

Titel

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy

Ist Teil von

• Heart rhythm, 2022-08, Vol.19 (8), p.1263-1271

Ort / Verlag

United States: Elsevier Inc

Erscheinungsjahr

2022

Link zum Volltext

Quelle

MEDLINE

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and bundle branch block or indication for pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a safe and more physiological alternative to BVP. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT. This observational study included consecutive patients with LVEF ≤35% and class I or II indications for CRT who underwent successful BVP or CSP at 2 major health care systems. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included subgroup analysis in left bundle branch block as well as individual endpoints of death and HFH. A total of 477 patients (32% female) met inclusion criteria (BVP 219; CSP 258 [HBP 87, LBBAP 171]). Mean age was 72 ± 12 years, and mean LVEF was 26% ± 6%. Comorbidities included hypertension 70%, diabetes mellitus 45%, and coronary artery disease 52%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower than BVP (133 ± 21 ms vs 153 ± 24 ms; P <.001). LVEF improved in both groups during mean follow-up of 27 ± 12 months and was greater after CSP compared to BVP (39.7% ± 13% vs 33.1% ± 12%; P <.001). Primary outcome of death or HFH was significantly lower with CSP vs BVP (28.3% vs 38.4%; hazard ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval 1.082–2.087; P = .013). CSP improved clinical outcomes compared to BVP in this large cohort of patients with indications for CRT. [Display omitted]