Dataset Information

Left bundle branch pacing in third-degree atrioventricular block following morrow surgery: a case report.

ABSTRACT: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has proven to be an alternative method for delivering physiological pacing to achieve electrical synchrony of the left ventricle (LV), especially in patients with atrioventricular block and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, it is unclear whether it still achieved in patients whose left bundle branch (LBB) has had surgery-induced damage. The Morrow operation (Morrow septal myectomy) is regarded as one of the most effective treatments for hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM). The surgery resects small sections of muscle tissue in the proximal ventricular septum nearby or contains the LBB, which means that physical damage to the LBB is almost inevitable. Approximately 2%-12% of patients may need pacemaker implanted after Morrow surgery. LBBP is a feasible and effective method for achieving electric resynchronization of LBBB compared to right ventricular pacing (RVB). Nevertheless, there is a dearth of data on LBBP in third-degree atrioventricular block (AVB) following Morrow surgery. We report a case of successful LBBP in those patients.

SUBMITTER: Huang K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC11309990 | biostudies-literature | 2024

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Left bundle branch pacing in third-degree atrioventricular block following morrow surgery: a case report.

Huang Keqiang K Gan Hongmei H Jiang Jingjing J Tang Cheng C

Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine 20240726

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has proven to be an alternative method for delivering physiological pacing to achieve electrical synchrony of the left ventricle (LV), especially in patients with atrioventricular block and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, it is unclear whether it still achieved in patients whose left bundle branch (LBB) has had surgery-induced damage. The Morrow operation (Morrow septal myectomy) is regarded as one of the most effective treatments for hypertrophic obstr ...[more]

PMID: 39131704

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough right ventricular pacing (RVP) is recommended by most of the guidelines for atrioventricular block, it can cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony, impair left ventricular function, and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Recently, the His-Purkinje system pacing, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), has emerged as a physiological pacing modality. However, few studies have compared their efficacy and safety in atrioventricular block (AVB).Methods and resultsThe PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for observational studies and randomized trials of patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing, from database inception until 10 January 2022. The primary outcomes were complications and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing parameters, procedure duration, and success rate. After extracting the data at baseline and the longest follow-up duration available, a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, whereas mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs or 95% CrIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Seven studies and 1,069 patients were included. Overall, 43.4% underwent LBBP, 33.5% HBP, and 23.1% RVP. Compared with RVP, LBBP and HBP were associated with a shorter paced QRS duration and a more preserved LVEF. HBP significantly increased the pacing threshold and reduced the R-wave amplitude. There was no difference in the risk of complications or the implant success rate. The pacing threshold remained stable during follow-up for the three pacing modalities. The pacing impedance was significantly reduced in HBP, while a numerical but non-significant pacing impedance decrease was observed in both LBBP and RVP. LBBP was associated with an increased R-wave amplitude during follow-up.ConclusionIn this systematic review and network meta-analysis, HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in paced QRS duration and preservation of LVEF for patients with atrioventricular block. LBBP was associated with a lower pacing threshold and a greater R-wave amplitude than HBP. However, the stability of the pacing output of LBBP may be a concern. Further investigation of the long-term efficacy in left ventricular function and the risk of heart failure hospitalization is needed.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315046], identifier [CRD42022315046].

Project description:Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing modality with stable pacing parameters and a narrow-paced QRS duration. We compared heart failure (HF) hospitalization events and echocardiographic measures between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Methods and Results: This multicenter observational study prospectively recruited consecutive AVB patients requiring ventricular pacing in five centers if they received LBBAP or RVP and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%. Data on electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, echocardiographic measurements, device complications, and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary outcome was first episode hospitalization for HF or upgrade to biventricular pacing. LBBAP was successful in 235 of 246 patients (95.5%), while 120 patients received RVP. During a mean of 11.4 ± 2.7 months of follow-up, the ventricular pacing burden was comparable (83.9 ± 35.1 vs. 85.7 ± 30.0%), while the mean LVEF differed significantly (62.6 ± 4.6 vs. 57.8 ± 11.4%) between the LBBAP and RVP groups. Patients with LBBAP had significantly lower occurrences of HF hospitalization and upgrading to biventricular pacing than patients with RVP (2.6 vs. 10.8%, P <0.001), and differences in primary outcome between LBBAP and RVP were mainly observed in patients with ventricular pacing >40% or with baseline LVEF <60%. The primary outcome was independently associated with LBBAP (adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04-0.55), previous myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 6.82, 95% CI: 1.23-37.5), and baseline LVEF (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.96). Conclusion: Permanent LBBAP might reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or upgrade to biventricular pacing compared with RVP in AVB patients requiring a high burden of ventricular pacing. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03851315; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique Identifier: ChiCTR2100043296.

Project description:Biventricular endocardial (BIV-endo) pacing and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Both pacing methods can be delivered through leadless pacing, to avoid risks associated with endocardial or transvenous leads. We used computational modelling to quantify synchrony induced by BIV-endo pacing and LBP through a leadless pacing system, and to investigate how the right-left ventricle (RV-LV) delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect response. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of His-Purkinje networks with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Leadless biventricular (BIV) pacing was simulated by adding an RV apical stimulus and an LV lateral wall stimulus (BIV-endo lateral) or targeting the left bundle (BIV-LBP), with an RV-LV delay set to 5 ms. To test effect of prolonged RV-LV delays and RV pacing location, the RV-LV delay was increased to 35 ms and/or the RV stimulus was moved to the RV septum. BIV-endo lateral pacing was less sensitive to increased RV-LV delays, while RV septal pacing worsened response compared to RV apical pacing, especially for long RV-LV delays. To investigate how left bundle capture affects response, we computed 90% BIV activation times (BIVAT-90) during BIV-LBP with selective and non-selective capture, and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), simulated by pacing 1 cm below the left bundle. Non-selective LBP was comparable to selective LBP. LBBAP was worse than selective LBP (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 62.7 ± 6.5, p < 0.01), but it still significantly reduced activation times from baseline. Finally, we compared leadless LBP with RV pacing against optimal LBP delivery through a standard lead system by simulating BIV-LBP and selective LBP alone with and without optimized atrioventricular delay (AVD). Although LBP alone with optimized AVD was better than BIV-LBP, when AVD optimization was not possible BIV-LBP outperformed LBP alone, because the RV pacing stimulus shortened RV activation (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 66.9 ± 5.1 ms, p < 0.01). BIV-endo lateral pacing or LBP delivered through a leadless system could potentially become an alternative to standard CRT. RV-LV delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect leadless pacing efficacy and should be considered in future trial designs.

Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a new technique for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), potentially offering better cardiac function than right ventricular pacing (RVP).MethodsWe searched databases and registries for studies that compared LBBAP with RVP in patients with AVB and preserved LVEF. We extracted data on various outcomes and pooled the effect estimates using random-effects models.ResultsOur meta-analysis included 14 studies (10 observational and 4 RCTs) involving 3062 patients with AVB. The analysis revealed that the QRS duration was significantly shorter in the LBBAP group compared to the RVP group [MD = -35.56 ms; 95% CI: (-39.27, -31.85), p < 0.00001]. Patients in the LBBAP group also exhibited a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) [MD = 5.48%; 95% CI: (4.07%, 6.89%), p < 0.00001], and a significant reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) compared to RVP [MD = -3.98 mm; 95% CI: (-5.88, -2.09 mm), p < 0.0001]. In terms of clinical outcomes, LBBAP was associated with a significantly lower risk of heart failure hospitalizations (HFHs) compared to RVP [OR = 0.26; 95% CI: (0.16, 0.44), p < 0.0001]. However, no significant differences were observed between the two groups in the implant success rate, pacing impedance, or pacing threshold. The RVP group demonstrated a significantly higher R-wave amplitude increase than the LBBAP group [MD = 0.85 mV; 95% CI: (0.23, 1.46), p = .007]. Lastly, there was no significant difference in the incidence of complications between the two groups [OR = 2.12; 95% CI: (0.29, 15.52), p = 0.46].ConclusionLBBAP outperforms RVP in several cardiac function indicators, suggesting it may be a superior pacing method for AVB patients with preserved LVEF. However, the small sample size in studies and the result in heterogeneity call for more research to validate these findings and assess LBBAP's long-term effects.

Dataset Information

Left bundle branch pacing in third-degree atrioventricular block following morrow surgery: a case report.

Publications

Left bundle branch pacing in third-degree atrioventricular block following morrow surgery: a case report.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets