Dataset Information

His Resynchronization Versus Biventricular Pacing in Patients With Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:His bundle pacing is a new method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVES:The authors performed a head-to-head, high-precision, acute crossover comparison between His bundle pacing and conventional biventricular CRT, measuring effects on ventricular activation and acute hemodynamic function. METHODS:Patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block referred for conventional biventricular CRT were recruited. Using noninvasive epicardial electrocardiographic imaging, the authors identified patients in whom His bundle pacing shortened left ventricular activation time. In these patients, the authors compared the hemodynamic effects of His bundle pacing against biventricular pacing using a high-multiple repeated alternation protocol to minimize the effect of noise, as well as comparing effects on ventricular activation. RESULTS:In 18 of 23 patients, left ventricular activation time was significantly shortened by His bundle pacing. Seventeen patients had a complete electromechanical dataset. In them, His bundle pacing was more effective at delivering ventricular resynchronization than biventricular pacing: greater reduction in QRS duration (-18.6 ms; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -31.6 to -5.7 ms; p = 0.007), left ventricular activation time (-26 ms; 95% CI: -41 to -21 ms; p = 0.002), and left ventricular dyssynchrony index (-11.2 ms; 95% CI: -16.8 to -5.6 ms; p < 0.001). His bundle pacing also produced a greater acute hemodynamic response (4.6 mm Hg; 95% CI: 0.2 to 9.1 mm Hg; p = 0.04). The incremental activation time reduction with His bundle pacing over biventricular pacing correlated with the incremental hemodynamic improvement with His bundle pacing over biventricular pacing (R = 0.70; p = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS:His resynchronization delivers better ventricular resynchronization, and greater improvement in hemodynamic parameters, than biventricular pacing.

SUBMITTER: Arnold AD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6290113 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

His Resynchronization Versus Biventricular Pacing in Patients With Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block.

Arnold Ahran D AD Shun-Shin Matthew J MJ Keene Daniel D Howard James P JP Sohaib S M Afzal SMA Wright Ian J IJ Cole Graham D GD Qureshi Norman A NA Lefroy David C DC Koa-Wing Michael M Linton Nick W F NWF Lim Phang Boon PB Peters Nicholas S NS Davies D Wyn DW Muthumala Amal A Tanner Mark M Ellenbogen Kenneth A KA Kanagaratnam Prapa P Francis Darrel P DP Whinnett Zachary I ZI

Journal of the American College of Cardiology 20181201 24

<h4>Background</h4>His bundle pacing is a new method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).<h4>Objectives</h4>The authors performed a head-to-head, high-precision, acute crossover comparison between His bundle pacing and conventional biventricular CRT, measuring effects on ventricular activation and acute hemodynamic function.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block referred for conventional biventricular CRT were recruited. Using noninvasive epic ...[more]

PMID: 30545450

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cardiac dyssynchrony is the proposed mechanism for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, which can be prevented by biventricular pacing. Left bundle branch pacing and His bundle pacing are novel interventions that imitate the natural conduction of the heart with, theoretically, less interventricular dyssynchrony. One of the surrogate markers of interventricular synchrony is QRS duration. Our study aimed to compare the change of QRS duration before and after implantation between types of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): left bundle branch pacing versus His bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing and conventional right ventricular pacing. A literature search for studies that reported an interval change of QRS duration after CIED implantation was conducted utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. All relevant works from database inception through November 2020 were included in this analysis. A random-effects model, Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to analyze QRS duration changes (eg, electrical cardiac synchronization) across different CIED implantations. The mean study sample size, from 14 included studies, was 185 subjects. The search found 707 articles. After exclusions, 14 articles remained with 2,054 patients. The His bundle pacing intervention resulted in the most dramatic decline in QRS duration (mean difference, - 53 ms; 95% CI - 67, - 39), followed by left bundle branch pacing (mean difference, - 46 ms; 95% CI - 60, - 33), and biventricular pacing (mean difference, - 19 ms; 95% CI - 37, - 1.8), when compared to conventional right ventricle apical pacing. When compared between LBBP and HBP, showed no statistically significant wider QRS duration in LBBP with mean different 6.5 ms. (95% CI - 6.7, 21). Our network meta-analysis found that physiologic pacing has the greatest effect on QRS duration after implantation. Thus, HBP and LBBP showed no significant difference between QRS duration after implantation. Physiologic pacing interventions result in improved electrocardiography markers of cardiac synchrony, narrower QRS duration, and might lower electromechanical dyssynchrony.

Project description:Background: Little is known about the efficacy of permanent left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of LBBAP on mechanical synchronization and myocardial work (MW) in heart failure (HF) patients and to compare LBBAP with biventricular pacing (BVP). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study. From February 2018 to January 2021, 62 consecutive HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 35%) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) who underwent LBBAP or BVP were enrolled in this study. Echocardiograms and electrocardiograms and were conducted before and 3-6 months after implantation. Intra- and interventricular synchronization were assessed using two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI). The left ventricular pressure-strain loop was obtained by combining left ventricular strain with non-invasive blood pressure to evaluate mechanical efficiency. Results: The echocardiographic response rates were 68.6 and 88.9% in the BVP and LBBAP groups, respectively. Left bundle branch area pacing resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 177.1 ± 16.7 to 113.0 ± 18.4 ms, P < 0.001) and improvement in LVEF (from 29.9 ± 4.8 to 47.1 ± 8.3%, P < 0.001). The global wasted work (GWW) (410.3 ± 166.6 vs. 283.0 ± 129.6 mmHg%, P = 0.001) and global work efficiency (GWE) (64.6 ± 7.8 vs. 80.5 ± 5.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly improved along with shorter peak strain dispersion (PSD) (143.4 ± 45.2 vs. 92.6 ± 35.1 ms, P < 0.001) and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) (56.4 ± 28.5 vs. 28.9 ± 19.0 ms, P < 0.001), indicating its efficiency in improving mechanical synchronization. In comparison with BVP, LBBAP delivered greater improvement of QRS narrowing (-64.1 ± 18.9 vs. -32.5 ± 22.3 ms, P < 0.001) and better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. Conclusions: Left bundle branch area pacing was effective in improving cardiac function, mechanical synchronization, and mechanical efficiency and may be a promising alternative cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Dataset Information

His Resynchronization Versus Biventricular Pacing in Patients With Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block.

Publications

His Resynchronization Versus Biventricular Pacing in Patients With Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure