Left bundle branch area pacing prevents pacing induced cardiomyopathy in long-term observation

被引:11
|
作者
Bednarek, Agnieszka [1 ,2 ]
Kielbasa, Grzegorz [1 ]
Moskal, Pawel [1 ]
Ostrowska, Aleksandra [1 ]
Bednarski, Adam [1 ]
Sondej, Tomasz [1 ]
Kusiak, Aleksander [1 ]
Rajzer, Marek [1 ]
Jastrzebski, Marek [1 ]
机构
[1] Jagiellonian Univ Med Coll, Dept Cardiol Intervent Electrocardiol & Hypertens, Krakow, Poland
[2] Szpital Uniwersytecki, Kardiol & Elektrokardiol Interwencyjnej & Nadcisni, Ul Jakubowskiego 2, PL-30688 Krakow, Poland
来源
PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY | 2023年 / 46卷 / 07期
关键词
echocardiography; left bundle branch area pacing; left ventricular systolic function; pacing induced cardiomyopathy; 2D speckle tracing; CARDIAC RESYNCHRONIZATION THERAPY; PREDICTORS; ASSOCIATION; SOCIETY; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1111/pace.14707
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is one of the methods to deliver conduction system pacing which potentially avoids the negative impact of conventional right ventricular pacing. Objective: To assess echocardiographic outcomes in a long-term observation in patients with LBBAP implemented for bradyarrhythmia indications. Methods and Results: A total of 151 patients with symptomatic bradycardia and LBBAP pacemaker implanted, were prospectively included in the study. Subjects with left bundle branch block and CRT indications (n = 29), ventricular pacing burden <40% (n = 11), and loss of LBBAP (n = 10) were excluded from further analysis. At baseline and the last follow-up visit, echocardiography with global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment, 12-lead ECG, pacemaker interrogation, and blood level of NT-proBNP were performed. The median follow-up period was 23 months (15.5-28). None of the analyzed patients fulfilled the criteria for pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and GLS was observed in patients with LVEF <50% at baseline (n = 39): 41.4 +/- 9.2% versus 45.6 +/- 9.9%, and 12.9 +/- 3.6% versus 15.5 +/- 3.7%, respectively. In the subgroup with preserved EF (n = 62), LVEF and GLS remained stable at follow-up: 59.3 +/- 5.5% versus 60 +/- 5.5%, and 19 +/- 3.9% versus 19.4 +/- 3.8%, respectively. Conclusion: LBBAP prevents PICM in patients with preserved LVEF and improves left ventricle function in subjects with depressed LVEF. LBBAP might be the preferred pacing modality for bradyarrhythmia indications.
引用
收藏
页码:629 / 638
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block
    Hua, Juan
    Chen, Yang
    Yu, Jianhua
    Xiong, Qinmei
    Xia, Zhen
    Xia, Zirong
    Huang, Qianghui
    Kong, Qiling
    Chen, Huolong
    Zhang, Yichu
    Hu, Jianxin
    Li, Juxiang
    Hu, Jinzhu
    Chen, Qi
    Hong, Kui
    HEART AND VESSELS, 2022, 37 (07) : 1162 - 1174
  • [2] Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: left bundle branch area pacing versus leadless pacing
    Chopra, Maya
    Hsieh, Ji-Cheng
    Mueller, William
    Braunstein, Eric D.
    Beldner, Stuart
    Mitra, Raman L.
    Epstein, Laurence M.
    Willner, Jonathan
    Gabriels, James K.
    JOURNAL OF INTERVENTIONAL CARDIAC ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2025,
  • [3] Comparison of left bundle branch area pacing between patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy
    Perea-Armijo, Jorge
    Gutierrez-Ballesteros, Guillermo
    Mazuelos-Bellido, Francisco
    Gonzalez-Manzanares, Rafael
    Huelva, Jose Maria
    Lopez-Aguilera, Jose
    Pan, Manuel
    Saint-Gerons, Jose Maria Segura
    CURRENT PROBLEMS IN CARDIOLOGY, 2025, 50 (01) : 102886
  • [4] The specific value of upgrading to left bundle branch area pacing in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy or non-pacing-induced cardiomyopathy related upgrade status: A retrospective study
    Shan, Yu
    Lin, Maoning
    Sun, Yaxun
    Zhang, Jiefang
    Jiang, Hangpan
    Fu, Guosheng
    Zhang, Wenbin
    Wang, Min
    PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2023, 46 (07): : 761 - 770
  • [5] Reversal of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy after left bundle branch area pacing: a case report
    Soonil Kwon
    So-Ryoung Lee
    Eue-Keun Choi
    Seil Oh
    International Journal of Arrhythmia, 24 (1)
  • [6] Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block
    Juan Hua
    Yang Chen
    Jianhua Yu
    Qinmei Xiong
    Zhen Xia
    Zirong Xia
    Qianghui Huang
    Qiling Kong
    Huolong Chen
    Yichu Zhang
    Jianxin Hu
    Juxiang Li
    Jinzhu Hu
    Qi Chen
    Kui Hong
    Heart and Vessels, 2022, 37 : 1162 - 1174
  • [7] His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing: Feasibility and safety
    Saleiro, Carolina
    Sousa, Pedro A.
    Nogueira, Catarina
    Mota, Lidia
    Almeida, Claudia
    Braganca, Gisela
    Paisana, Francisco
    REVISTA PORTUGUESA DE CARDIOLOGIA, 2023, 42 (08) : 683 - 691
  • [8] Long-term efficacy of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure complicated with left bundle branch block
    Li, Jia
    Yi, Hongwei
    Han, Jun
    Han, Hongwei
    Su, Xi
    FRONTIERS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, 2024, 11
  • [9] Recovery of Right Ventricular Apical Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy with Left Bundle Branch Pacing
    Dogan, Mert
    Canpolat, Ugur
    TURK KARDIYOLOJI DERNEGI ARSIVI-ARCHIVES OF THE TURKISH SOCIETY OF CARDIOLOGY, 2024, 52 (05): : 357 - 361
  • [10] Feasibility, safety and outcomes of upgrading to left bundle branch pacing in patients with right ventricular pacing induced cardiomyopathy
    Rademakers, Leonard M.
    Bouwmeester, Sjoerd
    Mast, Thomas P.
    Dekker, Lukas
    Houthuizen, Patrick
    Bracke, Frank A.
    PACE-PACING AND CLINICAL ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY, 2022, 45 (06): : 726 - 732