RESUMEN
Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.
RESUMEN
Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.
Asunto(s)
Terapia de Resincronización Cardíaca , Insuficiencia Cardíaca , Niño , Humanos , Fascículo Atrioventricular , Resultado del Tratamiento , Trastorno del Sistema de Conducción Cardíaco , Terapia de Resincronización Cardíaca/métodos , Insuficiencia Cardíaca/terapia , Electrocardiografía/métodosRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in an international, multicenter, collaborative study. BACKGROUND: CRT using biventricular pacing is effective in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB). LBBAP has been reported as an alternative option for CRT. METHODS: LBBAP was attempted in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% and indications for CRT or pacing. Procedural outcomes, left bundle branch capture, New York Heart Association functional class, heart failure hospitalization, echocardiographic data, and lead complications were recorded. Clinical (no heart failure hospitalization and improvement in New York Heart Association functional class) and echocardiographic responses (≥5% improvement in LVEF) were assessed. RESULTS: LBBAP was attempted in 325 patients, and CRT was successfully achieved in 277 (85%) (mean age 71 ± 12 years, 35% women, ischemic cardiomyopathy in 44%). QRS configuration at baseline was LBBB in 39% and non-LBBB in 46%. Procedure and fluoroscopy duration were 105 ± 54 and 19 ± 15 min, respectively. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.6 ± 0.3 V at 0.5 ms and 10.6 ± 6 mV at implantation and remained stable during mean follow-up of 6 ± 5 months. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing from 152 ± 32 to 137 ± 22 ms (p < 0.01). LVEF improved from 33 ± 10% to 44 ± 11% (p < 0.01). Clinical and echocardiographic responses were observed in 72% and 73% of patients, respectively. Baseline LBBB (odds ratio: 3.96; 95% confidence interval: 1.64 to 9.26; p < 0.01) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.79; p < 0.01) were independent predictors of echocardiographic response. CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP is feasible and safe and provides an alternative option for CRT. LBBAP provides remarkably low and stable pacing thresholds and was associated with improved clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.
