Left bundle branch area pacing is superior to right ventricular septum pacing concerning depolarization‐repolarization reserve
Introduction Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new physiological pacing strategy with clinical feasibility and safety. The present study aims to investigate depolarization‐repolarization measures including QT interval, QT dispersion (QTD), and Tpeak‐end interv...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology 2020-01, Vol.31 (1), p.313-322 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 322 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 1 |
| container_start_page | 313 |
| container_title | Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology |
| container_volume | 31 |
| creator | Wang, Jingfeng Liang, Yixiu Wang, Wei Chen, Xueying Bai, Jin Chen, Haiyan Su, Yangang Chen, Ruizhen Ge, Junbo |
| description | Introduction
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new physiological pacing strategy with clinical feasibility and safety. The present study aims to investigate depolarization‐repolarization measures including QT interval, QT dispersion (QTD), and Tpeak‐end interval (TpTe) in this novel LBBAP strategy.
Methods and Results
A total of 131 pacing‐indicated patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to the LBBAP group (n = 66) and right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) group (n = 65). LBBAP was successfully achieved in 61 subjects with stable lead performance and comparable complications (ie, pocket hematoma, lead perforation, and dislodgement) compared with RVSP. Of the 61 patients with successful LBBAP, the mean LV peak activation time was 67.89 ± 6.80 ms, with the LBB potential mapped in 46 cases (75.4%). Electrocardiogram (ECG) indices were compared between these two groups before and after implantation. As a result, LBBAP yielded a narrower paced QRS duration (121.49 ± 9.87 ms vs 145.62 ± 8.89 ms; P |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/jce.14295 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2319493685</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2338889028</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4195-e3d77c6ba539493980edefdaa57d6d2901746a24b8be1b5dbf4e9e046cec76ba3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp10c1qHSEYBmAJLflrF72BInTTLCbRUUddhkN-OdBNux4c_SbxMEcnOpOSrnIJvcZcSTw5SaGFuvFDHl8-eBH6RMkxLedkZeGY8lqLHbRPBSeVoo18V2bCRcWUZHvoIOcVIZQ1ROyiPUalVDXX--hxCf2Euzm4AXCXTLC32CQweDTWhxvsM87zCMnHhKeIk7-5nfA9hCl5Ow8m4QzjNK_fuI3BQgqb0cEYC_C_zORjeHr8nf56wAkypHv4gN73Zsjw8fU-RD_Oz74vLqvlt4urxemyspxqUQFzUtqmM4JprplWBBz0zhghXeNqTajkjal5pzqgnXBdz0ED4Y0FK8s3doi-bnPHFO9myFO79tnCMJgAcc5tzegmuFGi0C__0FWcUyjbFcWUUprUqqijrbIp5pygb8fk1yY9tJS0m1raUkv7Ukuxn18T524N7o9866GAky346Qd4-H9Se70420Y-AzUqmvI</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2338889028</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Left bundle branch area pacing is superior to right ventricular septum pacing concerning depolarization‐repolarization reserve</title><source>Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals</source><creator>Wang, Jingfeng ; Liang, Yixiu ; Wang, Wei ; Chen, Xueying ; Bai, Jin ; Chen, Haiyan ; Su, Yangang ; Chen, Ruizhen ; Ge, Junbo</creator><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jingfeng ; Liang, Yixiu ; Wang, Wei ; Chen, Xueying ; Bai, Jin ; Chen, Haiyan ; Su, Yangang ; Chen, Ruizhen ; Ge, Junbo</creatorcontrib><description>Introduction
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new physiological pacing strategy with clinical feasibility and safety. The present study aims to investigate depolarization‐repolarization measures including QT interval, QT dispersion (QTD), and Tpeak‐end interval (TpTe) in this novel LBBAP strategy.
Methods and Results
A total of 131 pacing‐indicated patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to the LBBAP group (n = 66) and right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) group (n = 65). LBBAP was successfully achieved in 61 subjects with stable lead performance and comparable complications (ie, pocket hematoma, lead perforation, and dislodgement) compared with RVSP. Of the 61 patients with successful LBBAP, the mean LV peak activation time was 67.89 ± 6.80 ms, with the LBB potential mapped in 46 cases (75.4%). Electrocardiogram (ECG) indices were compared between these two groups before and after implantation. As a result, LBBAP yielded a narrower paced QRS duration (121.49 ± 9.87 ms vs 145.62 ± 8.89 ms; P < .001), shorter QT interval (434.16 ± 32.70 ms vs 462.66 ± 32.04 ms; P < .001), and QTc interval (472.44 ± 33.30 ms vs 499.65 ± 31.35 ms; P < .001), lower QTD (40.10 ± 8.68 ms vs 46.11 ± 10.85 ms; P = .001), and QTcD (43.57 ± 8.78 ms vs 49.86 ± 11.98 ms; P = .001), and shorter TpTe (96.59 ± 10.76 ms vs 103.77 ± 10.16 ms; P < .001) than RVSP. However, TpTe/QT ratio did not differ between these two groups (0.223 ± 0.026 vs 0.225 ± 0.022; P = .733). Furthermore, LBBAP displayed less increased QRS duration, QTc interval, QTD, QTcD, and a more shortened QT interval compared with RVSP (all P < .05).
Conclusion
LBBAP proves to be a feasible and safe pacing procedure with better depolarization‐repolarization reserve, which may predict lower risk of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1045-3873</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1540-8167</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/jce.14295</identifier><identifier>PMID: 31778249</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>Arrhythmia ; Complications ; Depolarization ; depolarization‐repolarization reserve ; EKG ; Electrocardiography ; Feasibility ; Heart ; Hematoma ; Implantation ; left bundle branch area pacing ; pacemaker ; physiological pacing ; right ventricular septum pacing ; Septum ; Ventricle</subject><ispartof>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2020-01, Vol.31 (1), p.313-322</ispartof><rights>2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><rights>2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4195-e3d77c6ba539493980edefdaa57d6d2901746a24b8be1b5dbf4e9e046cec76ba3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4195-e3d77c6ba539493980edefdaa57d6d2901746a24b8be1b5dbf4e9e046cec76ba3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-6397-2988</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111%2Fjce.14295$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111%2Fjce.14295$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,1417,27924,27925,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31778249$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jingfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Yixiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Xueying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bai, Jin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Haiyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Su, Yangang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Ruizhen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ge, Junbo</creatorcontrib><title>Left bundle branch area pacing is superior to right ventricular septum pacing concerning depolarization‐repolarization reserve</title><title>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology</title><addtitle>J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol</addtitle><description>Introduction
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new physiological pacing strategy with clinical feasibility and safety. The present study aims to investigate depolarization‐repolarization measures including QT interval, QT dispersion (QTD), and Tpeak‐end interval (TpTe) in this novel LBBAP strategy.
Methods and Results
A total of 131 pacing‐indicated patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to the LBBAP group (n = 66) and right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) group (n = 65). LBBAP was successfully achieved in 61 subjects with stable lead performance and comparable complications (ie, pocket hematoma, lead perforation, and dislodgement) compared with RVSP. Of the 61 patients with successful LBBAP, the mean LV peak activation time was 67.89 ± 6.80 ms, with the LBB potential mapped in 46 cases (75.4%). Electrocardiogram (ECG) indices were compared between these two groups before and after implantation. As a result, LBBAP yielded a narrower paced QRS duration (121.49 ± 9.87 ms vs 145.62 ± 8.89 ms; P < .001), shorter QT interval (434.16 ± 32.70 ms vs 462.66 ± 32.04 ms; P < .001), and QTc interval (472.44 ± 33.30 ms vs 499.65 ± 31.35 ms; P < .001), lower QTD (40.10 ± 8.68 ms vs 46.11 ± 10.85 ms; P = .001), and QTcD (43.57 ± 8.78 ms vs 49.86 ± 11.98 ms; P = .001), and shorter TpTe (96.59 ± 10.76 ms vs 103.77 ± 10.16 ms; P < .001) than RVSP. However, TpTe/QT ratio did not differ between these two groups (0.223 ± 0.026 vs 0.225 ± 0.022; P = .733). Furthermore, LBBAP displayed less increased QRS duration, QTc interval, QTD, QTcD, and a more shortened QT interval compared with RVSP (all P < .05).
Conclusion
LBBAP proves to be a feasible and safe pacing procedure with better depolarization‐repolarization reserve, which may predict lower risk of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death.</description><subject>Arrhythmia</subject><subject>Complications</subject><subject>Depolarization</subject><subject>depolarization‐repolarization reserve</subject><subject>EKG</subject><subject>Electrocardiography</subject><subject>Feasibility</subject><subject>Heart</subject><subject>Hematoma</subject><subject>Implantation</subject><subject>left bundle branch area pacing</subject><subject>pacemaker</subject><subject>physiological pacing</subject><subject>right ventricular septum pacing</subject><subject>Septum</subject><subject>Ventricle</subject><issn>1045-3873</issn><issn>1540-8167</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNp10c1qHSEYBmAJLflrF72BInTTLCbRUUddhkN-OdBNux4c_SbxMEcnOpOSrnIJvcZcSTw5SaGFuvFDHl8-eBH6RMkxLedkZeGY8lqLHbRPBSeVoo18V2bCRcWUZHvoIOcVIZQ1ROyiPUalVDXX--hxCf2Euzm4AXCXTLC32CQweDTWhxvsM87zCMnHhKeIk7-5nfA9hCl5Ow8m4QzjNK_fuI3BQgqb0cEYC_C_zORjeHr8nf56wAkypHv4gN73Zsjw8fU-RD_Oz74vLqvlt4urxemyspxqUQFzUtqmM4JprplWBBz0zhghXeNqTajkjal5pzqgnXBdz0ED4Y0FK8s3doi-bnPHFO9myFO79tnCMJgAcc5tzegmuFGi0C__0FWcUyjbFcWUUprUqqijrbIp5pygb8fk1yY9tJS0m1raUkv7Ukuxn18T524N7o9866GAky346Qd4-H9Se70420Y-AzUqmvI</recordid><startdate>202001</startdate><enddate>202001</enddate><creator>Wang, Jingfeng</creator><creator>Liang, Yixiu</creator><creator>Wang, Wei</creator><creator>Chen, Xueying</creator><creator>Bai, Jin</creator><creator>Chen, Haiyan</creator><creator>Su, Yangang</creator><creator>Chen, Ruizhen</creator><creator>Ge, Junbo</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QP</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>7X8</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6397-2988</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202001</creationdate><title>Left bundle branch area pacing is superior to right ventricular septum pacing concerning depolarization‐repolarization reserve</title><author>Wang, Jingfeng ; Liang, Yixiu ; Wang, Wei ; Chen, Xueying ; Bai, Jin ; Chen, Haiyan ; Su, Yangang ; Chen, Ruizhen ; Ge, Junbo</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4195-e3d77c6ba539493980edefdaa57d6d2901746a24b8be1b5dbf4e9e046cec76ba3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>Arrhythmia</topic><topic>Complications</topic><topic>Depolarization</topic><topic>depolarization‐repolarization reserve</topic><topic>EKG</topic><topic>Electrocardiography</topic><topic>Feasibility</topic><topic>Heart</topic><topic>Hematoma</topic><topic>Implantation</topic><topic>left bundle branch area pacing</topic><topic>pacemaker</topic><topic>physiological pacing</topic><topic>right ventricular septum pacing</topic><topic>Septum</topic><topic>Ventricle</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Wang, Jingfeng</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Liang, Yixiu</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wang, Wei</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Xueying</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bai, Jin</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Haiyan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Su, Yangang</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chen, Ruizhen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ge, Junbo</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Wang, Jingfeng</au><au>Liang, Yixiu</au><au>Wang, Wei</au><au>Chen, Xueying</au><au>Bai, Jin</au><au>Chen, Haiyan</au><au>Su, Yangang</au><au>Chen, Ruizhen</au><au>Ge, Junbo</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Left bundle branch area pacing is superior to right ventricular septum pacing concerning depolarization‐repolarization reserve</atitle><jtitle>Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology</jtitle><addtitle>J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol</addtitle><date>2020-01</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>31</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>313</spage><epage>322</epage><pages>313-322</pages><issn>1045-3873</issn><eissn>1540-8167</eissn><abstract>Introduction
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new physiological pacing strategy with clinical feasibility and safety. The present study aims to investigate depolarization‐repolarization measures including QT interval, QT dispersion (QTD), and Tpeak‐end interval (TpTe) in this novel LBBAP strategy.
Methods and Results
A total of 131 pacing‐indicated patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to the LBBAP group (n = 66) and right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) group (n = 65). LBBAP was successfully achieved in 61 subjects with stable lead performance and comparable complications (ie, pocket hematoma, lead perforation, and dislodgement) compared with RVSP. Of the 61 patients with successful LBBAP, the mean LV peak activation time was 67.89 ± 6.80 ms, with the LBB potential mapped in 46 cases (75.4%). Electrocardiogram (ECG) indices were compared between these two groups before and after implantation. As a result, LBBAP yielded a narrower paced QRS duration (121.49 ± 9.87 ms vs 145.62 ± 8.89 ms; P < .001), shorter QT interval (434.16 ± 32.70 ms vs 462.66 ± 32.04 ms; P < .001), and QTc interval (472.44 ± 33.30 ms vs 499.65 ± 31.35 ms; P < .001), lower QTD (40.10 ± 8.68 ms vs 46.11 ± 10.85 ms; P = .001), and QTcD (43.57 ± 8.78 ms vs 49.86 ± 11.98 ms; P = .001), and shorter TpTe (96.59 ± 10.76 ms vs 103.77 ± 10.16 ms; P < .001) than RVSP. However, TpTe/QT ratio did not differ between these two groups (0.223 ± 0.026 vs 0.225 ± 0.022; P = .733). Furthermore, LBBAP displayed less increased QRS duration, QTc interval, QTD, QTcD, and a more shortened QT interval compared with RVSP (all P < .05).
Conclusion
LBBAP proves to be a feasible and safe pacing procedure with better depolarization‐repolarization reserve, which may predict lower risk of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>31778249</pmid><doi>10.1111/jce.14295</doi><tpages>10</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6397-2988</orcidid></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1045-3873 |
| ispartof | Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology, 2020-01, Vol.31 (1), p.313-322 |
| issn | 1045-3873 1540-8167 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2319493685 |
| source | Wiley Online Library - AutoHoldings Journals |
| subjects | Arrhythmia Complications Depolarization depolarization‐repolarization reserve EKG Electrocardiography Feasibility Heart Hematoma Implantation left bundle branch area pacing pacemaker physiological pacing right ventricular septum pacing Septum Ventricle |
| title | Left bundle branch area pacing is superior to right ventricular septum pacing concerning depolarization‐repolarization reserve |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-24T14%3A54%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Left%20bundle%20branch%20area%20pacing%20is%20superior%20to%20right%20ventricular%20septum%20pacing%20concerning%20depolarization%E2%80%90repolarization%20reserve&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20cardiovascular%20electrophysiology&rft.au=Wang,%20Jingfeng&rft.date=2020-01&rft.volume=31&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=313&rft.epage=322&rft.pages=313-322&rft.issn=1045-3873&rft.eissn=1540-8167&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/jce.14295&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2338889028%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2338889028&rft_id=info:pmid/31778249&rfr_iscdi=true |