Impact of His bundle pacing on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation.

Background: His‐Bundle pacing (HBP) is an emerging technique for physiological pacing. However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown. Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for pacemaker (PM) implantation to compare HBP versus RV pacing (RVP) effect...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology Vol. 44; no. 6; pp. 986 - 995
Autores principales: Grieco, Domenico, Bressi, Edoardo, Curila, Karol, Padala, Santosh K., Sedlacek, Kamil, Kron, Jordana, Fedele, Elisa, Ionita, Oana, Giannuzzi, Sara, Fagagnini, Alessandro, Panattoni, Germana, De Ruvo, Ermenegildo, Ellenbogen, Kenneth A., Calò, Leonardo
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Jun2021
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=150823189&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 150823189
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        01478389
        4F8
      jtl: Pacing & Clinical Electrophysiology
      issn: 01478389
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jun2021
      vid: 44
      iid: 6
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        150823189
        150163122
        150823189
        150823189
        10.1111/pace.14249
        150823189
      ppf: 986
      ppct: 9
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: C
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Impact of His bundle pacing on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation.
      aug:
        au:
          Grieco, Domenico
          Bressi, Edoardo
          Curila, Karol
          Padala, Santosh K.
          Sedlacek, Kamil
          Kron, Jordana
          Fedele, Elisa
          Ionita, Oana
          Giannuzzi, Sara
          Fagagnini, Alessandro
          Panattoni, Germana
          De Ruvo, Ermenegildo
          Ellenbogen, Kenneth A.
          Calò, Leonardo
        affil: Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino of, Rome, Rome, Italy
      sug:
        subj:
          Heart Ventricle, Right Physiology
          Cardiac Pacing, Artificial
          Pacemaker, Artificial
          Human
          Male
          Female
          Aged
          Aged, 80 and Over
          Cardiac Patients
          Prospective Studies
          Descriptive Statistics
          Echocardiography
          Comorbidity
          Electrodes, Implanted
          Systolic Pressure
          Tricuspid Valve Pathology
          Data Analysis Software
          Analysis of Variance
          Aged: 65+ years
          Aged, 80 & over
          Male
          Female
      ab: Background: His‐Bundle pacing (HBP) is an emerging technique for physiological pacing. However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown. Methods: We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for pacemaker (PM) implantation to compare HBP versus RV pacing (RVP) effects on RV performance. Patients were evaluated before implantation and after 6 months by a transthoracic echocardiogram. Results: A total of 84 patients (age 75.1±7.9 years, 64% male) were enrolled, 42 patients (50%) underwent successful HBP, and 42 patients (50%) apical RVP. At follow up, we found a significant improvement in RV‐FAC (Fractional Area Change)% [baseline: HBP 34 IQR (31–37) vs. RVP 33 IQR (29.7–37.2),p =.602; 6‐months: HBP 37 IQR (33–39) vs. RVP 30 IQR (27.7–35), p <.0001] and RV‐GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)% [baseline: HBP –18 IQR (–20.2 to –15) vs. RVP –16 IQR (–18.7 to –14), p =.150; 6‐months: HBP –20 IQR(–23 to –17) vs. RVP –13.5 IQR (–16 to –11), p <.0001] with HBP whereas RVP was associated with a significant decline in both parameters. RVP was also associated with a significant worsening of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (p <.0001) and S wave velocity (p <.0001) at follow up. Conversely from RVP, HBP significantly improved pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) [baseline: HBP 38 IQR (32–42) mmHg vs. RVP 34 IQR (31.5–37) mmHg,p =.060; 6‐months: HBP 32 IQR (26–38) mmHg vs. RVP 39 IQR (36–41) mmHg, p <.0001] and tricuspid regurgitation (p =.005) irrespectively from lead position above or below the tricuspid valve. Conclusions: In patients undergoing PM implantation, HBP ensues a beneficial and protective impact on RV performance compared with RVP.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N