首页> 外文会议>World Congress on Heart Disease. >Biventricular pacing in atrioventricular block with heart failure: Is pacing the left ventricle the right thing to do?
【24h】

Biventricular pacing in atrioventricular block with heart failure: Is pacing the left ventricle the right thing to do?

机译:心力衰竭的房室间梗死中的五夜穴位:令左心室的左侧是正确的吗?

获取原文

摘要

Background: Atrioventricular (AV) block is a common cardiac rhythm disorder treated with cardiac pacing, usually right ventricular (RV) apical pacing. High percentages of RV pacing are associated with long-term deleterious effects and may worsen left ventricular (LV) systolic function in patients with systolic heart failure. We evaluated the benefit of biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients with systolic dysfunction and AV block requiring pacing. Methods: Patients who had AV block with indications for pacing and LV systolic dysfunction having LV ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% with New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class I, II or III symptoms were enrolled. All patients received a cardiac resynchronization device (pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), the latter if they independently met an indication for defibrillator therapy). They were randomly assigned to RV pacing versus BiV pacing. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, a heart failure (HF) urgent care visit requiring intravenous therapy or a 15% or more increase in LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) Results: A total of 691 patients were randomized, and they were followed for an average of 37 months. The primary endpoint occurred in 190 patients (55.6%) in the RV pacing group and in 160 patients (45.8%) in the BiV pacing group (hazard ratio 0.74; 95% credible interval (CI) 0.60-0.90). The secondary end point of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization was seen in 129 patients (37.7%) in the RV pacing group and 115 patients (32.9%) in the BiV group (hazard ratio 0.78; 95% credible interval (CI) 0.61-0.99). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality alone. Procedure or systems-related complications were seen in 10.3% of patients. Conclusions: BiV pacing was superior to standard RV pacing in patients with AV block and LV systolic dysfunction with NYHA class I, II or III symptoms.
机译:背景:房室(AV)嵌段是用心脏起搏处理的常见心脏节律障碍,通常是右心室(RV)顶部起搏。高百分比的RV起搏与长期有害效果有关,可能在收缩性心力衰竭患者中恶化左心室(LV)收缩功能。我们评估了在收缩功能障碍患者和需要起搏的AV嵌段患者中的生物不良(BIV)起搏的益处。方法:患有AV嵌段的患者,患有PACIPE和LV收缩功能障碍的患者,具有LV喷射分数(LVEF)<50%的纽约心脏关联(NYHA)I,II或III症状症状。所有患者均接受心脏重新同步装置(起搏器或植入心脏去世除颤器(ICD),如果他们独立地达到除颤器治疗的指示)。它们被随机分配到RV起搏与生物起搏。主要终点是全因死亡率的综合,一种心力衰竭(HF)紧急护理访问需要静脉治疗或15%或更多的LV末端收缩量指数(LVESVI)结果:总共691名患者随机化,他们平均持续37个月。初级终点发生在RV起搏组中的190名患者(55.6%)和160名患者(55.8%)中(45.8%)(45.8%)(危险比0.74; 95%可靠间隔(CI)0.60-0.90)。在RV起搏组129名患者(37.7%)和BIV组(危险比0.78; 95%可靠间隔(CI)0.61)中,在129名患者(37.7%)中,在129名患者(37.7%)中,在129名患者(37.7%)中出现了次要终点。 -0.99)。单独的全导致死亡率没有显着差异。在10.3%的患者中可以看到程序或相关的并发症。结论:BIV起搏优于AV嵌段和LV收缩功能障碍的患者标准RV起搏,患有NYHA I类,II或III症状。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号