Scholarlink

Aims <p>This study aimed to investigate the potential efficacy and safety of conduction system pacing (CSP) upgrades in patients indicated for elective replacement (ERI) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 50% including those with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).</p> Methods <p>This observational, retrospective cohort study included all patients with an LVEF &lt; 50% who had a right ventricular pacing percentage of ≥ 40% prior to pulse generator replacement from January 2018 to October 2021. Cardiac performance and lead outcomes were compared across different LVEF groups based on whether they received CSP upgrades.</p> Results <p>A total of 60 patients were enrolled in this study, comprising 29 patients who successfully underwent CSP upgrades (29/32, 90.46%) and 31 patients who declined the upgrades. Comparable improvements in LVEF (9.00 ± 5.90% vs. 5.90 ± 3.72%, <i>P</i> = 0.325) and LVEDD (2.80 ± 1.95&#xa0;mm vs. 3.10 ± 2.60&#xa0;mm, <i>P</i> = 0.835) were noted in patients with HFmrEF. However, the final LVEF (53.50 ± 6.06 vs. 40.10 ± 10.20, <i>P</i> = 0.031) and LVEDD (48.60 ± 4.79 vs. 55.67 ± 9.80, <i>P</i> = 0.040) were more favorable in patients with HFmrEF compared to those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In patients who declined CSP upgrades, NYHA grade (2.92 ± 0.79 vs. 2.75 ± 0.45, <i>P</i> = 0.010) and LVEF (29.50 ± 8.19% vs. 32.92 ± 5.25%, <i>P</i> = 0.018) decreased in patients with HFrEF, while comparable reductions in LVEF (45.84 ± 3.00% vs. 39.89 ± 10.83%, <i>P</i> = 0.001) and LVEDD (55.86 ± 9.62&#xa0;mm vs. 50.11 ± 6.26&#xa0;mm, <i>P</i> = 0.044) were observed in patients with HFmrEF. No complications, including thrombosis, infection, lead dislodgement, perforation, or stroke, were reported. The pacing threshold (1.25 ± 0.45&#xa0;V vs. 1.57 ± 0.55&#xa0;V, <i>P</i> = 0.129) did not differ significantly between patients with CSP upgrades and those without, following a follow-up period of 40.57 ± 8.21&#xa0;months.</p> Conclusion <p>CSP upgrade during pulse generator replacement for battery depletion was associated with improved cardiac performances in patients with LVEF less than 50%. The final cardiac performance in patients with HFmrEF is more favorable. Larger-scale randomized controlled studies are therefore necessary to validate these findings, confirm the efficacy of CSP upgrade, and establish its optimal timing.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Long-term cardiac outcomes of conduction system pacing upgrade in patient with generator replacement indication and heart failure

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月6日

查看全文
  • Qiao Wang,
  • Yan-Ni Zhao,
  • Da-Fei Zong,
  • Xiao-Lei Yang,
  • Xin-Jing Ai,
  • Yi-Heng Yang,
  • Lian-Jun Gao,
  • Yun-Long Xia,
  • Ying-Xue Dong

摘要

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the potential efficacy and safety of conduction system pacing (CSP) upgrades in patients indicated for elective replacement (ERI) with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of less than 50% including those with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF).

Methods

This observational, retrospective cohort study included all patients with an LVEF < 50% who had a right ventricular pacing percentage of ≥ 40% prior to pulse generator replacement from January 2018 to October 2021. Cardiac performance and lead outcomes were compared across different LVEF groups based on whether they received CSP upgrades.

Results

A total of 60 patients were enrolled in this study, comprising 29 patients who successfully underwent CSP upgrades (29/32, 90.46%) and 31 patients who declined the upgrades. Comparable improvements in LVEF (9.00 ± 5.90% vs. 5.90 ± 3.72%, P = 0.325) and LVEDD (2.80 ± 1.95 mm vs. 3.10 ± 2.60 mm, P = 0.835) were noted in patients with HFmrEF. However, the final LVEF (53.50 ± 6.06 vs. 40.10 ± 10.20, P = 0.031) and LVEDD (48.60 ± 4.79 vs. 55.67 ± 9.80, P = 0.040) were more favorable in patients with HFmrEF compared to those with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). In patients who declined CSP upgrades, NYHA grade (2.92 ± 0.79 vs. 2.75 ± 0.45, P = 0.010) and LVEF (29.50 ± 8.19% vs. 32.92 ± 5.25%, P = 0.018) decreased in patients with HFrEF, while comparable reductions in LVEF (45.84 ± 3.00% vs. 39.89 ± 10.83%, P = 0.001) and LVEDD (55.86 ± 9.62 mm vs. 50.11 ± 6.26 mm, P = 0.044) were observed in patients with HFmrEF. No complications, including thrombosis, infection, lead dislodgement, perforation, or stroke, were reported. The pacing threshold (1.25 ± 0.45 V vs. 1.57 ± 0.55 V, P = 0.129) did not differ significantly between patients with CSP upgrades and those without, following a follow-up period of 40.57 ± 8.21 months.

Conclusion

CSP upgrade during pulse generator replacement for battery depletion was associated with improved cardiac performances in patients with LVEF less than 50%. The final cardiac performance in patients with HFmrEF is more favorable. Larger-scale randomized controlled studies are therefore necessary to validate these findings, confirm the efficacy of CSP upgrade, and establish its optimal timing.