scholarly journals Within‐patient comparison of His‐bundle pacing, right ventricular pacing, and right ventricular pacing avoidance algorithms in patients with PR prolongation: Acute hemodynamic study

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 2964-2974
Author(s):  
Daniel Keene ◽  
Matthew J. Shun‐Shin ◽  
Ahran D. Arnold ◽  
Katherine March ◽  
Norman Qureshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Right Ventricular Pacing ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Hemodynamic Study

Permanent His-bundle pacing is feasible, safe, and superior to right ventricular pacing in routine clinical practice

Heart Rhythm ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parikshit S. Sharma ◽  
Gopi Dandamudi ◽  
Angela Naperkowski ◽  
Jess W. Oren ◽  
Randle H. Storm ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Routine Clinical Practice ◽  
Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Right Ventricular Pacing ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing

Permanent His Bundle Pacing: A Good Unconventional Mode of Right Ventricular Pacing?

2004 ◽  
pp. 843-849
Author(s):  
E. Occhetta ◽  
M. Bortnik ◽  
G. Francalacci ◽  
A. Magnani ◽  
C. PIccinino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Right Ventricular Pacing ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing

Outcomes of His-bundle pacing upgrade after long-term right ventricular pacing and/or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: Insights into disease progression

Heart Rhythm ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. 1554-1561 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman ◽  
Bengt Herweg ◽  
Gopi Dandamudi ◽  
Suneet Mittal ◽  
Advay G. Bhatt ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Disease Progression ◽  
Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Right Ventricular Pacing ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing

scholarly journals Development of New‐Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (22) ◽  
Author(s):  
Venkatesh Ravi ◽  
Dominik Beer ◽  
Grzegorz M. Pietrasik ◽  
Jillian L. Hanifin ◽  
Sara Ooms ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Lower Risk ◽  
Prior History ◽  
Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Right Ventricular Pacing ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
History Of ◽  
New Onset

Background Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to compare the occurrence of new‐onset AF and assessed AF disease progression during long‐term follow‐up between His bundle pacing (HBP) and RVP. Methods and Results We included patients undergoing initial dual‐chamber pacemaker implants at Rush University Medical Center between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019. A total of 360 patients were evaluated, and 225 patients (HBP, n=105; RVP, n=120) were included in the study. Among the 148 patients (HBP, n=72; RVP, n=76) with no history of AF, HBP demonstrated a lower risk of new‐onset AF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28–0.99; P =0.046) compared with traditional RVP. This benefit was observed with His or RVP burden exceeding 20% (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13–0.64; P =0.002), ≥40% (HR, 0.31; P =0.007), ≥60% (HR, 0.35; P =0.015), and ≥80% (HR, 0.40; P =0.038). There was no difference with His or RV pacing burden <20% (HR, 0.613; 95% CI, 0.213–1.864; P =0.404). In patients with a prior history of AF, there was no difference in AF progression ( P =0.715); however, in a subgroup of patients with a pacing burden ≥40%, HBP demonstrated a trend toward a lower risk of AF progression (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03–1.16; P =0.072). Conclusions HBP demonstrated a lower risk of new‐onset AF compared with RVP, which was primarily observed at a higher pacing burden.

scholarly journals A network meta-analysis and systematic review of change in QRS duration after left bundle branch pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing, or right ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacemaker

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nithi Tokavanich ◽  
Narut Prasitlumkum ◽  
Wimwipa Mongkonsritragoon ◽  
Wisit Cheungpasitporn ◽  
Charat Thongprayoon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Biventricular Pacing ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Ventricular Pacing ◽  
Right Ventricular Pacing ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Qrs Duration

AbstractCardiac dyssynchrony is the proposed mechanism for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, which can be prevented by biventricular pacing. Left bundle branch pacing and His bundle pacing are novel interventions that imitate the natural conduction of the heart with, theoretically, less interventricular dyssynchrony. One of the surrogate markers of interventricular synchrony is QRS duration. Our study aimed to compare the change of QRS duration before and after implantation between types of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): left bundle branch pacing versus His bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing and conventional right ventricular pacing. A literature search for studies that reported an interval change of QRS duration after CIED implantation was conducted utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. All relevant works from database inception through November 2020 were included in this analysis. A random-effects model, Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to analyze QRS duration changes (eg, electrical cardiac synchronization) across different CIED implantations. The mean study sample size, from 14 included studies, was 185 subjects. The search found 707 articles. After exclusions, 14 articles remained with 2,054 patients. The His bundle pacing intervention resulted in the most dramatic decline in QRS duration (mean difference, − 53 ms; 95% CI − 67, − 39), followed by left bundle branch pacing (mean difference, − 46 ms; 95% CI − 60, − 33), and biventricular pacing (mean difference, − 19 ms; 95% CI − 37, − 1.8), when compared to conventional right ventricle apical pacing. When compared between LBBP and HBP, showed no statistically significant wider QRS duration in LBBP with mean different 6.5 ms. (95% CI − 6.7, 21). Our network meta-analysis found that physiologic pacing has the greatest effect on QRS duration after implantation. Thus, HBP and LBBP showed no significant difference between QRS duration after implantation. Physiologic pacing interventions result in improved electrocardiography markers of cardiac synchrony, narrower QRS duration, and might lower electromechanical dyssynchrony.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document