Effects of Left Ventricular Stimulation Site on Hemodynamic Response of Patients with Ischemic and Non Ischemic Cardiomyopathy and Left Bundle Branch Block – Long Term Follow Up

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. S85
Author(s):  
Dusan Z. Kocovic ◽  
Nancy Britton
Heart ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 105 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weijian Huang ◽  
Lan Su ◽  
Shengjie Wu ◽  
Lei Xu ◽  
Fangyi Xiao ◽  
...  

ObjectivesHis bundle pacing (HBP) can potentially correct left bundle branch block (LBBB). We aimed to assess the efficacy of HBP to correct LBBB and long-term clinical outcomes with HBP in patients with heart failure (HF).MethodsThis is an observational study of patients with HF with typical LBBB who were indicated for pacing therapy and were consecutively enrolled from one centre. Permanent HBP leads were implanted if the LBBB correction threshold was <3.5V/0.5 ms or 3.0 V/1.0 ms. Pacing parameters, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class were assessed during follow-up.ResultsIn 74 enrolled patients (69.6±9.2 years and 43 men), LBBB correction was acutely achieved in 72 (97.3%) patients, and 56 (75.7%) patients received permanent HBP (pHBP) while 18 patients did not receive permanent HBP (non-permanent HBP), due to no LBBB correction (n=2), high LBBB correction thresholds (n=10) and fixation failure (n=6). The median follow-up period of pHBP was 37.1 (range 15.0–48.7) months. Thirty patients with pHBP had completed 3-year follow-up, with LVEF increased from baseline 32.4±8.9% to 55.9±10.7% (p<0.001), LVESV decreased from a baseline of 137.9±64.1 mL to 52.4±32.6 mL (p<0.001) and NYHA Class improvement from baseline 2.73±0.58 to 1.03±0.18 (p<0.001). LBBB correction threshold remained stable with acute threshold of 2.13±1.19 V/0.5 ms to 2.29±0.92 V/0.5 ms at 3-year follow-up (p>0.05).ConclusionspHBP improved LVEF, LVESV and NYHA Class in patients with HF with typical LBBB.


2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (01) ◽  
pp. 070-077 ◽  
Author(s):  
H. Burger ◽  
J. Kempfert ◽  
A. van Linden ◽  
Z. Szalay ◽  
M. Schoenburg ◽  
...  

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Nakao ◽  
M Watanabe ◽  
T Koizumi ◽  
T Kadosaka ◽  
T Koya ◽  
...  

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background  The number of patients who received left ventricular assisted device (LVAD) implantation because of end-stage heart failure has been increasing. In those patients, ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) occur commonly, and electrical storm (ES) and shock therapies by implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) are considered to increase mortality. Although it is important to identify patients with higher risk of VA events, there have been limited data reporting the risk of VAs in LVAD patients during long-term follow up, especially in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM). Purpose  We sought to clarify the predictors of ICD therapies in LVAD patients diagnosed as NICM during long-term follow up. Methods We retrospectively analyzed non-ischemic heart failure patients whom a continuous flow LVAD was implanted as a bridge to transplantation therapy from July 2011 to February 2019. ICD programming was generally set as follows; one zone setting (VF zone with maximum shocks) for primary prevention or two zone setting (VF with maximum shocks and VT with ATPs and shocks) for secondary prevention. ICD settings were generally unchanged after LVAD implantation. Clinical and echocardiographic data were collected before and 3 months after LVAD implantation. Device interrogation was performed every 4 - 6 months at out-patient clinic. Patients were followed until May 2019. Results A total of 25 patients were included in the study. The mean age was 49 years, 88% were men. They majority of patients (52%) were diagnosed as idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. During the median follow up duration of 889 days (IQR 546 – 2070), 27 appropriate shock events occurred in 7 patients and 154 appropriate ATP-only events in 10 patients. The group with appropriate ICD event (11 patients, 44%) had significantly smaller LVDd (65.2 ± 4.0 vs. 79.4 ± 3.5 mm; p = 0.01) and higher LVEF (26.2 ± 1.6 vs. 20.5 ± 1.4 %; p = 0.02) before LVAD implantation. When patients were divided into 2 groups based on the median value (70.0 mm) of LVDd before LVAD implantation (pre LVDd), patients with smaller pre LVDd (≤ 70mm) had significantly higher rate of appropriate ICD treatment than those with larger pre LVDd (&gt; 70 mm) (Log-rank p &lt; 0.01). In univariate cox regression analysis, pre LVDd was negatively associated with appropriate ICD therapy (hazard ratio 0.94, 95% confidence interval 0.88 - 0.99; p = 0.02). Conclusion Smaller LVDd before LVAD implantation might be a possible predictor of appropriate ICD treatment in patients with NICM. Abstract Figure.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document