BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is associated with heart failure and increased mortality. His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to RVP. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes of HBP compared to RVP. METHODS: All patients requiring initial pacemaker implantation between October 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, were included in the study. Permanent HBP was attempted in consecutive patients at 1 hospital and RVP at a sister hospital. Implant characteristics, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and upgrades to biventricular pacing (BiVP) were tracked. Primary outcome was the combined endpoint of death, HFH, or upgrade to BiVP. Secondary endpoints were mortality and HFH. RESULTS: HBP was successful in 304 of 332 consecutive patients (92%), whereas 433 patients underwent RVP. The primary endpoint of death, HFH, or upgrade to BiVP was significantly reduced in the HBP group (83 of 332 patients [25%]) compared to RVP (137 of 433 patients [32%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.534 to 0.944; p = 0.02). This difference was observed primarily in patients with ventricular pacing >20% (25% in HBP vs. 36% in RVP; HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.456 to 0.927; p = 0.02). The incidence of HFH was significantly reduced in HBP (12.4% vs. 17.6%; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.430 to 0.931; p = 0.02). There was a trend toward reduced mortality in HBP (17.2% vs. 21.4%, respectively; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Permanent HBP was feasible and safe in a large real-world population requiring permanent pacemakers. His bundle pacing was associated with reduction in the combined endpoint of death, HFH, or upgrade to BiVP compared to RVP in patients requiring permanent pacemakers.
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is associated with heart failure and increased mortality. His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to RVP. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes of HBP compared to RVP. METHODS: All patients requiring initial pacemaker implantation between October 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, were included in the study. Permanent HBP was attempted in consecutive patients at 1 hospital and RVP at a sister hospital. Implant characteristics, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and upgrades to biventricular pacing (BiVP) were tracked. Primary outcome was the combined endpoint of death, HFH, or upgrade to BiVP. Secondary endpoints were mortality and HFH. RESULTS: HBP was successful in 304 of 332 consecutive patients (92%), whereas 433 patients underwent RVP. The primary endpoint of death, HFH, or upgrade to BiVP was significantly reduced in the HBP group (83 of 332 patients [25%]) compared to RVP (137 of 433 patients [32%]; hazard ratio [HR]: 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.534 to 0.944; p = 0.02). This difference was observed primarily in patients with ventricular pacing >20% (25% in HBP vs. 36% in RVP; HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.456 to 0.927; p = 0.02). The incidence of HFH was significantly reduced in HBP (12.4% vs. 17.6%; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.430 to 0.931; p = 0.02). There was a trend toward reduced mortality in HBP (17.2% vs. 21.4%, respectively; p = 0.06). CONCLUSIONS: Permanent HBP was feasible and safe in a large real-world population requiring permanent pacemakers. His bundle pacing was associated with reduction in the combined endpoint of death, HFH, or upgrade to BiVP compared to RVP in patients requiring permanent pacemakers.
Authors: Jason Payne; Ann C Garlitski; Jonathan Weinstock; Munther Homoud; Christopher Madias; N A Mark Estes Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Min Soo Cho; Min Ku Chon; Jin Hee Choi; Ki Won Hwang; Jeong-Wook Seo; Robert J Lederman; June Hong Kim; Gi-Byoung Nam Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Nadine Ali; Daniel Keene; Ahran Arnold; Matthew Shun-Shin; Zachary I Whinnett; S M Afzal Sohaib Journal: Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev Date: 2018-06