BACKGROUND: His-Bundle pacing (HBP) is an emerging technique for physiological pacing. However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for pacemaker (PM) implantation to compare HBP versus RV pacing (RVP) effects on RV performance. Patients were evaluated before implantation and after 6 months by a transthoracic echocardiogram. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients (age 75.1±7.9 years, 64% male) were enrolled, 42 patients (50%) underwent successful HBP, and 42 patients (50%) apical RVP. At follow up, we found a significant improvement in RV-FAC (Fractional Area Change)% [baseline: HBP 34 IQR (31-37) vs. RVP 33 IQR (29.7-37.2),p = .602; 6-months: HBP 37 IQR (33-39) vs. RVP 30 IQR (27.7-35), p < .0001] and RV-GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)% [baseline: HBP -18 IQR (-20.2 to -15) vs. RVP -16 IQR (-18.7 to -14), p = .150; 6-months: HBP -20 IQR(-23 to -17) vs. RVP -13.5 IQR (-16 to -11), p < .0001] with HBP whereas RVP was associated with a significant decline in both parameters. RVP was also associated with a significant worsening of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (p < .0001) and S wave velocity (p < .0001) at follow up. Conversely from RVP, HBP significantly improved pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) [baseline: HBP 38 IQR (32-42) mmHg vs. RVP 34 IQR (31.5-37) mmHg,p = .060; 6-months: HBP 32 IQR (26-38) mmHg vs. RVP 39 IQR (36-41) mmHg, p < .0001] and tricuspid regurgitation (p = .005) irrespectively from lead position above or below the tricuspid valve. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PM implantation, HBP ensues a beneficial and protective impact on RV performance compared with RVP.

1st Department of Internal Medicine Cardiology and Angiology University Hospital and Charles University Medical Faculty Hradec Kralove Czech Republic

Department of Cardiology Cardiocenter 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady Prague Czech Republic

Department of Cardiology Policlinico Casilino of Rome Rome Italy

Pauley Heart Center Division of Cardiology Department of Internal Medicine Virginia Commonwealth University Richmond Virginia USA

000      

00000naa a2200000 a 4500

001      

bmc22012431

003      

CZ-PrNML

005      

20220506130142.0

007      

ta

008      

220425s2021 xxu f 000 0|eng||

009      

AR

024    7_

$a 10.1111/pace.14249 $2 doi

035    __

$a (PubMed)33890685

040    __

$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2

041    0_

$a eng

044    __

$a xxu

100    1_

$a Grieco, Domenico $u Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino of, Rome, Rome, Italy

245    10

$a Impact of His bundle pacing on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation / $c D. Grieco, E. Bressi, K. Curila, SK. Padala, K. Sedlacek, J. Kron, E. Fedele, O. Ionita, S. Giannuzzi, A. Fagagnini, G. Panattoni, E. De Ruvo, KA. Ellenbogen, L. Calò

520    9_

$a BACKGROUND: His-Bundle pacing (HBP) is an emerging technique for physiological pacing. However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for pacemaker (PM) implantation to compare HBP versus RV pacing (RVP) effects on RV performance. Patients were evaluated before implantation and after 6 months by a transthoracic echocardiogram. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients (age 75.1±7.9 years, 64% male) were enrolled, 42 patients (50%) underwent successful HBP, and 42 patients (50%) apical RVP. At follow up, we found a significant improvement in RV-FAC (Fractional Area Change)% [baseline: HBP 34 IQR (31-37) vs. RVP 33 IQR (29.7-37.2),p = .602; 6-months: HBP 37 IQR (33-39) vs. RVP 30 IQR (27.7-35), p < .0001] and RV-GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)% [baseline: HBP -18 IQR (-20.2 to -15) vs. RVP -16 IQR (-18.7 to -14), p = .150; 6-months: HBP -20 IQR(-23 to -17) vs. RVP -13.5 IQR (-16 to -11), p < .0001] with HBP whereas RVP was associated with a significant decline in both parameters. RVP was also associated with a significant worsening of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (p < .0001) and S wave velocity (p < .0001) at follow up. Conversely from RVP, HBP significantly improved pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) [baseline: HBP 38 IQR (32-42) mmHg vs. RVP 34 IQR (31.5-37) mmHg,p = .060; 6-months: HBP 32 IQR (26-38) mmHg vs. RVP 39 IQR (36-41) mmHg, p < .0001] and tricuspid regurgitation (p = .005) irrespectively from lead position above or below the tricuspid valve. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PM implantation, HBP ensues a beneficial and protective impact on RV performance compared with RVP.

650    _2

$a senioři $7 D000368

650    _2

$a Hisův svazek $x patofyziologie $7 D002036

650    _2

$a kardiostimulace umělá $x metody $7 D002304

650    _2

$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260

650    _2

$a lidé $7 D006801

650    _2

$a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297

650    12

$a kardiostimulátor $7 D010138

650    _2

$a tepový objem $7 D013318

650    _2

$a dysfunkce pravé srdeční komory $x patofyziologie $x terapie $7 D018497

655    _2

$a časopisecké články $7 D016428

700    1_

$a Bressi, Edoardo $u Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino of, Rome, Rome, Italy $u Pauley Heart Center, Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

700    1_

$a Curila, Karol $u Department of Cardiology, Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic

700    1_

$a Padala, Santosh K $u Pauley Heart Center, Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

700    1_

$a Sedlacek, Kamil $u 1st Department of Internal Medicine - Cardiology and Angiology, University Hospital and Charles University Medical Faculty, Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic

700    1_

$a Kron, Jordana $u Pauley Heart Center, Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

700    1_

$a Fedele, Elisa $u Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino of, Rome, Rome, Italy

700    1_

$a Ionita, Oana $u Department of Cardiology, Cardiocenter, Third Faculty of Medicine, Charles University, University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady, Prague, Czech Republic

700    1_

$a Giannuzzi, Sara $u Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino of, Rome, Rome, Italy

700    1_

$a Fagagnini, Alessandro $u Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino of, Rome, Rome, Italy

700    1_

$a Panattoni, Germana $u Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino of, Rome, Rome, Italy

700    1_

$a De Ruvo, Ermenegildo $u Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino of, Rome, Rome, Italy

700    1_

$a Ellenbogen, Kenneth A $u Pauley Heart Center, Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, USA

700    1_

$a Calò, Leonardo $u Department of Cardiology, Policlinico Casilino of, Rome, Rome, Italy

773    0_

$w MED00003671 $t Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE $x 1540-8159 $g Roč. 44, č. 6 (2021), s. 986-994

856    41

$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33890685 $y Pubmed

910    __

$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y p $z 0

990    __

$a 20220425 $b ABA008

991    __

$a 20220506130134 $b ABA008

999    __

$a ok $b bmc $g 1789856 $s 1163632

BAS    __

$a 3

BAS    __

$a PreBMC

BMC    __

$a 2021 $b 44 $c 6 $d 986-994 $e 20210507 $i 1540-8159 $m Pacing and clinical electrophysiology $n Pacing Clin Electrophysiol $x MED00003671

LZP    __

$a Pubmed-20220425