A randomized comparison of HBP versus RVP: Effect on left ventricular function and biomarkers of collagen metabolism
Jazyk angličtina Země Polsko Médium print-electronic
Typ dokumentu randomizované kontrolované studie, časopisecké články, práce podpořená grantem
PubMed
36929298
DOI
10.33963/kp.a2023.0065
PII: VM/OJS/J/93515
Knihovny.cz E-zdroje
- Klíčová slova
- His bundle pacing, markers of collagen metabolism, right ventricular pacing,
- MeSH
- biologické markery MeSH
- elektrokardiografie MeSH
- funkce levé komory srdeční * fyziologie MeSH
- Hisův svazek MeSH
- interleukin-1 receptor-like 1 protein MeSH
- kardiomyopatie * MeSH
- kardiostimulace umělá škodlivé účinky MeSH
- kolagen MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- tepový objem fyziologie MeSH
- tkáňový inhibitor metaloproteinasy 1 MeSH
- transformující růstový faktor beta1 MeSH
- výsledek terapie MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé MeSH
- Publikační typ
- časopisecké články MeSH
- práce podpořená grantem MeSH
- randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH
- Názvy látek
- biologické markery MeSH
- interleukin-1 receptor-like 1 protein MeSH
- kolagen MeSH
- tkáňový inhibitor metaloproteinasy 1 MeSH
- transformující růstový faktor beta1 MeSH
BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) can result in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). It is unknown whether specific biomarkers reflect differences between His bundle pacing (HBP) and RVP and predict a decrease in left ventricular function during RVP. AIMS: We aimed to compare the effect of HBP and RVP on the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to study how they affect serum markers of collagen metabolism. METHODS: Ninety-two high-risk PICM patients were randomized to HBP or RVP groups. Their clinical characteristics, echocardiography, and serum levels of transforming growth factor β1 (TGF-β1), matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), suppression of tumorigenicity 2 interleukin (ST2-IL), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1), and galectin 3 (Gal-3) were studied before pacemaker implantation and six months later. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were randomized to the HBP group and 39 patients to the RVP group. HBP failed in 10 patients, who crossed over to the RVP group. Patients with RVP had significantly lower LVEF compared to HBP patients after six months of pacing (-5% and -4% in as-treated and intention-to-treat analysis, respectively). Levels of TGF-β1 after 6 months were lower in HBP than RVP patients (mean difference -6 ng/ml; P = 0.009) and preimplant Gal-3 and ST2-IL levels were higher in RVP patients, with a decline in LVEF ≥5% compared to those with a decline of <5% (mean difference 3 ng/ml and 8 ng/ml; P = 0.02 for both groups). CONCLUSION: In high-risk PICM patients, HBP was superior to RVP in providing more physiological ventricular function, as reflected by higher LVEF and lower levels of TGF-β1. In RVP patients, LVEF declined more in those with higher baseline Gal-3 and ST2-IL levels than in those with lower levels.
Department of Cardiology Policlinico Casilino of Rome Rome Italy
Geisinger Heart Institute Wilkes Barre Pennsylvania United States
Citace poskytuje Crossref.org