A randomized comparison of HBP versus RVP: Effect on left ventricular function and biomarkers of collagen metabolism
Language English Country Poland Media print-electronic
Document type Randomized Controlled Trial, Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
PubMed
36929298
DOI
10.33963/kp.a2023.0065
PII: VM/OJS/J/93515
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- His bundle pacing, markers of collagen metabolism, right ventricular pacing,
- MeSH
- Biomarkers MeSH
- Electrocardiography MeSH
- Ventricular Function, Left * physiology MeSH
- Bundle of His MeSH
- Interleukin-1 Receptor-Like 1 Protein MeSH
- Cardiomyopathies * MeSH
- Cardiac Pacing, Artificial adverse effects MeSH
- Collagen MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Stroke Volume physiology MeSH
- Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase-1 MeSH
- Transforming Growth Factor beta1 MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
- Randomized Controlled Trial MeSH
- Names of Substances
- Biomarkers MeSH
- Interleukin-1 Receptor-Like 1 Protein MeSH
- Collagen MeSH
- Tissue Inhibitor of Metalloproteinase-1 MeSH
- Transforming Growth Factor 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
References provided by Crossref.org