8 research outputs found

    On-treatment comparison between corrective His bundle pacing and biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: A secondary analysis of His-SYNC

    Get PDF
    Background The His-SYNC pilot trial was the first randomized comparison between His bundle pacing in lieu of a left ventricular lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy (His-CRT) and biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT), but was limited by high rates of crossover. Objective To evaluate the results of the His-SYNC pilot trial utilizing treatment-received (TR) and per-protocol (PP) analyses. Methods The His-SYNC pilot was a multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial comparing His-CRT vs BiV-CRT in patients meeting standard indications for CRT (eg, NYHA II–IV patients with QRS >120 ms). Crossovers were required based on prespecified criteria. The primary endpoints analyzed included improvement in QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and freedom from cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization and mortality. Results Among 41 patients enrolled (aged 64 ± 13 years, 38% female, LVEF 28%, QRS 168 ± 18 ms), 21 were randomized to His-CRT and 20 to BiV-CRT. Crossover occurred in 48% of His-CRT and 26% of BiV-CRT. The most common reason for crossover from His-CRT was inability to correct QRS owing to nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (n = 5). Patients treated with His-CRT demonstrated greater QRS narrowing compared to BiV (125 ± 22 ms vs 164 ± 25 ms [TR], P < .001;124 ± 19 ms vs 162 ± 24 ms [PP], P < .001). A trend toward higher echocardiographic response was also observed (80 vs 57% [TR], P = .14; 91% vs 54% [PP], P = .078). No significant differences in CV hospitalization or mortality were observed. Conclusions Patients receiving His-CRT on-treatment demonstrated superior electrical resynchronization and a trend toward higher echocardiographic response than BiV-CRT. Larger prospective studies may be justifiable with refinements in patient selection and implantation techniques to minimize crossovers

    Comparing outcomes after pulmonary vein isolation in patients with systolic and diastolic heart failure

    No full text
    Background: The benefit of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is well established; its efficacy in patients with heart failure preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is less clear. Objective: The objective of the study was to compare AF and heart failure (HF) rehospitalizations after PVI in patients with HFpEF vs HFrEF. Methods: The IBM MarketScan Database was used to identify patients undergoing PVI for AF. Patients were categorized by HF status: absence of HF, presence of HFrEF, or presence of HFpEF. Primary outcomes were HF and arrhythmia hospitalizations after PVI. Results: A total of 32,524 patients were analyzed: 27,900 with no HF (86%), 2948 with HFrEF (9%), and 1676 with HFpEF (5%). Compared with those with no HF, both patients with HFrEF and HFpEF were more likely to be hospitalized for HF (hazard ratio [HR] 7.27; P 1 year), patients with HFpEF were more likely to have HF (HR 1.30; P < .01) and arrhythmia (HR 1.19; P < .01) rehospitalizations. Conclusion: Reductions in HF and arrhythmia hospitalizations are observed early after PVI across all patients with HF, but patients with HFpEF demonstrate higher HF rehospitalization and arrhythmia recurrence in longer-term follow-up than do patients with HFrEF
    corecore