RESUMO
Background: Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing could achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients who cannot be resynchronized via the placement of the left ventricle (LV) lead into the coronary sinus. LBB pacing could improve cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure (HF) patients with LBB block who are affected by type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Study hypothesis: LBB pacing could increase the number of CRT responders and lead to the best clinical outcomes in HF patients with T2DM, inducing cardiac remodeling and improving left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) via microRNA (miR) modulation. Methods: In a multicenter observational study, we enrolled 334 HF patients with LBB block and an indication to receive LBB pacing for CRT. In these patients, we evaluated the CRT responder rate, clinical outcomes, and miR expression at 1 year of follow-up. Results: At 1 year of follow-up, we had 223 responders (66.8%), 132 hospitalizations for HF (39.5%), 24 cardiac deaths (7.2%), and 37 all-cause deaths (11.1%), with a higher rate of HF hospitalizations (77 (69.4%) vs 55 (24.7%), p < 0.05), and cardiac deaths (13 (11.7% vs 11 (4.9%), p < 0.05) in non-responders vs responders. At the end of follow-up, we found the lowest expression of miR-26, miR-29, miR-30, miR-92, and miR-145 in LBB-pacing non-responders vs responders (p < 0.05), and a direct correlation between miR-30 (0.340, [0.833-1.915]; p 0.001), the 6-minute-walking test (6MWT; 0.168, [0.008-0.060]; p 0.011), angiotensin-receptor-neprilysin inhibitors (ARNI; 0.157, [0.183-4.877]; p 0.035), sodium-glucose-transporter-2 inhibitors (0.245, [2.242-7.283]; p 0.001), and LVEF improvements. C reactive protein (CRP) inversely correlated with LVEF improvement (-0.220, [-(0.066-0.263)]; p 0.001). ARNI (1.373, CI 95% [1.007-1.872], p 0.045), miR-30 (2.713, CI 95% [1.543-4.769], p 0.001), and 6MWT (1.288, CI 95% [1.084-1.998], p 0.001) were predictors of LBB pacing responders at 1 year of follow-up. Conclusion: LBB-pacing responders evidenced miR modulation, which was linked to significant improvement of the cardiac pump. Specifically, miR-30 was linked to cardiac pump improvement and predicted responders at 1 year of follow-up in patients with T2DM.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the clinical performance of single-chamber leadless pacemaker (LLPM) in patients without atrial fibrillation (AF) as pacing indication. The aim of this study was to describe the clinical characteristics of patients who underwent single chamber LLPM implantation at three tertiary referral centers and to compare the safety and effectiveness of the single-chamber LLPM among patients with or without AF. MATERIALS AND METHODS: All the consecutive patients who underwent LLPM implantation at three referral centers were analyzed. The indications to LLPM in a real-world setting were described. The study population was divided into two groups according to AF as pacing indication. We assessed the procedure-related complications; moreover, we compared syncope, cardiac hospitalization, pacemaker syndrome, and all-cause death recurrence during the follow-up between patients with and without AF as pacing indication. RESULTS: A total of 140 consecutive patients (mean age, 76.7 ± 11.24 years, men 64.3%) were included in the study. The indication to implantation of LLPM was permanent AF with slow ventricular response (n: 67; 47.8%), sinus node dysfunction (n: 25; 17.8%), third atrioventricular block (AVB) (n: 20; 14.2%), second-degree AVB (n: 18; 12.8%), and first degree AVB (n: 10; 7.1%). A total of 7 patients (5%) experienced perioperative complications with no differences between the AF vs. non-AF groups. During a mean follow-up of 606.5 ± 265.9 days, 10 patients (7.7%) died and 7 patients (5.4%) were reported for cardiac hospitalization; 5 patients (3.8%) experienced syncope; no patients showed pacemaker syndrome. No significant differences in the clinical events between the groups were shown. The Kaplan-Meier analysis for the combined endpoints did not show significant differences between the AF and non-AF groups [hazard ratio (HR): 0.94, 95% CI: 0.41-2.16; p = 0.88]. CONCLUSION: Our real-world data suggest that LLPM may be considered a safe and reasonable treatment in patients without AF in need of pacing. Further studies are needed to confirm these preliminary results.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a multi factorial disease, affecting clinical outcomes in failing heart patients treated by cardiac resynchronization therapy with a defibrillator (CRT-d). METHODS: One hundred and ninety-five T2DM patients received a CRT-d treatment. Randomly the study population received a CRT-d via multipolar left ventricle (LV) lead pacing (n 99, multipolar group), vs a CRT-d via bipolar LV pacing (n 96, bipolar group). These patients were followed by clinical, and instrumental assessment, and telemetric device control at follow up. In this study we evaluated, in a population of failing heart T2DM patients, cardiac deaths, all cause deaths, arrhythmic events, CRT-d responders rate, hospitalizations for HF worsening, phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS), and LV catheter dislodgment events (and re-intervention for LV catheter re-positioning), comparing multipolar CRT-d vs bipolar CRT-d group of patients at follow up. RESULTS: At follow up there was a statistical significant difference about atrial arrhythmic events [7 (7%) vs 16 (16.7%), p value 0.019], hospitalizations for HF worsening [15 (15.2% vs 24 (25%), p value 0.046], LV catheter dislodgments [1 (1%) vs 9 (9.4%), p value 0018], PNS [5 (5%) vs 18 (18.7%), p value 0.007], and LV re-positioning [1 (1%) vs 9 (9.4%), p value 0.018], comparing multipolar CRT-d vs bipolar CRT-d group of patients. Multipolar pacing was an independent predictor of all these events. CONCLUSIONS: CRT-d pacing via multipolar LV lead vs bipolar LV lead may reduce arrhythmic burden, hospitalization rate, PNS, LV catheters dislodgments, and re-interventions in T2DM failing heart patients. Clinical trial number NCT03095196.
