Search

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is the most rapidly growing conduction system pacing technique that is capable of correcting intrinsic left bundle branch block (LBBB). As such, it is potentially an optimal alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiVP).Objectives: The authors sought to compare the efficacy of LBBP-CRT with BiVP-CRT in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).Methods: This is a prospective, randomized trial of patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB with 6-month preplanned follow-up. Crossovers were allowed if LBBP or BiVP were unsuccessful. The primary endpoint was the difference in LVEF improvement between 2 groups. The secondary endpoints included changes in echocardiographic measurements, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute walk distance, QRS duration, and CRT response.Results: The study included 40 consecutive patients (20 males, mean age 63.7 years, LVEF 29.7% ± 5.6%). Crossovers occurred in 10% of LBBP-CRT and 20% of BiVP-CRT. All patients completed follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher LVEF improvement at 6 months after LBBP-CRT than BiVP-CRT (mean difference: 5.6%; 95% CI: 0.3-10.9; P = 0.039). LBBP-CRT also appeared to have greater reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-24.97 mL; 95% CI: -49.58 to -0.36 mL) and NT-proBNP (-1,071.80 pg/mL; 95% CI: -2,099.40 to -44.20 pg/mL), and comparable changes in New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute walk distance, QRS duration, and rates of CRT response compared with BiVP-CRT.Conclusions: LBBP-CRT demonstrated greater LVEF improvement than BiVP-CRT in heart failure patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB. (Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [LBBP-RESYNC]; NCT04110431). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Large cohort studies provide conflicting evidence regarding the potential for oral macrolide antibiotics to increase the risk of serious cardiac events.Objectives: This study performed a meta-analysis to examine the link between macrolides and risk of sudden cardiac death (SCD) or ventricular tachyarrhythmias (VTA), cardiovascular death, and death from any cause.Methods: We performed a search of published reports by using MEDLINE (January 1, 1966, to April 30, 2015) and EMBASE (January 1, 1980, to April 30, 2015) with no restrictions. Studies that reported relative risk (RR) estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for the associations of interest were included.Results: Thirty-three studies involving 20,779,963 participants were identified. Patients taking macrolides, compared with those who took no macrolides, experienced an increased risk of developing SCD or VTA (RR: 2.42; 95% CI: 1.61 to 3.63), SCD (RR: 2.52; 95% CI: 1.91 to 3.31), and cardiovascular death (RR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.62). No association was found between macrolides use and all-cause death or any cardiovascular events. The RRs associated with SCD or VTA were 3.40 for azithromycin, 2.16 for clarithromycin, and 3.61 for erythromycin, respectively. RRs for cardiovascular death were 1.54 for azithromycin and 1.48 for clarithromycin. No association was noted between roxithromycin and adverse cardiac outcomes. Treatment with macrolides is associated with an absolute risk increase of 118.1 additional SCDs or VTA, and 38.2 additional cardiovascular deaths per 1 million treatment courses.Conclusions: Administration of macrolide antibiotics is associated with increased risk for SCD or VTA and cardiovascular death but not increased all-cause mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]