Search

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the morbidity and mortality associated with LBBAP versus BVP in patients undergoing CRT implantation.Consecutive patients who received CRT from two high-volume implantation centers were retrospectively recruited. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization, and the secondary endpoint was all-cause death.A total of 491 patients receiving CRT (154 via LBBAP and 337 via BVP) were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. The primary endpoint was reached by 21 (13.6%) patients in the LBBAP group, as compared with 74 (22.0%) patients in the BVP group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.14, P = 0.15]. There were 10 (6.5%) deaths in the LBBAP group, as compared with 31 (9.2%) in the BVP group (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.86, P = 0.79). No significant difference was observed in the risk of either the primary or secondary endpoint between LBBAP and BVP after multivariate Cox regression (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.23, P = 0.24, and HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.67, P = 0.51, respectively) or propensity score matching (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.29, P = 0.28, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.29-1.65, P = 0.40, respectively).LBBAP was associated with a comparable effect on morbidity and mortality relative to BVP in patients with indications for CRT.

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the acute improvement of electrical and mechanical synchrony, and hemodynamics between LBBP and BVP in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block. Methods: LBBP and BVP were performed and compared in a crossover fashion in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation. Electrical synchrony was assessed by QRS duration and area, mechanical synchrony by the SD of time to peak velocity of 12 left ventricular segments (Ts-SD) and interventricular mechanical delay, and hemodynamics by the maximum rate of left ventricular pressure rise (dP/dt max ). Results: Twenty-one patient with heart failure and left bundle branch block (mean age 67±10 years, 48% male, and 90% nonischemic cause) were included. Both LBBP and BVP provided significant improvements in electrical and mechanical synchrony, and hemodynamics compared to the baseline. Compared with BVP, LBBP achieved a larger reduction in QRS duration (−11 ms [95% CI, −17 to −4 ms]; P =0.003) and QRS area (−85 µVs [95% CI, −113 to −56 µVs]; P P =0.001), with no significant difference in interventricular mechanical delay (−2 ms [95% CI, −13 to 8 ms]; P =0.63). The increase in dP/dt max from LBBP was significantly higher than that from BVP (6% [95% CI, 2%–9%]; P =0.002). Conclusions: LBBP delivers greater acute electrical and mechanical resynchronization and hemodynamic improvement than BVP in predominantly nonischemic heart failure patients with left bundle branch block. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT04505384.

Aims The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Methods and results One hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P Conclusions The feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.

To compare electromechanical ventricular synchrony when pacing from different sites, including right ventricular apex pacing (RVAP), right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP), His bundle pacing (HBP), left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and RVSP during unipolar pacing from the ring electrode of LBBP lead (RVSPTwenty patients with complete atrioventricular block indicated for dual-chamber pacemaker implantation were included in the study. Unipolar pacing at different sites, including RVAP, RVSP, HBP, LBBP, and RVSPSimilar to HBP (114.84 ± 18.67 ms), narrower paced QRSd was found in LBBP (116.15 ± 11.60 ms) as compared to RVSPHis-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) achieved better electrical and mechanical synchrony than conventional RV pacing. For interventricular synchrony, only LBBP initiated earlier LV activation than RV, in accordance with the right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern of paced QRS during LBBP. Sti-LVAT might be a good parameter correlating with LV systolic function and mechanical synchrony.

Monitoring of lead depth is crucial to achieve left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) with a low capture threshold and avoid septal perforation, but lacks informative approach.We aimed to prospectively assess the predictive value of current of injury on the occurrence of inadequate left bundle branch (LBB) capture threshold and acute septal perforation.Consecutive patients who received LBBP were enrolled. ST-segment elevation ≥ 25% of intrinsic R-wave amplitude on the unipolar intracardiac electrogram was defined as a sign of distinct current of injury. An LBB capture threshold of1.5 V/0.5 ms was considered acceptable.LBBP was attempted 513 times in 212 patients. The LBB capture threshold was more likely to improve to an acceptable level after 10 minutes in leads with initial (33 of 47 vs 0 of 8, with vs without) and residual (29 of 33 vs 4 of 14, with vs without) current of injury recorded on the tip electrode (P.0001). Lead perforation during the procedure has occurred in 11 patients who had no current of injury noted on the tip electrode. The ratio of current of injury recorded on the tip electrode to that on the ring electrode was correlated to the lead depth determined by sheath angiography (Spearman correlation coefficient -0.624; P.0001), and microperforation is highly possible when the ratio is decreased to1 (sensitivity 100%; specificity 96.6%).Current of injury is a useful tool in forecasting LBBP lead depth and septal perforation, and it could facilitate the decision-making process when the initial LBB capture threshold is undesirable.