Left bundle branch area pacing significantly narrowed QRS duration to 129.29 ms compared to 156.85 ms with biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block.
Observational (n=41)
No
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve clinical outcomes and resynchronization parameters compared to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block?
Left bundle branch area pacing may offer superior electrical resynchronization, greater BNP reduction, and fewer hospitalizations compared to traditional biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block.
Absolute Event Rate: 129.29% vs 156.85%
p-value: p=0.005
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has developed in an effort to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes between LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BIVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB). Consecutive patients with HF and CLBBB requiring CRT received either LBBAP or BIVP were recruited at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from February 2018 to May 2019. We assessed their implant parameters, electrocardiogram (ECG), clinical outcomes at implant and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Forty-one patients recruited including 21 for LBBAP and 20 for BIVP. Mean follow-up duration was 23.71 ± 4.44 months. LBBAP produced lower pacing thresholds, shorter procedure time and fluoroscopy duration compared to BIVP. The QRS duration was significantly narrower after LBBAP than BIVP (129.29 ± 31.46 vs. 156.85 ± 26.37 ms, p = 0.005). Notably, both LBBAP and BIVP significantly improved LVEF, LVEDD, NYHA class, and BNP compared with baseline. However, LBBAP significantly lowered BNP compared with BIVP (416.69 ± 411.39 vs. 96.07 ± 788.71 pg/ml, p = 0.007) from baseline to 24-month follow-up. Moreover, patients who received LBBAP exhibited lower number of hospitalizations than those in the BIVP group (p = 0.019). In addition, we found that patients with moderately prolonged left ventricular activation time (LVAT) and QRS notching in limb leads in baseline ECG respond better to LBBAP for CLBBB correction. LBBAP might be a relative safe and effective resynchronization therapy and as a supplement to BIVP for patients with HF and CLBBB.
Hua et al. (Fri,) conducted a observational in Heart failure and complete left bundle branch block (n=41). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Biventricular pacing (BIVP) was evaluated on QRS duration (p=0.005). Left bundle branch area pacing significantly narrowed QRS duration to 129.29 ms compared to 156.85 ms with biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: