Key result
LBBAP yields similar electromechanical window improvements as BiVP in baseline EMW-negative CRT patients.
Why the study?
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been associated with reduced arrhythmogenic risk compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP), but its effect on electromechanical window (EMW) compared to BiVP was unclear.
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve electromechanical window negativity compared to biventricular pacing in CRT recipients?
Observational (n=129)
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve electromechanical window negativity compared to biventricular pacing in CRT recipients?
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Left bundle branch area pacing and biventricular pacing are similarly effective in improving electromechanical window negativity, a marker of arrhythmogenic risk, in CRT recipients.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been associated with reduced arrhythmogenic risk compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP). Electromechanical window (EMW) is a marker of electromechanical instability, and a negative EMW is associated with ventricular arrhythmias. We hypothesized that LBBA-CRT increases EMW at least as much as BiVP-CRT does. METHODS: 129 CRT recipients (LBBAP: n = 63; BiVP: n = 66) were included. EMW and echocardiographic reverse remodeling were evaluated before and 6-12 months after CRT implantation in the entire cohort and in a subgroup of patients with a negative EMW at baseline. EMW is calculated by subtracting the QT interval from the time interval of QRS onset to the aortic valve closure artifact (QAoC) using CW-Doppler echocardiography. RESULTS: EMW measurements were feasible in 67% of patients (n = 86). No significant difference in ΔEMW was observed between LBBAP and BiVP. In patients with a negative EMW at baseline, both CRT strategies led to significant EMW increase (LBBAP: n = 21, ΔEMW +13 ms (IQR -1 to 70), p = 0.003; BiVP: n = 36, ΔEMW +26 ms (IQR -2 to 54), p = 0.006). There was no significant difference between CRT groups (p = 0.779). Left ventricular ejection fraction improved by 10% ± 11% and end-diastolic volume decreased by 37 ± 51 mL (<0.001), with no significant differences between LBBAP and BiVP. In multivariable analysis, a negative EMW at baseline, but not echocardiographic reverse remodeling, was the only independent predictor of EMW increase. CONCLUSION: In CRT patients with a negative EMW at baseline, LBBAP and BiVP revert EMW to a similar degree.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Klein et al. (2026) conducted an observational in Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) recipients (n=129). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Biventricular pacing (BiVP) was evaluated on Change in electromechanical window (ΔEMW) in patients with a negative EMW at baseline (p=0.779). In CRT patients with a negative electromechanical window at baseline, left bundle branch area pacing and biventricular pacing increased EMW to a similar degree (median +13 ms vs +26 ms; P=0.779).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: