Key result
Typical LBBB linked to ~86% fewer major events vs atypical LBBB after LBBAP.
Why the study?
The impact of stricter definition of left bundle branch block on echocardiographic response and clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure patients remains unclear.
Does left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) improve clinical and echocardiographic outcomes more in heart failure patients with typical LBBB compared to atypical LBBB?
Cohort (n=97)
Does left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) improve clinical and echocardiographic outcomes more in heart failure patients with typical LBBB compared to atypical LBBB?
In heart failure patients with LVEF <50% undergoing left bundle branch area pacing, those with typical LBBB experience significantly greater reverse cardiac remodeling and better clinical outcomes than those with atypical LBBB.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Typical LBBB may identify HF patients with greater LBBAP benefit; leaves open randomized trials by conduction pattern.
BACKGROUND: The impact of stricter definition of left bundle branch block (LBBB) on echocardiographic response of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and clinical outcomes remains unclear. AIMS: This study aimed to compare the effects of LBBAP in heart failure (HF) patients with typical left bundle branch block (t-LBBB) versus atypical LBBB (a-LBBB). METHODS: Ninety-seven patients with LBBB and left ventricular ejection fraction <50% who successfully underwent LBBAP were enrolled. Patients were categorized into a t-LBBB group (n = 82) and an a-LBBB group (n = 15) based on Strauss criteria. Baseline characteristics, pacing parameters, and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: In the t-LBBB group, the left ventricular end-diastolic dimension decreased from 63.9 (8.3) mm to 53.5 (8.2) mm (P <0.001), and the left ventricular ejection fraction improved from 33.3 (8.1)% to 51.1 (11.1)% (P <0.001). Compared with the a-LBBB group, the t-LBBB group had a higher proportionof responders (91.5% vs. 33.3%; P <0.001) and hyper-responders (59.8% vs. 13.3%; P <0.001). Also, the t-LBBB group showed lower incidence of death from any cause (2.4% vs. 20.0%; log-rank P = 0.005), HF hospitalizations (6.1% vs. 46.7%; log-rank P <0.001), and the primary composite endpoint (8.5% vs. 60.0%; log-rank P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to HF patients with a-LBBB, LBBAP significantly reverses cardiac remodeling and improves clinical outcomes in those with t-LBBB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yang et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with left bundle branch block (n=97). Typical left bundle branch block (t-LBBB) vs. Atypical left bundle branch block (a-LBBB) was evaluated on Primary composite endpoint (p=<0.001). In heart failure patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing, typical LBBB was associated with a significantly lower incidence of the primary composite endpoint compared to atypical LBBB (8.5% vs. 60.0%).
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: