Left bundle branch area pacing significantly reduced the composite of death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (20.8% vs 28%; HR 1.495; 95% CI 1.213-1.842; P<0.001).
Observational
Yes
Does left bundle branch area pacing reduce the composite of death or heart failure hospitalization compared to biventricular pacing in patients with LVEF ≤35% and CRT indications?
1,778 patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. Mean age 69 ± 12 years, 32% female, 48% had coronary artery disease.
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)
Biventricular pacing (BVP)
Composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH)composite
Left bundle branch area pacing is associated with a lower risk of death or heart failure hospitalization and greater improvement in LVEF compared to traditional biventricular pacing in patients with CRT indications.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: This observational study included patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included endpoints of death, HFH, and echocardiographic changes. RESULTS: A total of 1,778 patients met inclusion criteria: 981 BVP, 797 LBBAP. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% ± 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 ± 19 ms vs 161 ± 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 ± 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% ± 6% to 41% ± 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% ± 7% to 37% ± 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% ± 12% vs 10% ± 12%; P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, the primary outcome was significantly reduced with LBBAP compared with BVP (20.8% vs 28%; HR: 1.495; 95% CI: 1.213-1.842; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman
Parikshit S. Sharma
Óscar Cano
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Imperial College London
Baylor College of Medicine
University of Ottawa
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Vijayaraman et al. (Sun,) conducted a observational in Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction with indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=1,778). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Biventricular pacing (BVP) was evaluated on Composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (HR 1.495, 95% CI 1.213-1.842, p=<0.001). Left bundle branch area pacing significantly reduced the composite of death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (20.8% vs 28%; HR 1.495; 95% CI 1.213-1.842; P<0.001).
www.synapsesocial.com/papers/69ed841d27c2c78c57d1e0c1 — DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.006
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: