Key result
LBBP linked to ~29 ms greater QRS reduction vs biventricular pacing, with comparable LVEF improvement.
Why the study?
Left bundle branch pacing is a novel physiological pacing technique that may serve as an alternative to biventricular pacing for CRT, but its feasibility and outcomes needed assessment.
Does left bundle branch pacing improve echocardiographic and functional outcomes compared to biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronisation therapy?
Cohort (n=80)
Open-label
No
Does left bundle branch pacing improve echocardiographic and functional outcomes compared to biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronisation therapy?
Absolute Event Rate: 44% vs 15%
p-value: p=<0.001
Left bundle branch pacing is a feasible and safe alternative to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy, offering superior QRS narrowing and comparable LVEF improvement.
LBBP may yield greater QRS narrowing than BVP in CRT candidates; leaves open confirmation of clinical benefit in randomized trials.
BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for the delivery of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). This study assessed the feasibility and outcomes of LBBP in comparison to BVP. METHODS: LBBP was attempted in 40 consecutive patients as the first-line method for delivering CRT. To evaluate LBBP versus BVP, 40 patients with identical inclusion criteria who received BVP were compared with the LBBP group. Acute success rate, complications, functional and echocardiographic outcomes as well as hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality 6 months after implantation were evaluated. RESULTS: LBBP was successfully performed in 31 (78%) patients and resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 166 ± 16 to 123 ± 18 ms, p < 0.001), improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; from 28 ± 8 to 43 ± 12%, p < 0.001) and New York Heart Association functional class (from 2.8 ± 0.5 to 1.6 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) at 6 months. No LBBP-related complications occurred. Compared to BVP, LBBP resulted in a greater reduction in QRS duration (44 ± 17 vs 15 ± 26 ms, p < 0.001) with comparable absolute improvement in LVEF (15.2 ± 11.7 vs 9.6 ± 12.1%, p = 0.088). Hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: LBBP is feasible and was safe in 78% of patients with favourable electrical resynchronisation and functional improvement and may serve as an alternative to BVP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Rademakers et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and complete left bundle branch block (n=80). Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) vs. Biventricular pacing (BVP) was evaluated on Reduction in QRS duration (ms) (p=<0.001). Left bundle branch pacing resulted in a significantly greater reduction in QRS duration (44 vs 15 ms) compared to biventricular pacing, with comparable improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: