Key result
LBB-optimized CRT improves LVEF by ~22% vs BVP at 6 months in ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Why the study?
The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) in patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction due to ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Does left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy improve pacing parameters and cardiac function compared to biventricular pacing in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and HFrEF?
RCT (n=74)
Single-blind
Computer-generated random number table
No
Does left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy improve pacing parameters and cardiac function compared to biventricular pacing in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and HFrEF?
Absolute Event Rate: 55.5% vs 34%
p-value: p=<0.001
LOT-CRT provides superior electrical resynchronization and echocardiographic improvement compared to traditional biventricular pacing in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Supports LOT-CRT over biventricular pacing in ischemic cardiomyopathy; extends randomized evidence for conduction-system resynchronization.
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) in patients diagnosed with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction due to ischemic cardiomyopathy. Methods: A total of 78 patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy who underwent pacemaker implantation at a single center between March 2020 and March 2022 were randomly assigned to two groups based on different pacing methods: LOT-CRT group (n = 39) and biventricular pacing (BVP) group (n = 35). Pacing threshold, impedance, electrocardiogram QRS wave duration during pacing, ventricular pacing ratio during follow-up, and cardiac ultrasound-related indicators were compared immediately after surgery and at the six-month follow-up. Results: The two groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics, cardiac ultrasound and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) parameters, and overall cardiac function. However, the BVP group demonstrated higher pacing thresholds and impedance levels immediately after surgery and at the six-month follow-up (p < 0.001). Moreover, the X-ray exposure time was significantly longer in the BVP group compared to the LOT-CRT group. While no significant differences in QRS duration were observed between the groups preoperatively, the QRS duration in the LOT-CRT group was significantly shorter both immediately after surgery and during follow-up (p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the groups in terms of the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), or left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD). Six months post-surgery, both groups showed modest improvements in NYHA class, LVEF, and LVEDD, with the LOT-CRT group demonstrating significant improvements (p < 0.001). Conclusions: LOT-CRT may be an alternative treatment for patients with heart failure complicated by left bundle branch block due to ischemic cardiomyopathy in whom BVP is ineffective.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2025) conducted an RCT in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction due to ischemic cardiomyopathy (n=74). Left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) vs. Biventricular pacing (BVP) was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months (p=<0.001). Left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction compared to biventricular pacing (55.5% vs 34.0%, p<0.001) at 6 months in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: