Key result
Left bundle branch area pacing was associated with lower occurrences of heart failure hospitalization compared to right ventricular septal pacing.
Why the study?
Clinical outcomes comparing left bundle branch area pacing with right ventricular septal pacing in patients with high percent ventricular pacing remained to be determined.
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve clinical outcomes and ventricular synchrony compared to right ventricular septal pacing in patients with percent ventricular pacing ≥40%?
Cohort (n=54)
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve clinical outcomes and ventricular synchrony compared to right ventricular septal pacing in patients with percent ventricular pacing ≥40%?
Left bundle branch area pacing is associated with better ventricular synchrony, preserved left ventricular function, and lower heart failure hospitalization rates compared to right ventricular septal pacing in patients with a high ventricular pacing burden.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Should not yet change pacing site selection; leaves open need for randomized confirmation in high-burden patients.
Background: The aim of the present study is to compare the clinical outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) in patients with percent ventricular pacing (VP%) ≥40%. Methods: Fifty-four patients with VP% ≥40% were retrospectively studied, including 33 patients with LBBaP and 21 patients with RVSP. QRS duration (QRSd), interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) and septal-posterior wall motion delay (SPWMD) were measured to evaluate ventricular synchrony. Heart failure hospitalization (HFH), pacing parameters, and complications were evaluated postoperatively and at follow-ups. Results: The mean follow-up duration of the study participants was 13.80 ± 4.47 months. In the LBBaP group, no significant differences were noted in paced QRSd, IVMD and SPWMD of the LBBaP capture and intrinsic-conduction modes, but the paced QRSd was narrower (QRSd, 110.88 ± 7.37 vs 132.90 ± 14.78 ms, P< 0.0001) and the IVMD and SPWMD were lower when compared with the RVSP group (IVMD, 28.16 ± 4.76 vs 40.28 ± 6.97 ms, P <0.0001; SPWMD, 43.68 ± 26.41 vs 97.94 ± 12.77 ms, P <0.0001). LBBaP was associated with better left ventricular function in comparison with RVSP during follow-ups (LVEDD, 47.09 ± 4.47 vs 51.28 ± 7.58, P = 0.017; LVEF, 64.81± 5.49 vs 60.44 ± 9.28, P = 0.041). Patients with LBBaP had lower occurrences of HFH than patients with RVSP (3.13% vs 27.78%, P = 0.034). Pacing parameters showed no differences between the two groups and remained stable throughout the study period. Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that LBBaP may be more suitable for patients requiring long-term high ventricular pacing ratio.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in High ventricular pacing ratio ≥40% (n=54). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) vs. Right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (p=0.034). Left bundle branch area pacing was associated with lower occurrences of heart failure hospitalization compared to right ventricular septal pacing.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: