Key result
LBBP linked to ~16% LVEF increase and narrowed QRS in HF patients with LBBB.
Why the study?
LBBP is emerging as an alternative for CRT, but its feasibility and efficacy in heart failure patients with LVEF <50% and LBBB needed investigation.
Does left bundle branch pacing improve echocardiographic and clinical parameters in heart failure patients with LVEF <50% and LBBB?
Observational (n=34)
No
Does left bundle branch pacing improve echocardiographic and clinical parameters in heart failure patients with LVEF <50% and LBBB?
Absolute Event Rate: 51.09% vs 35.28%
p-value: p=<0.01
Left bundle branch pacing is a feasible and effective alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy, significantly improving left ventricular function and structure in patients with heart failure and LBBB.
LBBP was associated with LVEF gains in HF with LBBB; hypothesis-generating for CRT alternatives pending RCTs.
Background Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is emerging as an effective alternative to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and improve heart function. The purpose of our study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of LBBP in heart failure patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Methods All patients with complete LBBB and LVEF <50% were retrospectively included in the study from April 2018 to April 2021 and underwent CRT via LBBP implantation. ECG, pacing parameters, the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, echocardiographic measurements, and complications were recorded and analyzed at implant and during follow-up of 1, 6, and 12 months. Results Left bundle branch pacing was successful in all 34 patients (mean age 65.6 ± 11.2 years, 67.6% men). A significant decrease in QRS duration (QRSd) was observed after the LBBP operation for 1 month (153.2 ± 1.7 vs. 111.9 ± 2.6 ms, p < 0.01). LBB capture threshold and R-wave amplitude remained stable at 12-month follow-up when compared with implantation values (0.62 ± 0.13 V @ 0.4 ms vs. 0.73 ± 0.21 V @ 0.4 ms, 12.02 ± 5.68 mV vs. 8.58 ± 4.09 mV, respectively). LVEF increased significantly (35.28 ± 1.70% vs. 51.09 ± 1.71%, p < 0.01) accompanied with reduced left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDd; 65.3 ± 1.99 vs. 53.58 ± 2.07 mm, p < 0.01) and left atrial dimension (LAD; 49.03 ± 1.32 vs. 40.67 ± 1.58 mm, p < 0.01). Normalized LVEF (LVEF ≥ 50%) was found in 70.5% of patients at 12 months. The NYHA classification, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) were significantly improved at follow-up of 12 months (all p < 0.01 vs. baseline). No deaths or heart failure hospitalizations were observed during the follow-up period. Conclusion The current work suggested that LBBP was feasible with a high success implantation rate and effective to correct LBBB and improved left ventricular structure and function with a low and stable pacing threshold.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gu et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Heart failure with left ventricular ejection fraction <50% and left bundle branch block (n=34). Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) vs. Baseline was evaluated on Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 12 months (p=<0.01). Left bundle branch pacing significantly increased left ventricular ejection fraction from 35.28% to 51.09% and narrowed QRS duration in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: