Key result
LBBAP is linked to more physiological ventricular activation and lower precordial activation delay versus RVP.
Why the study?
Although QRS duration is standard for biventricular synchrony, it lacks insights into ventricular activation sequences, prompting evaluation using 12-lead ECG markers.
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve biventricular synchrony measured by ECG markers compared to right ventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia?
Observational (n=176)
No
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve biventricular synchrony measured by ECG markers compared to right ventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia?
Left bundle branch area pacing preserves or improves biventricular synchrony better than conventional right ventricular pacing, as demonstrated by novel ECG-derived markers including precordial activation delay, QRS60, and QRS area.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LBBAP may support better synchrony than RVP by ECG markers; leaves open whether this improves outcomes in bradycardia.
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) overcomes ventricular dyssynchrony induced by conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Despite QRS duration (QRSd) being the standard ECG marker for biventricular synchrony, it lacks insights into the ventricular activation sequence. Our aim is to assess biventricular synchrony by characterizing the ventricular activation sequence and introducing robust markers using the 12-lead ECG. A prospective single-center study was conducted, involving patients with pacemaker indication due to bradycardia. Patients were divided into LBBAP and RVP, and classified by baseline-QRS morphology. To assess biventricular synchrony, low frequency-based QRS analysis was performed to compute the ventricular activation sequence and precordial activation delay (pAD). Additional QRS markers including QRSd, QRS60, and QRS area (QRSa) were calculated. A total of 176 patients (107 LBBAP, 69 RVP) were included. The paced ventricular activation sequence indicated a more physiological pattern after LBBAP than RVP, with lower pAD values in narrow QRS, RBBB, and LBBB subgroups [ - 10( - 20,14) vs. 26(5, 39) ms; - 18( - 30, - 8) vs. 34(26, 55) ms; 10( - 14, 25) vs. 32(12, 48) ms] (p < 0.01). In all subgroups, QRS60 showed lower values after LBBAP than RVP [52(41, 62) vs.73(65, 80) ms; 60(55, 66) vs. 77(67, 83) ms; 59(53, 64) vs. 77(74, 82) ms] (p < 0.01) and QRSa were also lower [53(38, 66) vs. 121(92, 143) μVs; 60(50, 89) vs. 124(97, 159) μVs; 62(52, 80) vs. 133(99, 148) μVs] (p < 0.01). pAD provides valuable insights into ventricular activation beyond paced-QRSd. Together with QRS60 and QRSa, pAD could be a promising tool to assess biventricular synchrony.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sales‐Bellés et al. (2025) conducted an observational in Pacemaker indication due to bradycardia (n=176). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Right ventricular pacing (RVP) was evaluated on Precordial activation delay (pAD) in narrow QRS subgroup (ms) (p=<0.01). Left bundle branch area pacing resulted in a more physiological ventricular activation sequence compared to right ventricular pacing, with lower precordial activation delay.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: