Why the study?
The safety and efficacy of dual-chamber ICDs for LBBAP in patients with LBBB had not been systematically evaluated.
Does dual-chamber ICD for LBBAP improve QRS duration and LVEF safely in patients with LBBB?
Does dual-chamber ICD for LBBAP improve QRS duration and LVEF safely in patients with LBBB?
Dual-chamber ICD for LBBAP appears safe and effective in improving QRS duration and LVEF in patients with LBBB, though current evidence is limited to a small number of patients.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Supports safe QRS narrowing and LVEF gains with dual-chamber ICD LBBAP in LBBB; extends small-study data but leaves open larger randomized validation.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic review of literature aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dual-chamber ICDs for LBBAP in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). METHODS: Digital databases were searched systematically to identify studies reporting the left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement in patients with LBBB. Detailed study and patient-level baseline characteristics including the type of study, sample size, follow-up, number of cases, age, gender, and baseline characteristics were abstracted. RESULTS: In a total of three studies, 34 patients were included in this review. There was a significant improvement reported in QRS duration in all studies. The mean QRS duration at baseline was 170 ± 17.4 ms, whereas the follow-up QRS duration at follow-up was 121 ± 17.3 ms. Two studies reported a significant improvement of 50% in LVEF from baseline. No lead-related complications or arrhythmic events were recorded in any study. The findings of the systematic review suggest that dual-chamber ICD for LBBAP is a promising intervention for patients with heart conditions. CONCLUSION: The procedure offers significant improvements in QRS duration and LVEF, and there were no lead-related complications or arrhythmic events recorded in any of the studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2023) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: