Key result
Strauss LBBB criteria is linked to ~78% fewer major events after LBBAP versus non-LBBB.
Why the study?
Diagnostic criteria for LBBB vary across guidelines, and their impact on the efficacy of LBBAP in heart failure remains unclear.
Do specific LBBB criteria (such as Strauss) better predict electrical, echocardiographic, and clinical response to LBBAP in patients with systolic heart failure and wide QRS?
Cohort (n=149)
Do specific LBBB criteria (such as Strauss) better predict electrical, echocardiographic, and clinical response to LBBAP in patients with systolic heart failure and wide QRS?
Hazard Ratio: 0.216 (95% CI 0.057–0.81)
p-value: p=0.023
The Strauss LBBB criteria, particularly when combined with delayed time to notch/slur in lead V5/V6, provides the highest predictive accuracy for clinical and echocardiographic response to LBBAP in heart failure patients.
Strauss LBBB criteria linked to lower composite endpoint risk in HF; hypothesis-generating for refined CRT selection and needs prospective validation.
No abstract yet. The journal hasn't published one we can show.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Hao et al. (2026) conducted a cohort in Heart failure (n=149). Strauss LBBB criteria vs. without LBBB was evaluated on composite clinical endpoint (HR 0.216, 95% CI 0.057-0.810, p=0.023). Patients meeting Strauss LBBB criteria had a significantly lower risk of the composite clinical endpoint after LBBAP compared to those without LBBB (adjusted HR 0.216; 95% CI 0.057-0.810; P=0.023).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: