Key result
Left bundle branch area pacing failed to achieve electromechanical synchronization in a 72-year-old heart failure patient, whereas biventricular-CRT was successfully performed.
Why the study?
Although studies show LBBaP is not inferior to BIV-CRT in heart failure with electromechanical asynchrony, whether LBBaP can serve as a universal alternative remains an open question.
Case Report (n=1)
This case demonstrates that LBBaP may not achieve resynchronization in all patients, highlighting that BIV-CRT remains an irreplaceable treatment option for certain individuals.
Studies have shown that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is not inferior to biventricular-cardiac resynchronization therapy (BIV-CRT) in the treatment of heart failure with cardiac electromechanical activity asynchrony. The patient in this report was a 72-year-old heart failure patient needing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The LBBaP approach was attempted firstly, but it failed to achieve cardiac electromechanical activity synchronization. Then, the BIV-CRT strategy was selected and performed successfully. The patient’s heart function has greatly improved at the postoperative follow-up. Therefore, BIV-CRT remains an irreplaceable treatment for certain patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhang et al. (2022) conducted a case report in Heart failure (n=1). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) vs. Biventricular-cardiac resynchronization therapy (BIV-CRT) was evaluated on Cardiac electromechanical activity synchronization. Left bundle branch area pacing failed to achieve electromechanical synchronization in a 72-year-old heart failure patient, whereas biventricular-CRT was successfully performed.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: