Key result
LBBAP is linked to ~27% shorter e-DYS than BVP, indicating more physiological ventricular activation.
Why the study?
Little is known about how biventricular pacing and left bundle branch area pacing differ in terms of ventricular activation in cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve physiological ventricular activation compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block?
Observational (n=80)
Yes
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve physiological ventricular activation compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block?
Absolute Event Rate: 24% vs 33%
p-value: p=0.008
Left bundle branch area pacing provides more physiological ventricular activation, as evidenced by shorter e-DYS and Vdmean, than biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with LBBB.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
May support LBBAP over BivP for physiological activation in HF with LBBB; leaves open need for RCTs on clinical outcomes.
Süssenbek et al. (2023) conducted an observational in Left bundle branch block (LBBB) heart failure (n=80). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Biventricular pacing (Biv) was evaluated on e-DYS (time difference between the first and last activation in V1-V8 leads) (p=0.008). Left bundle branch area pacing resulted in more physiological ventricular activation than biventricular pacing, with shorter e-DYS (24 vs 33 ms; P=0.008) and Vdmean (53 vs 59 ms; P=0.003).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: