What is the clinical evidence from this study?

Study design: Cohort. Population: Cardiac conduction disease requiring permanent pacemaker (n=460). Intervention: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Primary outcome: Device-related adverse events (p=1.0).

What does this research mean for the field?

A practice-wide switch to left bundle branch area pacing results in narrower paced QRS durations, less pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, and similar device-related adverse events compared to traditional right ventricular pacing, despite longer procedure times. Novelty: ClaimNovelty.INCREMENTAL. Consensus alignment: ConsensusAlignment.NEUTRAL.

June 1, 2025Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm ManagementOpen Access

Impact of a Practice-wide Switch from Traditional Right Ventricular Pacing to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Comparison

LBBAP vs RVP

Key result

A practice-wide switch to left bundle branch area pacing resulted in narrower paced QRS durations and similar device-related adverse events (8.7% vs. 8.8%) compared to traditional right ventricular pacing.

Authors

DFDavid Fritz BOBen Ose HZHannah Zerr

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Supports selective LBBAP exploration in high-volume centers; leaves open confirmation of outcome benefits versus RV pacing in RCTs.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=460)

Multicenter

PICO

Population

Cardiac conduction disease requiring permanent pacemaker (n=460)

Intervention / Comparator

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP)

Primary Outcome

Device-related adverse events, p=1.0

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 8.7% vs 8.8%

p-value: p=1.0

Limitations

Retrospective study design with potential for systematically missing data
Procedures conducted by seven operators without standardized protocols or endpoints
Use of a historical cohort with different durations of follow-up
Imbalances in sex and device distribution between the two groups

Cite This Study

Fritz et al. (2025) conducted a cohort in Cardiac conduction disease requiring permanent pacemaker (n=460). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) was evaluated on Device-related adverse events (p=1.0). A practice-wide switch to left bundle branch area pacing resulted in narrower paced QRS durations and similar device-related adverse events (8.7% vs. 8.8%) compared to traditional right ventricular pacing.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a155176d64fa333899f8343 https://doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2025.16064

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

June 1, 2025Journal of Innovations in Cardiac Rhythm ManagementOpen Access

Impact of a Practice-wide Switch from Traditional Right Ventricular Pacing to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Comparison

LBBAP vs RVP

Key result

Authors

DFDavid Fritz BOBen Ose HZHannah Zerr

Discussion

Member takes

Overview

Supports selective LBBAP exploration in high-volume centers; leaves open confirmation of outcome benefits versus RV pacing in RCTs.

Study Design

Type

Cohort (n=460)

Multicenter

PICO

Population

Cardiac conduction disease requiring permanent pacemaker (n=460)

Intervention / Comparator

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP)

Primary Outcome

Device-related adverse events, p=1.0

Main Result

Absolute Event Rate: 8.7% vs 8.8%

p-value: p=1.0

Limitations

Retrospective study design with potential for systematically missing data
Procedures conducted by seven operators without standardized protocols or endpoints
Use of a historical cohort with different durations of follow-up
Imbalances in sex and device distribution between the two groups

Cite This Study

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a155176d64fa333899f8343 https://doi.org/10.19102/icrm.2025.16064

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark