Key result
LBBAP in RBBB patients linked to delayed RV movement vs non-RBBB without impairing ventricular function.
Why the study?
To evaluate ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block after left bundle-branch-area pacing by echocardiography.
Does left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) maintain ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block compared to those without?
Observational (n=40)
No
Does left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) maintain ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block compared to those without?
Left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) can be safely applied in patients with intrinsic right bundle-branch block without exacerbating right ventricular dysfunction or asynchrony at 1 month.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
May support LBBAP feasibility in RBBB without RV impairment at 1 month; hypothesis-generating, leaves open randomized confirmation of long-term synchronization.
AIM: To evaluate ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block after left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) by echocardiography. METHODS: Forty patients who successfully received LBBAP were selected and divided into the right bundle-branch block group (RBBB group) and the non-RBBB group by pre-operation ECG. Echocardiography and follow-up were performed 1 month after operation. Interventricular synchronization was evaluated by tissue Doppler (TDI), tissue mitral annular displacement (TMAD), and interventricular mechanical delay. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricular fractional area change (RVFAC), tricuspid annulus sidewall systolic velocity (TV-s'), left ventricular global ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (LS-RV), standard deviation of left ventricular 18 segments peak time difference (SDt-L) and standard deviation of right ventricular free wall 3 segments peak time difference (SDt-R) were applied to evaluate intraventricular synchronization and ventricular function. RESULTS: measured by TDI, were statistically different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the non-RBBB group, there were no statistically significant differences in the GLS, RVFAC, LS-RV, TAPSE, TV-s', SDt-L, SDt-R (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Echocardiography technology including two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI), TDI, and TMAD can effectively analyze interventricular synchronization, intraventricular synchronization, and ventricular function. Although the movement of the right ventricular myocardium in the RBBB group was slightly later than that of the left ventricular myocardium after LBBAP, LBBAP could still be applied in RBBB patients with pacing indication.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhao et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Bradyarrhythmia indicated for pacing therapy (n=40). Left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) with right bundle-branch block (RBBB) vs. LBBAP without RBBB was evaluated on Difference of displacement peak time of the tricuspid and mitral valves (ΔPT TV-MV) (p=0.01). Left bundle-branch-area pacing in right bundle-branch block patients delayed right ventricular movement versus non-RBBB patients (ΔPT TV-MV 28.14 vs -28.00 ms), without impairing ventricular function.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: