Key result
LBBAP is linked to ~27% lower mechanical dyssynchrony bandwidth versus RVSP.
Why the study?
Left bundle branch area pacing has emerged as a physiological pacing strategy, but its usefulness in reducing mechanical dyssynchrony compared with right ventricular septal pacing needed investigation.
Does left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) reduce mechanical dyssynchrony compared to right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
Cohort (n=174)
Does left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) reduce mechanical dyssynchrony compared to right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation?
LBBAP reduces mechanical dyssynchrony and achieves more physiological ventricular activation compared to RVSP in the acute phase of pacemaker implantation.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
LBBAP was associated with less acute dyssynchrony than RVSP; hypothesis-generating for physiological pacing benefits, pending RCTs.
INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new, clinically feasible and safe physiological pacing strategy. The present study aims to investigate the usefulness of LBBAP in reducing mechanical dyssynchrony compared with right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP). METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 39 LBBAP patients, 42 RVSP patients, and 93 healthy control participants were retrospectively evaluated. We compared phase analysis- (bandwidth, phase standard deviation [PSD], entropy) and regional wall motion analysis parameters. Wall motion analysis parameters included the time to the end-systolic frame (TES) assessed using single-photon emission computed tomography analysis. The maximum differences between segmental TES (MDTES), the standard deviation of TES (SDTES), and the TES difference between the lateral and septal segments (DTES-LS) were obtained. All phase analysis parameters were significantly smaller in the LBBAP group than in the RVSP group (bandwidth: LBBAP, 74 ± 31° vs. RVSP, 102 ± 59°, p = .009; PSD: LBBAP, 19 ± 6.7° vs. RVSP, 26 ± 15°, p = .007; entropy: LBBAP, 0.57 ± 0.07 vs. RVSP, 0.62 ± 0.11 p = .009). The regional wall motion analysis parameters were also smaller in the LBBAP group than in the RVSP group (MDTES:LBBAP, 17 ± 7.1% vs. RVSP, 25 ± 14%, p = .004; SDTES:LBBAP, 4.5 ± 1.7% vs. RVSP, 6.0 ± 3.5%, p = .015; DTES-LS: LBBAP, 4.1 ± 3.4% vs. RVSP, 7.1 ± 5.4%, p = .004). All phase analysis and wall motion analysis parameters were same in the LBBAP and control groups. CONCLUSION: LBBAP may reduce mechanical dyssynchrony and achieve greater physiological ventricular activation than RVSP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Miyajima et al. (2022) conducted a cohort in Pacemaker implantation (n=174). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) was evaluated on Mechanical dyssynchrony assessed by phase analysis (bandwidth, phase standard deviation, entropy) and regional wall motion analysis. Left bundle branch area pacing reduced mechanical dyssynchrony compared with right ventricular septal pacing, showing lower bandwidth (74° vs 102°, p=0.009) and phase standard deviation.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: