Key result
Left ventricular septal pacing had comparable outcomes to left bundle branch pacing, while deep septal pacing increased heart failure hospitalization versus LBBP (HR 5.10; 95% CI 1.14-22.78; P=0.033).
Why the study?
The echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP, LVSP, and deep septal pacing in patients with heart failure meeting CRT criteria remain to be learned.
Does left bundle branch pacing improve echocardiographic and clinical outcomes compared to left ventricular septal pacing and deep septal pacing in patients with heart failure meeting CRT criteria?
Cohort (n=91)
Yes
Does left bundle branch pacing improve echocardiographic and clinical outcomes compared to left ventricular septal pacing and deep septal pacing in patients with heart failure meeting CRT criteria?
In patients undergoing CRT, left ventricular septal pacing yields comparable echocardiographic and clinical outcomes to left bundle branch pacing, whereas deep septal pacing is associated with worse outcomes.
BackgroundThe outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) in patients with heart failure remain to be learned.ObjectiveThe objective of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes with LBBP, LVSP, and deep septal pacing (DSP).MethodsThis retrospective study included patients who met the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and underwent attempted LBBP in 5 Mayo centers. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were collected at baseline and follow-up.ResultsA total of 91 consecutive patients were included in the study. 52 patients had LBBP, 25 had LVSP, and 14 had DSP. The median follow-up duration was 307 (208, 508) days. There was significant LVEF improvement in the LBBP and LVSP groups (35.9 ± 8.5% to 46.9 ± 10.0%, P <0.001 in the LBBP group; 33.1 ± 7.5% to 41.8 ± 10.8%, P <0.001 in the LVSP group), but not in the DSP group. A unipolar paced right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology during the procedure in lead V1 was associated with higher odds of CRT response. There was no significant difference in heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and all-cause deaths between the LBBP and LVSP groups. The rate of HFH and all-cause deaths were increased in the DSP group compared to the LBBP group (HR: 5.10; 95% CI: 1.14-22.78; P = 0.033 and HR: 7.83; 95% CI: 1.38-44.32; P = 0.020, respectively).ConclusionIn patients undergoing CRT, LVSP had comparable CRT outcomes compared to LBBP.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Heart failure requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (n=91). Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) vs. Left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) and deep septal pacing (DSP) was evaluated on Heart failure hospitalization (DSP vs LBBP) (HR 5.10, 95% CI 1.14-22.78, p=0.033). Left ventricular septal pacing had comparable outcomes to left bundle branch pacing, while deep septal pacing increased heart failure hospitalization versus LBBP (HR 5.10; 95% CI 1.14-22.78; P=0.033).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: