Key result
Upgrading to LBBAP from RVA pacing reduces QRS by 90 ms and improves LV synchronization.
Why the study?
Recent studies suggest that left bundle branch area pacing may provide better outcomes than biventricular pacing as cardiac resynchronization therapy for right ventricular apex pacing-induced cardiomyopathy.
Does upgrading to left bundle branch area pacing improve left ventricular activation patterns in a patient with right ventricular apex pacing-induced cardiomyopathy?
Case Report (n=1)
Does upgrading to left bundle branch area pacing improve left ventricular activation patterns in a patient with right ventricular apex pacing-induced cardiomyopathy?
Absolute Event Rate: 160% vs 250%
Upgrading from right ventricular apex pacing to left bundle branch area pacing in a patient with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy improved left ventricular synchrony by altering the functional block line and enabling bidirectional excitation.
Hypothesis-generating for LBBAP upgrade in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy; prospective trials needed before clinical adoption.
INTRODUCTION: Right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing has been reported to induce pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM), with biventricular pacing being the standard cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for RVA-PICM. However, recent studies suggest that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may provide even better outcomes as a CRT. In this case, we observed a dynamic alteration in the left ventricular (LV) activation pattern when transitioning from RVA-PICM to LBBAP, including changes in the functional block line. CASE: A female patient with dilated-phase hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (d-HCM), septal, and apical myocardial damage caused by cardiomyopathy, and prior ventricular tachycardia ablations experienced worsening heart failure due to dyssynchronous LV activation from RVA pacing (paced QRS duration of 250 ms). She underwent an upgrade to LBBAP (paced QRS duration of 160 ms) as CRT. Six months later, three-dimensional LV activation mapping was performed during both RVA pacing and LBBAP. During RVA pacing, a functional conduction block was observed in the anterior wall, resulting in unidirectional excitation propagation in a counterclockwise direction from the septum and a significant delay in the basal-mid anterior wall. In contrast, with LBBAP, the functional conduction block shifted to the septal-apical region, enabling bidirectional excitation propagation to the basal-mid lateral wall and facilitating synchronized excitation in vertically opposing LV segments. CONCLUSION: The change in LV activation is specific to this d-HCM case with damaged septum and apex; however, it provides one of the insights into the mechanisms by which LBBAP exerts its beneficial effects when upgrading from RVA-PICM.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Goto et al. (2025) conducted a case report in Dilated-phase hypertrophic cardiomyopathy with RVA pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (n=1). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing was evaluated on Paced QRS duration. Upgrading from right ventricular apex pacing to left bundle branch area pacing reduced paced QRS duration from 250 ms to 160 ms and improved left ventricular synchronized excitation.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: