Key result
Left bundle branch area pacing delivered greater improvement in QRS narrowing (mean difference -31.6 ms) and better mechanical synchronization compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients.
Why the study?
Little is known about the efficacy of permanent left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve mechanical synchronization and myocardial work compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with LVEF ≤ 35% and CLBBB?
Cohort (n=62)
Yes
Does left bundle branch area pacing improve mechanical synchronization and myocardial work compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with LVEF ≤ 35% and CLBBB?
Mean Difference: -31.6 (95% CI -42.3–-20.9)
Absolute Event Rate: -64.1% vs -32.5%
p-value: p=<0.001
Left bundle branch area pacing provides superior electrical and mechanical resynchronization compared to traditional biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and complete LBBB.
LBBAP was associated with superior echocardiographic responses versus BVP; leaves open whether randomized trials will confirm benefit in HF CRT candidates.
Background: Little is known about the efficacy of permanent left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of LBBAP on mechanical synchronization and myocardial work (MW) in heart failure (HF) patients and to compare LBBAP with biventricular pacing (BVP). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study. From February 2018 to January 2021, 62 consecutive HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 35%) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) who underwent LBBAP or BVP were enrolled in this study. Echocardiograms and electrocardiograms and were conducted before and 3–6 months after implantation. Intra- and interventricular synchronization were assessed using two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI). The left ventricular pressure-strain loop was obtained by combining left ventricular strain with non-invasive blood pressure to evaluate mechanical efficiency. Results: The echocardiographic response rates were 68.6 and 88.9% in the BVP and LBBAP groups, respectively. Left bundle branch area pacing resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 177.1 ± 16.7 to 113.0 ± 18.4 ms, P < 0.001) and improvement in LVEF (from 29.9 ± 4.8 to 47.1 ± 8.3%, P < 0.001). The global wasted work (GWW) (410.3 ± 166.6 vs. 283.0 ± 129.6 mmHg%, P = 0.001) and global work efficiency (GWE) (64.6 ± 7.8 vs. 80.5 ± 5.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly improved along with shorter peak strain dispersion (PSD) (143.4 ± 45.2 vs. 92.6 ± 35.1 ms, P < 0.001) and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) (56.4 ± 28.5 vs. 28.9 ± 19.0 ms, P < 0.001), indicating its efficiency in improving mechanical synchronization. In comparison with BVP, LBBAP delivered greater improvement of QRS narrowing (−64.1 ± 18.9 vs. −32.5 ± 22.3 ms, P < 0.001) and better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. Conclusions: Left bundle branch area pacing was effective in improving cardiac function, mechanical synchronization, and mechanical efficiency and may be a promising alternative cardiac resynchronization therapy.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liu et al. (2021) conducted a cohort in Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and complete left bundle branch block (n=62). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs. Biventricular pacing (BVP) was evaluated on Change in QRS duration (MD -31.6, 95% CI -42.3, -20.9, p=<0.001). Left bundle branch area pacing delivered greater improvement in QRS narrowing (mean difference -31.6 ms) and better mechanical synchronization compared to biventricular pacing in heart failure patients.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: