Key result
A case report describes the interaction between a left bundle branch area pacing lead and a defibrillator lead in the context of cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Why the study?
Factors such as anatomical limitations or high pacing thresholds may hinder LV lead implantation in biventricular pacing, and large randomized trials comparing LBBAP with biventricular pacing are lacking.
Case Report
This case report highlights a potential interaction between a left bundle branch area pacing lead and a defibrillator lead.
May support LBBAP feasibility after failed LV lead placement; leaves open efficacy versus biventricular pacing in RCTs.
Heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function and wide left bundle branch block can benefit from biventricular pacing.1 However, factors such as anatomical limitations, phrenic nerve stimulation, and/or high pacing thresholds may hinder LV lead implantation. Although no large randomized controlled studies comparing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) with biventricular pacing have been published to date, clear benefits of LBBAP as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have been suggested.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
François et al. (2023) conducted a case report in Heart failure with reduced left ventricular systolic function and wide left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) lead and defibrillator lead was evaluated. A case report describes the interaction between a left bundle branch area pacing lead and a defibrillator lead in the context of cardiac resynchronization therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: