Key result
Left fascicular pacing yields similar LVEF changes compared to LBBP at one year.
Why the study?
Capturing the pre-divisional LBB during LBBP is difficult, prompting investigation into whether left fascicular pacing can achieve comparable LV mechanical synchronicity and cardiac function.
Does left fascicular pacing preserve ventricular mechanical synchrony and cardiac function as effectively as left bundle branch pacing in patients with bradycardia?
Cohort (n=31)
Does left fascicular pacing preserve ventricular mechanical synchrony and cardiac function as effectively as left bundle branch pacing in patients with bradycardia?
Absolute Event Rate: -0.3% vs 1.1%
p-value: p=0.35
Left fascicular pacing appears to be a viable alternative to left bundle branch pacing, offering comparable preservation of ventricular mechanical synchrony and cardiac function at one year.
May preserve LVEF similarly to left bundle branch pacing in bradycardia; leaves open whether it is a viable alternative pending randomized data.
Background Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing.However, capturing the pre-divisional LBB is not easy to accomplish. This study investigates if left fascicular pacing(LFP), defined as the capture of one of the LBB fascicles, could achieve comparable left ventricular (LV) mechanical synchronicity and cardiac function compared to LBBP. Methods Thirty-one patients with pacing indication for bradycardia were retrospectively collected: LBBP was successfully performed in 13 patients and 18 achieved LFP. All patients underwent echocardiography before and after implantation and at one-year follow-up. Left ventricular (LV) volumes, ejection fraction (EF) and global longitudinal strain (GLS) were measured. The lateral-septal (LW-SW) work difference was used as a measure of mechanical dyssynchrony. Septal flash, apical rocking and septal strain patterns were also assessed. Results Although LW-SW work difference were significantly higher in the LBBP groups than that in the LFP group at baseline(272±269 mmHg*% vs 25±279mmHg*%,p=0.02), a similar increase in LW-SW work difference was observed during follow-up(199±342 mmHg*% vs 371±384mmHg*%,p=0.21). In addition, both LFP and LBBP induced septal flash or apical rocking in some patients, and resulted in subtle changes in strain patterns, which were not significantly different between groups. At one year follow-up, LV ejection fraction (EF) remained almost unchanged in both LBBP and LFP patients(ΔLVEF: 1.1+3.1% vs -0.3±4.8%,p=0.35) , and global longitudinal strain (GLS) was slightly and equally decreased in LFP compared to LBBP (ΔLVGLS: -1.6±2.3% vs -1.2±2.7%,p=0.69). Conclusion LFP and LBBP did not differ in mechanical dyssynchrony or LV remodelling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Mao et al. (2024) conducted a cohort in Bradycardia (n=31). Left fascicular pacing (LFP) vs. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) was evaluated on Change in left ventricular ejection fraction (ΔLVEF) (p=0.35). Left fascicular pacing resulted in similar changes in left ventricular ejection fraction compared to left bundle branch pacing at one year (-0.3% vs 1.1%, p=0.35).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: