Key result
LBBP is linked to ~55% shorter peak strain delays vs RVP, improving ventricular synchrony.
Why the study?
The ventricular systolic mechanical synchronization after left bundle branch pacing compared with traditional right ventricular pacing was not well characterized.
Does left bundle branch pacing improve ventricular mechanical synchronization compared to traditional right ventricular pacing?
Observational (n=32)
Does left bundle branch pacing improve ventricular mechanical synchronization compared to traditional right ventricular pacing?
Absolute Event Rate: 66.62% vs 148.62%
p-value: p=< .01
Left bundle branch pacing provides a more physiologic ventricular activation pattern and better mechanical synchronization compared to traditional right ventricular pacing.
LBBP was associated with better mechanical synchrony than RVP in this cohort; hypothesis-generating and requires RCTs before practice change.
BACKGROUND: The left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) makes the ventricular depolarization closer to the physiological state and shortens QRS duration. The purpose of this study is to explore the ventricular systolic mechanical synchronization after LBBP in comparison with traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) using two-dimensional strain echocardiography (2D-STE). METHODS: Thirty-two patients who received LBBP (n = 16) or RVP (n = 16) from October 2018 to October 2019 and met the inclusion criteria were included in this retrospective study. Electrocardiogram (ECG) characteristics, pacing parameters, pacing sites, and safety events were assessed before and after implantation. Acquisition and analysis of ventricular systolic synchronization were implemented using 2D-STE. RESULTS: In RVP group, ECG showed left bundle branch block patterns. At LBBP, QRS morphology was in the form of right bundle branch block, and QRS durations were significantly shorter than that of the RVP QRS (109.38 ± 12.89 vs 149.38 \± 19.40 ms, P < .001). Both the maximum time differences (TD) and SDs of the 18-segments systolic time to peak systolic strain were significantly shorter under LBBP than under RVP (TD, 66.62 ± 37.2 vs 148.62 ± 43.67 ms, P < .01; SD, 21.80 ± 12.13 vs 52.70 ± 17.72 ms, P < .01), indicating that LBBP could provide better left ventricular mechanical synchronization. Left and right ventricular pre-ejection period difference was significantly longer in RVP group than in LBBP group (10.23 ± 3.07 vs 39.94 ± 14.81 ms, P < .05), indicating left and right ventricular contraction synchronization in LBBP group being better than in RVP group. CONCLUSION: LBBP is able to provide a physiologic ventricular activation pattern, which results in ventricular mechanical contraction synchronization.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Di et al. (2020) reported an observational. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) vs. Right ventricular pacing (RVP) was evaluated on Maximum time differences (TD) of the 18-segments systolic time to peak systolic strain (p=< .01). Left bundle branch pacing improved ventricular mechanical synchronization vs right ventricular pacing, with shorter maximum time differences to peak systolic strain (66.62 vs 148.62 ms, P<0.01).
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: