An implant strategy aiming for left bundle branch pacing resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation compared to accepting left ventricular septal pacing (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p=0.026).
Cohort (n=323)
Does a left bundle branch pacing strategy improve procedural outcomes and LVEF compared to a left ventricular septal pacing strategy in patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing?
Aiming for left bundle branch pacing rather than accepting left ventricular septal pacing increases the risk of acute septal perforation without providing additional LVEF improvement in patients with CRT indications.
Absolute Event Rate: 11.8% vs 4.9%
p-value: p=0.026
INTRODUCTION: Implant procedure features and clinical implications of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) have not been yet fully described. We sought to compare two different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implant strategies: the first one accepting LVSP as a procedural endpoint and the second one aiming at achieving LBBP in every patient in spite of evidence of previous LVSP criteria. METHODS: LVSP was accepted as a procedural endpoint in 162 consecutive patients (LVSP strategy group). In a second phase, LBBP was attempted in every patient in spite of achieving previous LVSP criteria (n = 161, LBBP strategy group). Baseline patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up data were compared. RESULTS: The final capture pattern was LBBP in 71.4% and LVSP in 24.2% in the LBBP strategy group compared to 42.7% and 50%, respectively, in the LVSP strategy group. One hundred and eighty-four patients (57%) had proven LBB capture criteria with a significantly shorter paced QRS duration than the 120 patients (37%) with LVSP criteria (115 ± 9 vs. 121 ± 13 ms, p < .001). Implant parameters were comparable between the two strategies but the LBBP strategy resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p = .026) without any clinical sequelae. Patients with CRT indications significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow-up irrespective of the capture pattern (from 35 ± 11% to 45 ± 14% in proven LBBP, p = .024; and from 39 ± 13% to 47 ± 12% for LVSP, p = .003). The presence of structural heart disease and baseline LBBB independently predicted unsuccessful LBB capture. CONCLUSION: The LBBP strategy was associated with comparable implant parameters than the LVSP strategy but resulted in higher rates of septal perforation. Proven LBB capture and LVSP showed comparable effects on LVEF during follow-up.
Building similarity graph...
Analyzing shared references across papers
Loading...
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Hospital Universitari i Politècnic La Fe
Centro de Investigación en Red en Enfermedades Cardiovasculares
Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria La Fe
Add This Paper to Your Research Feed
Any time a new paper drops it will be there.
Cano et al. (Tue,) conducted a cohort in Indication for left bundle branch area pacing (n=323). Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) strategy vs. Left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) strategy was evaluated on Acute septal perforation (p=0.026). An implant strategy aiming for left bundle branch pacing resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation compared to accepting left ventricular septal pacing (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p=0.026).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: