AI Article Synopsis

  • Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is being examined as a potential alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for patients needing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), with a study comparing the two along with left bundle-optimized therapy CRT (LOT-CRT).
  • In the study involving 48 patients, LOT-CRT and BVP showed significantly greater increases in left ventricular pressure and QRS shortening compared to unipolar and bipolar LBBAP, indicating better hemodynamic performance.
  • Results also suggested that patients with interventricular conduction delay had less QRS reduction but similar improvements in left ventricular pressure compared to those with left bundle branch block, and the effectiveness of combining LBBAP with coronary vein

Article Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We sought to compare the acute hemodynamic and ECG effects of LBBAP, BVP, and left bundle-optimized therapy CRT (LOT-CRT) in CRT candidates with advanced conduction disease.

Methods: In this multicenter study, 48 patients with either nonspecific interventricular conduction delay (n=29) or left bundle branch block (n=19) underwent acute hemodynamic testing to determine the change in left ventricular pressure maximal first derivative (LV d/d) from baseline atrial pacing to BVP, LBBAP, or LOT-CRT.

Results: Atrioventricular-optimized increases in LV d/d for LOT-CRT (mean, 25.8% [95% CI, 20.9%-30.7%]) and BVP (26.4% [95% CI, 20.2%-32.6%]) were greater than unipolar LBBAP (19.3% [95% CI, 15.0%-23.7%]) or bipolar LBBAP (16.4% [95% CI, 12.7%-20.0%]; ≤0.005). QRS shortening was greater in LOT-CRT (29.5 [95% CI, 23.4-35.6] ms) than unipolar LBBAP (11.9 [95% CI, 6.1-17.7] ms), bipolar LBBAP (11.7 ms [95% CI, 6.4-17.0]), or BVP (18.5 [95% CI, 11.0-25.9] ms), all ≤0.005. Compared with patients with left bundle branch block, patients with interventricular conduction delay experienced less QRS reduction (=0.026) but similar improvements in LV d/d (=0.29). Bipolar LBBAP caused anodal capture in 54% of patients and resulted in less LV d/d improvement than unipolar LBBAP (18.6% versus 23.7%; <0.001). Subclassification of LBBAP capture (European Heart Rhythm Association criteria) indicated LBBAP or LV septal pacing in 27 patients (56%) and deep septal pacing in 21 patients (44%). The hemodynamic benefit of adding left ventricular coronary vein pacing to LBBAP depended on baseline QRS duration (=0.031) and success of LBBAP (<0.004): LOT-CRT provided 14.5% (5.0%-24.1%) greater LV d/d improvement and 20.8 (12.8-28.8) ms greater QRS shortening than LBBAP in subjects with QRS ≥171 ms and deep septal pacing capture type.

Conclusions: In a CRT cohort with advanced conduction disease, LOT-CRT and BVP provided greater acute hemodynamic benefit than LBBAP. Subjects with wider QRS or deep septal pacing are more likely to benefit from the addition of a left ventricular coronary vein lead to implement LOT-CRT.

Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04905290.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11575906PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1161/CIRCEP.124.013059DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

left bundle
16
bundle branch
16
unipolar lbbap
12
bipolar lbbap
12
lbbap
9
pacing bvp
8
therapy crt
8
acute hemodynamic
8
interventricular conduction
8
conduction delay
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!