Dataset Information

Resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes during left bundle branch area pacing with and without conduction system capture.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) includes left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular (LV) septal myocardial pacing (LVSP).

Hypothesis

The study aimed to assess resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes by LBBAP in heart failure (HF) patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indications.

Methods

LBBAP was successfully performed in 29 consecutive patients and further classified as the LBBP-group (N = 15) and LVSP-group (N = 14) based on the LBBP criteria and novel LV conduction time measurement (LV CT, between LBBAP site and LV pacing (LVP) site). AV-interval optimized LBBP or LVSP, or LVSP combined with LVP (LVSP-LVP) was applied. LV electrical and mechanical synchrony and clinical outcomes were assessed.

Results

All 15 patients in the LBBP-group received optimized LBBP while 14 patients in the LVSP-group received either optimized LVSP (5) or LVSP-LVP (9). The LV CT during LBBP was significantly faster than that during LVP (p < .001), while LV CT during LVSP were similar to LVP (p = .226). The stimulus to peak LV activation time (Stim-LVAT, 71.2 ± 8.3 ms) and LV mechanical synchrony (TSI-SD, 35.3 ± 9.5 ms) during LBBP were significantly shorter than those during LVSP (Stim-LVAT 89.1 ± 19.5 ms, TSI-SD 49.8 ± 14.4 ms, both p < .05). Following 17(IQR 8) months of follow-up, the improvement of LVEF (26.0%(IQR 16.0)) in the LBBP-group was significantly greater than that in the LVSP-group (6.0%(IQR 20.8), p = .001).

Conclusions

LV activation in LBBP propagated significantly faster than that of LVSP. LBBP generated superior electrical and mechanical resynchronization and better LVEF improvement over LVSP in HF patients with CRT indications.

SUBMITTER: Zhang W

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10018083 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes during left bundle branch area pacing with and without conduction system capture.

Zhang Weiwei W Chen Lu L Zhou Xiaohong X Huang Jingjuan J Zhu Shiwei S Shen E E Pan Changqing C Hou Xumin X Li Ruogu R He Ben B

Clinical cardiology 20230103 3

<h4>Background</h4>Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) includes left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular (LV) septal myocardial pacing (LVSP).<h4>Hypothesis</h4>The study aimed to assess resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes by LBBAP in heart failure (HF) patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indications.<h4>Methods</h4>LBBAP was successfully performed in 29 consecutive patients and further classified as the LBBP-group (N = 15) and LVSP-group (N = 14) ba ...[more]

PMID: 36597668

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQRS transition criteria during dynamic manoeuvers are the gold-standard for non-invasive confirmation of left bundle branch (LBB) capture, but they are seen in <50% of LBB area pacing (LBBAP) procedures.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that transition from left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) to LBB pacing (LBBP), when observed during lead penetration into the deep interventricular septum (IVS) with interrupted pacemapping, can suggest LBB capture.MethodsQRS transition during lead screwing-in was defined as shortening of paced V6-R wave peak time (RWPT) by ≥10 ms from LVSP to non-selective LBBP (ns-LBBP) obtained during mid to deep septal lead progression at the same target area, between two consecutive pacing manoeuvres. ECG-based criteria were used to compared LVSP and ns-LBBP morphologies obtained by interrupted pacemapping.ResultsSixty patients with demonstrated transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP during dynamic manoeuvers were compared to 44 patients with the same transition during lead screwing-in. Average shortening in paced V6-RWPT was similar among study groups (17.3 ± 6.8 ms vs. 18.8 ± 4.9 ms for transition during dynamic manoeuvres and lead screwing-in, respectively; p = 0.719). Paced V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, V6-V1 interpeak interval and the recently described LBBP score, were also similar for ns-LBBP morphologies in both groups. LVSP morphologies showed longer V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, shorter V6-V1 interpeak interval and lower LBBP score punctuation, without differences among the two QRS transition groups. V6-RWPT < 75 ms or V6-V1 interpeak interval > 44 ms criterion was more frequently achieved in ns-LBBP morphologies obtained during lead screwing-in compared to those obtained during dynamic manoeuvres (70.5% vs. 50%, respectively p = 0.036).ConclusionsDuring LBBAP procedure, QRS transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP can be observed as the lead penetrates deep into the IVS with interrupted pacemapping. Shortening of at least 10 ms in paced V6-RWPT may serve as marker of LBB capture.

Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may offer greater physiological benefits than traditional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, there are limited data comparing the efficacy of LBBAP vs BiVP in patients with systolic heart failure (HF).ObjectiveThe purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the feasibility and electromechanical and clinical outcomes of both LBBAP and BiVP.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies retrieved from various databases including PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) published up to May 22, 2023. The risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.ResultsWe included 12 studies with a total of 3004 patients (LBBAP = 1242, BiVP = 1762). Pooled results showed that LBBAP resulted in a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.25, 0.54, P < .00001), echocardiographic response (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.29, P < .0001), improvement in New York Heart Association functional class (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23, P < .0001), QRS duration reduction (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.66, P < .00001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduction (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.05, P = .02), fewer HF hospitalizations (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62, 0.85, P < .0001), and improved survival (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.92, P = .007). In addition, LBBAP was associated with shorter fluoroscopy time (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.47, P < .0001) and lower pacing threshold at implantation (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.74, P < .00001) and at 6 months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.77, P < .0001) as compared with BiVP.ConclusionCompared with BiVP, LBBAP was associated with better electromechanical and clinical outcomes, including left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS duration, echocardiographic response, New York Heart Association functional class, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality in patients with systolic HF.

Project description:A significant number of right bundle branch block (RBBB) patients receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), despite lack of evidence for benefit in this patient group. His bundle (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel CRT delivery methods, but their effect on RBBB remains understudied. We aim to compare pacing-induced electrical synchrony during conventional CRT, HBP, and LBP in RBBB patients with different conduction disturbances, and to investigate whether alternative ways of delivering LBP improve response to pacing. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart geometries each including a His-Purkinje system with proximal right bundle branch block (RBBB). We simulated RBBB combined with left anterior and posterior fascicular blocks (LAFB and LPFB). Additionally, RBBB was simulated in the presence of slow conduction velocity (CV) in the myocardium, left ventricular (LV) or right ventricular (RV) His-Purkinje system, and whole His-Purkinje system. Electrical synchrony was measured by the shortest interval to activate 90% of the ventricles (BIVAT-90). Compared to baseline, HBP significantly improved activation times for RBBB alone (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 42.6 ± 3.8 ms, p < 0.01), with LAFB (69.5 ± 5.0 ms vs. 58.1 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. 62.9 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with slow myocardial CV (119.4 ± 11.4 ms vs. 97.2 ± 10.0 ms, p < 0.01) or slow CV in the whole His-Purkinje system (102.3 ± 7.0 ms vs. 75.5 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). LBP was only effective in RBBB cases if combined with anodal capture of the RV septum myocardium (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 48.2 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). CRT significantly reduced activation times in RBBB in the presence of severely slow RV His-Purkinje CV (95.1 ± 7.9 ms vs. 84.3 ± 9.3 ms, p < 0.01) and LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. CRT: 72.9 ± 8.6 ms, p < 0.01). Both CRT and HBP were ineffective with severely slow CV in the LV His-Purkinje system. HBP is effective in RBBB patients with otherwise healthy myocardium and Purkinje system, while CRT and LBP are ineffective. Response to LBP improves when LBP is combined with RV septum anodal capture. CRT is better than HBP only in patients with severely slow CV in the RV His-Purkinje system, while CV slowing of the whole His-Purkinje system and the myocardium favor HBP over CRT.

Dataset Information

Resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes during left bundle branch area pacing with and without conduction system capture.

Background

Hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes during left bundle branch area pacing with and without conduction system capture.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets