Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in Japanese patients with bradycardia
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kono H
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10995588 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAlthough left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) reportedly results in fewer adverse outcomes after implantation than conventional stylet-guided right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), previous studies have not compared LBBAP with accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and accurate RVSP among patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).MethodsThis single-center observational study enrolled 160 patients requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB between September 2018 and December 2021. Primary composite outcomes included all-cause death, hospitalization due to heart failure (HF), and upgrading to biventricular pacing. Secondary composite outcomes included any procedural and postprocedural complications.ResultsOverall, 160 patients were analyzed (LBBAP, n = 81; RVSP, n = 79). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The RV pacing burden at 1 year after implantation was 90.8% ± 20.4% and 86.2% ± 22.6%, respectively (p = 0.21). During a mean follow-up of 840 ± 369 days, the incidence of the primary outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (4.9%) compared to RVSP (22.8%) (Log-rank p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the secondary outcome between the two groups (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, baseline QRS duration, RV pacing burden, and LBBAP were independently associated with the primary outcome (baseline QRS duration: hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; RV pacing burden: HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; LBBAP: HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.64; p < 0.001).ConclusionIn patients requiring frequent RV pacing, LBBAP was associated with reduced adverse clinical outcome compared to accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter.
| S-EPMC11832786 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough right ventricular pacing (RVP) is recommended by most of the guidelines for atrioventricular block, it can cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony, impair left ventricular function, and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Recently, the His-Purkinje system pacing, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), has emerged as a physiological pacing modality. However, few studies have compared their efficacy and safety in atrioventricular block (AVB).Methods and resultsThe PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for observational studies and randomized trials of patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing, from database inception until 10 January 2022. The primary outcomes were complications and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing parameters, procedure duration, and success rate. After extracting the data at baseline and the longest follow-up duration available, a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, whereas mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs or 95% CrIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Seven studies and 1,069 patients were included. Overall, 43.4% underwent LBBP, 33.5% HBP, and 23.1% RVP. Compared with RVP, LBBP and HBP were associated with a shorter paced QRS duration and a more preserved LVEF. HBP significantly increased the pacing threshold and reduced the R-wave amplitude. There was no difference in the risk of complications or the implant success rate. The pacing threshold remained stable during follow-up for the three pacing modalities. The pacing impedance was significantly reduced in HBP, while a numerical but non-significant pacing impedance decrease was observed in both LBBP and RVP. LBBP was associated with an increased R-wave amplitude during follow-up.ConclusionIn this systematic review and network meta-analysis, HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in paced QRS duration and preservation of LVEF for patients with atrioventricular block. LBBP was associated with a lower pacing threshold and a greater R-wave amplitude than HBP. However, the stability of the pacing output of LBBP may be a concern. Further investigation of the long-term efficacy in left ventricular function and the risk of heart failure hospitalization is needed.Systematic review registration[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315046], identifier [CRD42022315046].
| S-EPMC9640391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing strategy that produces comparable clinical effects to His bundle pacing (HBP).ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate clinical outcomes of LBBaP vs RVP.Methods and resultsFrom April 2018 to September 2018, we included 44 patients under continuous pacemaker implantation. Patients were randomly divided into the LBBaP group and conventional RVP group. Compared to the RVP group, the LBBaP group displayed significantly increased operative (90.10 ± 19.68 minutes vs 61.57 ± 6.62 minutes, P < .001) and X-ray exposure times (15.55 ± 5.62 minutes vs 4.67 ± 2.06 minutes, P < .001). The lead threshold of the LBBaP group was increased (0.68 ± 0.20 mV vs 0.51 ± 0.0 mV, P = .001), while the R-wave amplitude and ventricular impedance did not significantly differ between the two groups. The conventional RVP procedure significantly widened the QRS complex (93.62 ± 8.28 ms vs 135.19 ± 12.21 ms, P = .001), whereas the LBBaP had no effect on QRS complex (130.13 ± 43.30 ms vs 112.63 ± 12.14 ms, P = .904). Furthermore, the LBBaP procedure significantly narrowed the QRS complex in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) (168.43 ± 38.870 ms vs 119.86 ± 6.69 ms, P = .019).ConclusionLBBaP is a new physiological, safe and effective pacing procedure with a high overall success rate. Compared to conventional RVP, LBBaP can correct LBBB, thereby improving cardiac electrical dyssynchrony.
| S-EPMC6671779 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe comparative effects of different types of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivered by biventricular pacing (BVP), His bundle pacing (HBP), and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) remain inconclusive.HypothesisHBP and LBBAP may be advantageous over BVP for CRT.MethodsPubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies that reported the effects after BVP, HBP, and LBBAP for CRT. The effects between groups were compared by a frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis (NMA), by which the mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.ResultsSix articles involving 389 patients remained for the final meta-analysis. The mean follow-up of these studies was 8.03 ± 3.15 months. LBBAP resulted in a greater improvement in LVEF% (MD = 7.17, 95% CI = 4.31 to 10.04), followed by HBP (MD = 4.06, 95% CI = 1.09 to 7.03) compared with BVP. HBP resulted in a narrower QRS duration (MD = 31.58 ms, 95% CI = 12.75 to 50.40), followed by LBBAP (MD = 27.40 ms, 95% CI = 10.81 to 43.99) compared with BVP. No significant differences of changes in LVEF improvement and QRS narrowing were observed between LBBAP and HBP. The pacing threshold of LBBAP was significantly lower than those of BVP and HBP.ConclusionThe NMA first found that LBBAP and HBP resulted in a greater LVEF improvement and a narrower QRS duration compared with BVP. Additionally, LBBAP resulted in similar clinical outcomes but with lower pacing thresholds, and may therefore offer advantages than does HBP for CRT.
| S-EPMC8860481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo evaluate ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block after left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) by echocardiography.MethodsForty patients who successfully received LBBAP were selected and divided into the right bundle-branch block group (RBBB group) and the non-RBBB group by pre-operation ECG. Echocardiography and follow-up were performed 1 month after operation. Interventricular synchronization was evaluated by tissue Doppler (TDI), tissue mitral annular displacement (TMAD), and interventricular mechanical delay. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricular fractional area change (RVFAC), tricuspid annulus sidewall systolic velocity (TV-s'), left ventricular global ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (LS-RV), standard deviation of left ventricular 18 segments peak time difference (SDt-L) and standard deviation of right ventricular free wall 3 segments peak time difference (SDt-R) were applied to evaluate intraventricular synchronization and ventricular function.ResultsThe difference of displacement peak time of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔPTTV-MV measured by TMAD, the difference of systolic time to peak of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔTsTV-MV measured by TDI, were statistically different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the non-RBBB group, there were no statistically significant differences in the GLS, RVFAC, LS-RV, TAPSE, TV-s', SDt-L, SDt-R (P > 0.05).ConclusionEchocardiography technology including two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI), TDI, and TMAD can effectively analyze interventricular synchronization, intraventricular synchronization, and ventricular function. Although the movement of the right ventricular myocardium in the RBBB group was slightly later than that of the left ventricular myocardium after LBBAP, LBBAP could still be applied in RBBB patients with pacing indication.
| S-EPMC9394046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAdoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes.MethodsWe performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately.ResultsThe analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001).ConclusionIn conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.
| S-EPMC9817436 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent studies suggested that the left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has a better efficacy to reduce QRS duration and produce a lower pacing threshold than the conventional right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing (RVOP), which resulted in a better cardiac function and ventricular synchronization. However, whether the LBBAP has a better efficacy in improving left atrial structure, function in pace-dependent patients compared with RVOP has not been well studied.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to compare the atrial outcomes of pace-dependent patients who received LBBAP or RVOP procedures.Methods and resultsA total of 72 patients (including II° AVB, high AVB, and III° AVB, excluding atrial fibrillation patients with atrioventricular block) consecutively enrolled in this single-center prospective clinical study and randomly assigned to the RVOP group and the LBBP group with 36 patients. All patients were pace-dependent. The changes in echocardiogram, speckle-tracking echocardiography, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and 6-min walking distance were documented and compared between two groups at baseline, 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after the implantation. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The results of the study were as following: (1) left atrial structure index: Our study indicated that there are no significant differences in left atrial anteroposterior dimension (LAAPD), left atrial superoinferior dimension, and left atrial mediolateral dimension between two groups. While the LAAPD in the LBBAP group was significantly reduced at 6 months after implantation ([38.22 ± 2.17] mm vs. [34.13 ± 1.59] mm, p < .05). (2) Left atrial strain index: We observed that the S% was significantly improved in both groups at 3 and 6 months after implantation but more prominent in the LBBAP group at 6 months (36.94 ± 11.67 vs. 25.87 ± 8.93, p = .01). SRs, SRe were improved in the RVOP group at 6 months after implantation but was further significantly increased in the LBBAP group. Similarly, the SRa in the LBBAP group was significantly better than the RVOP group after 6 months (-2.11 ± 0.75 vs. -2.51 ± 0.70, p = .04). (3) Left atrial ejection index: LAEF% in the LBBAP group was significantly improved compared with the RVOP group (60.02 ± 1.88 vs. 53.65 ± 2.45, p = .047) and baseline (60.02 ± 1.88 vs. 49.68 ± 2.75, p < .05) at 6 months after the surgery. (4) Left ventricular ejection index: The LVEF% in the LBBAP group was significantly increased than the RVOP group after 6 months (69.14 ± 4.99 vs. 64.60 ± 4.84, p = .01) and the BNP level was significantly lower in the LBBAP group compared with the RVOP group at 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after implantation (p < .05). (5) 6-min walking distance: the 6-min walking distance was significantly increased at 3 and 6 months after implantation compared with that before (p < .05) in both groups, but was more prominent in LBBAP groups ([483.03 ± 11.02] m vs. [431.09 ± 10.69] m,p < .05).ConclusionCompared with the traditional RVOP, the LBBAP procedure increased left atrial myocardial stress as well as left atrial ejection in pace-dependent patients at follow-up to 6 months.
| S-EPMC10823449 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHis bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological pacing strategy, which aims to capture the His bundle-Purkinje system and synchronously activate the ventricles. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a newly discovered physiological pacing technique similar to HBP. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the pacing parameters and clinical results between HBP and LBBP.MethodsWe systematically retrieved studies using the PubMed, Embase database, and Cochrane Library. Mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals [CIs] were used to measure the outcomes. A random-effect model was used when studies were of high heterogeneity.ResultsA total of seven studies containing 867 individuals were included. Compared with HBP, LBBP was associated with higher implant success rates (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.18; I 2 = 60%, P = 0.0003), lower capture threshold at implantation (V/0.5 ms) (MD: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.35-0.90, I 2 = 89%, P < 0.0001) and capture threshold at follow-up (V/0.5 ms) (MD: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.34-1.18, I 2 = 93%, P = 0.0004), and larger sensed R wave amplitude (mV) at implantation (MD: 7.23, 95% CI: 5.29-9.16, P < 0.0001) and sensed R wave amplitude (mV) at follow-up (MD: 7.53, 95% CI: 6.85-8.22, P < 0.0001). In LBBP recipients, greater QRS wave complex reduction was found in the paced QRS duration at follow-up compared with HBP recipients at follow-up (MD: 6.12, 95% CI: 1.23-11.01, I 2 = 0%, P = 0.01). No statistical differences were found in procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, native left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF), LVEF improvement, native QRS duration, and QRS reduction from the native QRS duration vs. paced QRS duration at implantation.ConclusionCurrent evidence suggests that pacing characteristics are better in LBBP compared with HBP. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the clinical advantages of LBBP.
| S-EPMC8980919 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing modality with stable pacing parameters and a narrow-paced QRS duration. We compared heart failure (HF) hospitalization events and echocardiographic measures between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Methods and Results: This multicenter observational study prospectively recruited consecutive AVB patients requiring ventricular pacing in five centers if they received LBBAP or RVP and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%. Data on electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, echocardiographic measurements, device complications, and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary outcome was first episode hospitalization for HF or upgrade to biventricular pacing. LBBAP was successful in 235 of 246 patients (95.5%), while 120 patients received RVP. During a mean of 11.4 ± 2.7 months of follow-up, the ventricular pacing burden was comparable (83.9 ± 35.1 vs. 85.7 ± 30.0%), while the mean LVEF differed significantly (62.6 ± 4.6 vs. 57.8 ± 11.4%) between the LBBAP and RVP groups. Patients with LBBAP had significantly lower occurrences of HF hospitalization and upgrading to biventricular pacing than patients with RVP (2.6 vs. 10.8%, P <0.001), and differences in primary outcome between LBBAP and RVP were mainly observed in patients with ventricular pacing >40% or with baseline LVEF <60%. The primary outcome was independently associated with LBBAP (adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04-0.55), previous myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 6.82, 95% CI: 1.23-37.5), and baseline LVEF (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.96). Conclusion: Permanent LBBAP might reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or upgrade to biventricular pacing compared with RVP in AVB patients requiring a high burden of ventricular pacing. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03851315; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique Identifier: ChiCTR2100043296.
| S-EPMC8297826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPhysiological pacing has gained significant interest due to its potential to achieve optimal hemodynamic response. This study aimed to assess left ventricular performance in terms of electrical parameters, specifically QRS duration and mechanical performance, evaluated as myocardial work. We compared His Bundle Pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) to evaluate their effects.MethodsTwenty-four patients with class I or IIa indications for pacing were enrolled in this study, with twelve patients undergoing HBP implantation and another twelve undergoing LBBAP implantation. A comprehensive analysis of myocardial work was conducted.ResultsOur findings indicate that there were no major differences in terms of spontaneous and HBP activation in myocardial work, except for global wasted work (217 mmHg% vs. 283 mmHg%; p 0.016) and global work efficiency (87 mmHg% vs. 82 mmHg%; p 0.049). No significant differences were observed in myocardial work between spontaneous activation and LBBAP. Similarly, no significant differences in myocardial work were found between HBP and LBBAP.ConclusionsBoth pacing modalities provide physiological ventricular activation without significant differences when compared to each other. Moreover, there were no significant differences in QRS duration between HBP and LBBAP. However, LBBAP demonstrated advantages in terms of feasibility, as it achieved better lead electrical parameters compared to HBP (threshold@0.4 ms 0.6 V vs. 1 V; p = 0.045-sensing 9.4 mV vs. 2.4 mV; p < 0.001). Additionally, LBBAP required less fluoroscopy time (6 min vs. 13 min; p = 0.010) and procedural time (81 min vs. 125 min; p = 0.004) compared to HBP.
| S-EPMC10672524 | biostudies-literature