Dataset Information

Evaluation of cardiac synchrony in left bundle branch pacing: Insights from echocardiographic research.

ABSTRACT:

Aim

The aim of this study is to assess if left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can preserve physiological cardiac synchrony and deliver favorable hemodynamic effects.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing dual chamber pacemaker implantation for sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and a normal cardiac function with a narrow QRS complex were recruited for the study. Electrocardiogram and echocardiographic examinations were performed during ventricular pacing-on and native-conduction modes. The QRS duration (QRSd), systolic dyssynchrony index (SDI), and the standard deviation of time-to-peak contraction velocity in left ventricular (LV) 12 segments (Tsd-12-LV) were measured to evaluate LV synchrony. The stroke volume (SV) and the degree of atrioventricular valvular regurgitation were also assessed.

Results

A total of 40 patients underwent LBBP, while another 38 patients underwent right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) as control group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. With LBBP, the paced QRSd was slightly wider than the intrinsic QRSd (101.03 ± 8.79 ms vs 91.06 ± 14.17 ms, P < .0001) while the LV mechanical synchrony during LBBP pacing mode was similar to that of native-conduction mode (SDI, 3.14 ± 2.49 vs 2.70 ± 1.68, P = 0.129; Tsd-12-LV, 26.43 ± 15.55 vs 25.61 ± 16.07, P = .671) in the LBBP group. The LV synchrony in the LBBP group was superior to the RVSP group significantly. No significant differences in SV (64.08 ± 16.97 mL vs 65.45 ± 18.68 mL, P = .241) or the degree of atrioventricular valvular regurgitation were noted between LBBP capture and native-conduction modes.

Conclusion

LBBP could preserve satisfactory LV synchrony and result in favorable hemodynamic effects.

SUBMITTER: Cai B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7027438 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Little is known about the efficacy of permanent left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This study aimed to evaluate the effect of LBBAP on mechanical synchronization and myocardial work (MW) in heart failure (HF) patients and to compare LBBAP with biventricular pacing (BVP). Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective cohort study. From February 2018 to January 2021, 62 consecutive HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 35%) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) who underwent LBBAP or BVP were enrolled in this study. Echocardiograms and electrocardiograms and were conducted before and 3-6 months after implantation. Intra- and interventricular synchronization were assessed using two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI). The left ventricular pressure-strain loop was obtained by combining left ventricular strain with non-invasive blood pressure to evaluate mechanical efficiency. Results: The echocardiographic response rates were 68.6 and 88.9% in the BVP and LBBAP groups, respectively. Left bundle branch area pacing resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 177.1 ± 16.7 to 113.0 ± 18.4 ms, P < 0.001) and improvement in LVEF (from 29.9 ± 4.8 to 47.1 ± 8.3%, P < 0.001). The global wasted work (GWW) (410.3 ± 166.6 vs. 283.0 ± 129.6 mmHg%, P = 0.001) and global work efficiency (GWE) (64.6 ± 7.8 vs. 80.5 ± 5.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly improved along with shorter peak strain dispersion (PSD) (143.4 ± 45.2 vs. 92.6 ± 35.1 ms, P < 0.001) and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) (56.4 ± 28.5 vs. 28.9 ± 19.0 ms, P < 0.001), indicating its efficiency in improving mechanical synchronization. In comparison with BVP, LBBAP delivered greater improvement of QRS narrowing (-64.1 ± 18.9 vs. -32.5 ± 22.3 ms, P < 0.001) and better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. Conclusions: Left bundle branch area pacing was effective in improving cardiac function, mechanical synchronization, and mechanical efficiency and may be a promising alternative cardiac resynchronization therapy.

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].