Dataset Information

Remarkable response to cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing in patients with true left bundle branch block.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative means to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Hypothesis

LBBP may deliver resynchronization therapy along with an advantage over traditional biventricular (BiV) pacing in clinical outcomes.

Methods

Heart failure patients who presented LBBB morphology according to Strauss's criteria and received successful CRT procedure were enrolled in the present study. Propensity score matching was applied to match patients into LBBP-CRT group and BiV-CRT group. Then, the electrographic data, the echocardiographic data and New York heart association (NYHA) class were compared between the groups.

Results

Twenty-one patients with successful LBBP procedure and another 21 matched patients with successful BiV-CRT procedure were finally enrolled in the study. The QRS duration (QRSd) was narrowed from 167.7 ± 14.9 ms to 111.7 ± 12.3 ms (P < .0001) in the LBBP-CRT group and from 163.6 ± 13.8 ms to 130.1 ± 14.0 ms (P < .0001) in the BiV-CRT group. A trend toward better left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was recorded in the LBBP-CRT group (50.9 ± 10.7% vs 44.4 ± 13.3%, P = .12) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group at the 6-month follow-up. A trend toward better echocardiographic response was documented in patients receiving LBBP-CRT procedure (90.5% vs 80.9%, P = .43) and more super CRT response was documented in the LBBP-CRT group (80.9% vs 57.1%, P = .09) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group.

Conclusions

LBBP-CRT can dramatically improve the electrical synchrony in heart failure patients with LBBB. Meanwhile, compared with the traditional BiV-CRT, it has a tendency to significantly improve LVEF and enhance the NYHA cardiac function scores.

SUBMITTER: Guo J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7724211 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Remarkable response to cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing in patients with true left bundle branch block.

Guo Jincun J Li Linlin L Xiao Guosheng G Ye Tao T Huang Xinyi X Meng Fanqi F Li Qiang Q Chen Simei S Cai Binni B

Clinical cardiology 20200922 12

<h4>Background</h4>Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative means to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).<h4>Hypothesis</h4>LBBP may deliver resynchronization therapy along with an advantage over traditional biventricular (BiV) pacing in clinical outcomes.<h4>Methods</h4>Heart failure patients who presented LBBB morphology according to Strauss's criteria and received successful CRT procedure were enrolled in the present study. Propensity score matching wa ...[more]

PMID: 32960993

Similar Datasets

Project description:AimsThe purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB).Methods and resultsOne hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P < 0.001). Higher absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and △LVEF was also achieved in LBBP-CRT than BVP-aCRT at 6-month (47.58 ± 12.02% vs. 41.24 ± 10.56%, P = 0.008; 18.52 ± 13.19% vs. 12.89 ± 9.73%, P = 0.020) and 1-year follow-up (49.10 ± 10.43% vs. 43.62 ± 11.33%, P = 0.021; 20.90 ± 11.80% vs. 15.20 ± 9.98%, P = 0.015, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in response rate between two groups while higher super-response rate was observed in LBBP-CRT as compared to BVP-aCRT at 6 months (53.06% vs. 36.59%, P = 0.016) and 12 months (61.22% vs. 39.22%, P = 0.028) during follow-up. The pacing threshold was lower in LBBP-CRT at implant and during 1-year follow-up (both P < 0.001). Procedure-related complications and adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different in two groups.ConclusionsThe feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.

Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is emerging as an effective alternative to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and improve heart function. The purpose of our study was to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of LBBP in heart failure patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% and left bundle branch block (LBBB).MethodsAll patients with complete LBBB and LVEF <50% were retrospectively included in the study from April 2018 to April 2021 and underwent CRT via LBBP implantation. ECG, pacing parameters, the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, echocardiographic measurements, and complications were recorded and analyzed at implant and during follow-up of 1, 6, and 12 months.ResultsLeft bundle branch pacing was successful in all 34 patients (mean age 65.6 ± 11.2 years, 67.6% men). A significant decrease in QRS duration (QRSd) was observed after the LBBP operation for 1 month (153.2 ± 1.7 vs. 111.9 ± 2.6 ms, p < 0.01). LBB capture threshold and R-wave amplitude remained stable at 12-month follow-up when compared with implantation values (0.62 ± 0.13 V @ 0.4 ms vs. 0.73 ± 0.21 V @ 0.4 ms, 12.02 ± 5.68 mV vs. 8.58 ± 4.09 mV, respectively). LVEF increased significantly (35.28 ± 1.70% vs. 51.09 ± 1.71%, p < 0.01) accompanied with reduced left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDd; 65.3 ± 1.99 vs. 53.58 ± 2.07 mm, p < 0.01) and left atrial dimension (LAD; 49.03 ± 1.32 vs. 40.67 ± 1.58 mm, p < 0.01). Normalized LVEF (LVEF ≥ 50%) was found in 70.5% of patients at 12 months. The NYHA classification, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and 6-minute walk test (6MWT) were significantly improved at follow-up of 12 months (all p < 0.01 vs. baseline). No deaths or heart failure hospitalizations were observed during the follow-up period.ConclusionThe current work suggested that LBBP was feasible with a high success implantation rate and effective to correct LBBB and improved left ventricular structure and function with a low and stable pacing threshold.

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

Remarkable response to cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing in patients with true left bundle branch block.

Background

Hypothesis

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Remarkable response to cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing in patients with true left bundle branch block.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets