Painful Left Bundle Branch Block Syndrome Successfully Treated With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Garg A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8298553 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:A 70-year-old male with prior orthotopic heart transplant developed left bundle branch block followed by new-onset left ventricular systolic dysfunction. He underwent His bundle pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy with complete normalization of his ejection fraction. This is the first reported case of left bundle branch block-induced cardiomyopathy in a transplanted heart. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).
| S-EPMC8299132 | 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: Not available
| S-EPMC9043084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be effective and safe. Limited data are available on LBBAP in the congenital heart disease (CHD) population. This study aims to describe the feasibility and safety of LBBAP in CHD patients compared with non-CHD patients.Methods and resultsThis is a single-centre, non-randomized observational study recruiting consecutive patients with bradycardia indication. Demographic data, ECGs, imaging, and procedural data including lead parameters were recorded. A total of 39 patients were included: CHD group (n = 13) and non-CHD group (n = 26). Congenital heart disease patients were younger (55 ± 14.5 years vs. 73.2 ± 13.1, P < 0.001). Acute success was achieved in all CHD patients and 96% (25/26) of non-CHD patients. No complications were encountered in either group. The procedural time for CHD patients was comparable (96.4 ± 54 vs. 82.1 ± 37.9 min, P = 0.356). Sheath reshaping was required in 7 of 13 CHD patients but only in 1 of 26 non-CHD patients, reflecting the complex and distorted anatomy of the patients in this group. Lead parameters were similar in both groups; R wave (11 ± 7 mV vs. 11.5 ± 7.5, P = 0.881) and pacing threshold (0.6 ± 0.3 V vs. 0.7 ± 0.3, P = 0.392). Baseline QRS duration was longer in the CHD group (150 ± 28.2 vs. 118.6 ± 26.6 ms, P = 0.002). Despite a numerically greater reduction in QRS and a similar left ventricular activation time (65.9 ± 6.2 vs. 67 ± 16.8 ms, P = 0.840), the QRS remained longer in the CHD group (135.5 ± 22.4 vs. 106.9 ± 24.7 ms, P = 0.005).ConclusionLeft bundle branch area pacing is feasible and safe in CHD patients as compared to that in non-CHD patients. Procedural and fluoroscopy times did not differ between both groups. Lead parameters were satisfactory and stable over a short-term follow-up.
| S-EPMC9935007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) regimens for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).MethodsThis observational cohort study included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for AVB indications from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, lead failure, or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). The secondary outcome included periprocedure complication, cardiac death, or recurrent unexplained syncope. A 1 : 1 propensity score-matched cohort was conducted for left ventricular (LV) function analysis.ResultsA total of 903 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed clinical follow-up. After adjusting for the possible confounders, LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009), including a lower risk of all-cause mortality and HFH. No significant difference in the secondary outcome was detected between the groups except that LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of recurrent unexplained syncope. In the propensity-score matching cohort of echocardiographic analysis, the LV systolic dyssynchrony index was lower in LBBAP compared with that in RVP (5.68 ± 1.92 vs. 6.50 ± 2.28%, p = 0.012).ConclusionsCompared to conventional RVP, LBBAP is a feasible novel pacing model associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome. Moreover, LBBAP significantly reduces the risk of recurrent unexplained syncope and improves LV systolic synchrony. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05722379.
| S-EPMC10462439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has been accepted as a physiological pacing method that can yield narrow paced QRS waves. For patients with failed biventricular pacing (Bi-V), LBBaP is another feasible option. However, no randomised controlled study has evaluated the efficacy and safety of LBBaP in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Therefore, we aimed to conduct this type of randomised controlled trial.Methods and analysisThis study is a single-centre, randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. This study will be conducted at the cardiac centre of Beijing Anzhen Hospital. From January 2020 to December 2022, 180 heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤35%) and LBBB undergoing Bi-V implantation will be consecutively enrolled in this study. Participants will be randomised at a 1:1 ratio into an experimental group (LBBaP) and a control group (Bi-V). The primary outcome is LVEF. The secondary outcomes are NT-proBNP, duration of the QRS complex, end systolic volume, end diastolic volume, the 6-minute walking test and quality of life (SF-36 scale), all causes of mortality, cardiovascular death, rehospitalisation rate of heart failure, other rehospitalisation rates, major complication rates, procedure costs and hospitalised dates.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Beijing Anzhen Hospital Medical Ethics Committee (No. ks201932). The results of this study will be presented at domestic and international conferences. We hypothesise that LBBaP is non-inferior compared with Bi-V for treating patients with heart failure and LBBB. This trial will provide evidence-based recommendations for electrophysiologists.Trial registration numberChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2000028726).
| S-EPMC7517551 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8695250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a recent technique aiming at preservation of physiological ventricular electrical activation. Our goal was to assess mechanical synchrony parameters in relation to electrocardiographic features during LBBAP performed in routine practice.Methods and resultsFrom June 2020 to August 2021, all patients of our institution with permanent pacemaker implantation indication were eligible for LBBAP. A 'qR' pattern in V1 and a delay from pacing spike to the peak of the R-wave in V6 < 80 ms defined a successful LBBAP. Electrocardiogram and echocardiography were performed during spontaneous rhythm and LBBAP: left ventricular mechanical synchrony (LVMS) parameters using 2D Speckle tracking and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were collected. LBBAP was attempted with success in 134/163 patients (82.2%). During LBBAP, the mean QRS width was 104 ± 12 ms. In patients with left bundle branch block (n = 47), LBBAP provided a significant decrease of QRS width from 139 ± 16 to 105 ± 12 ms (P < 0.001) with reduction of LVMS (53 ± 21 vs. 90 ± 46 ms, P = 0.009), and IVMD (14 ± 13 vs. 49 ± 18 ms, P < 0.001). In patients with right bundle branch block (n = 38), LBBAP led to a significant decrease of QRS width from 134 ± 14 to 106 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001) with no effect on LVMS and a reduction of IVMD (17 ± 14 vs. 50 ± 16 ms, P < 0.001).ConclusionLBBAP in routine practice preserved intra-ventricular mechanical synchrony in patients with narrow and RBBB QRS and improved asynchrony parameters in patients with LBBB.
| S-EPMC9935006 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Deep septal pacing is an emerging technique for physiologic pacing in adults. We report a case where left bundle capture was inadvertently achieved in a small child with routine lead deployment into a thin septum and discuss the potential feasibility of this technique for future study. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).
| S-EPMC8603135 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative means to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).HypothesisLBBP may deliver resynchronization therapy along with an advantage over traditional biventricular (BiV) pacing in clinical outcomes.MethodsHeart 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.ResultsTwenty-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.ConclusionsLBBP-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.
| S-EPMC7724211 | biostudies-literature