A technique for cardiac resynchronization therapy using left bundle branch area and left ventricular pacing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Feng XF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8631415 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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
Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel form of conduction system pacing which can reverse left bundle branch block and deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The WiSE-CRT system delivers leadless endocardial pacing with symptomatic and left ventricular (LV) remodelling improvements following intervention. We report the technical feasibility of delivering leadless LBBAP using the WiSE-CRT system.Case summaryIn Case 1, a 57-year-old male with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and complete heart block underwent implantation of the WiSE-CRT system, using a retrograde transaortic approach, after failed conventional CRT. Temporary left bundle stimulation from the LV septum achieved superior electrical resynchronization and equivalent haemodynamic response compared to endocardial pacing at the lateral LV wall. In Case 2, an 82-year-old gentleman with tachyarrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy underwent WiSE-CRT implantation via a trans-septal inter-atrial approach, with the endocardial electrode successfully deployed in the LV septum.DiscussionHere we report the first case of deployment of the WiSE-CRT endocardial electrode in the LV septum and demonstrate the technical feasibility of leadless LBBAP. Entirely leadless CRT is an attractive option for patients with venous access issues or recurrent lead complications and has previously been successful using the WiSE-CRT system and a leadless pacemaker in the right ventricle. Further studies are required to assess long-term efficacy and safety of leadless LBBAP.
| S-EPMC8633604 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundReal-world data on the use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) as an alternative novel pacing strategy to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains scarce. We aimed to investigate the outcomes of LBBAP as an alternative to BVP as a method of CRT.MethodsElectronic databases were searched for studies on the use of LBBAP as CRT and studies that compared LBBAP with BVP. The main outcomes examined were changes in New York Heart Association classification, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular ejection fraction, and paced QRS duration post CRT device implantation.ResultsOur meta-analysis included 8 nonrandomized studies with a total of 527 patients who underwent LBBAP as CRT. In studies with a BVP comparison group, patients with LBBAP had a greater reduction in paced QRS (mean difference [MD], 27.91 msec; 95% confidence interval [CI], 22.33-33.50), and a greater improvement in New York Heart Association class (MD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.28-0.90) and left ventricular ejection fraction (MD, 6.77%; 95% CI, 3.84-9.71). Patients with underlying left bundle branch block appeared to benefit the most from LBBAP compared with patients without underlying left bundle branch block.ConclusionsLBBAP might be a reasonable option for patients who meet indications for CRT, particularly in those who have limited anatomy or do not benefit from CRT. Randomized trials are needed to compare LBBAP with BVP for CRT and to identify which populations might benefit the most from LBBAP.
| S-EPMC8636235 | 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:His bundle pacing was developed while seeking a physiological alternative to biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy. However, His bundle pacing may not be adequate in all patients. In this scenario, left bundle branch pacing has arisen as a new cardiac resynchronization therapy modality to correct left bundle branch block and restore ventricular synchrony. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).
| S-EPMC8299856 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the acute improvement of electrical and mechanical synchrony, and hemodynamics between LBBP and BVP in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block.MethodsLBBP and BVP were performed and compared in a crossover fashion in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation. Electrical synchrony was assessed by QRS duration and area, mechanical synchrony by the SD of time to peak velocity of 12 left ventricular segments (Ts-SD) and interventricular mechanical delay, and hemodynamics by the maximum rate of left ventricular pressure rise (dP/dtmax).ResultsTwenty-one patient with heart failure and left bundle branch block (mean age 67±10 years, 48% male, and 90% nonischemic cause) were included. Both LBBP and BVP provided significant improvements in electrical and mechanical synchrony, and hemodynamics compared to the baseline. Compared with BVP, LBBP achieved a larger reduction in QRS duration (-11 ms [95% CI, -17 to -4 ms]; P=0.003) and QRS area (-85 µVs [95% CI, -113 to -56 µVs]; P<0.001); LBBP achieved a greater decrease in Ts-SD (-14 ms [95% CI, -21 to -7 ms]; P=0.001), with no significant difference in interventricular mechanical delay (-2 ms [95% CI, -13 to 8 ms]; P=0.63). The increase in dP/dtmax from LBBP was significantly higher than that from BVP (6% [95% CI, 2%-9%]; P=0.002).ConclusionsLBBP delivers greater acute electrical and mechanical resynchronization and hemodynamic improvement than BVP in predominantly nonischemic heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.RegistrationURL: https://www.Clinicaltrialsgov; Unique identifier: NCT04505384.
| S-EPMC9665950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chest pain may be rarely associated with left bundle branch block (LBBB)-mediated ventricular dys-synchrony has been reported. This article reports 2 such cases, where left bundle branch area pacing resulted in resolution of the LBBB and associated symptoms. By adjusting the atrioventricular delays, the QRS duration was narrowed further by achieving fusion with the intrinsic activation wavefront. (Level of Difficulty: Beginner.).
| S-EPMC8298553 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Leadless left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) represents the merger of two rapidly progressing areas in the field of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). It combines the attractive concepts of pacing the native conduction system to allow more physiological activation of the myocardium than conventional biventricular pacing, with the potential added benefits of avoiding long-term complications associated with transvenous leads via leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing. This perspective article will first review the evidence for the efficacy of leadless pacing in CRT. We then summarise the procedural steps and pilot data for leadless LBBAP, followed by a discussion of the safety and efficacy of this novel technique. Finally, we will examine how further mechanistic evidence may shed light to which patients may benefit most from leadless LBBAP, and how improvements in current experience and technology could promote widespread uptake and expand current clinical indications.
| S-EPMC9208327 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP).Methods and resultsPatients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP -35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP -19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (-46 ± 15 ms, -36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP -43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP -45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP -13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8).ConclusionHBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response.
| S-EPMC10062293 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:QRS narrowing following cardiac resynchronization therapy with biventricular (BiV) or left ventricular (LV) pacing is likely affected by patient-specific conduction characteristics (PR, qLV, LV-paced propagation interval), making a universal programming strategy likely ineffective. We tested these factors using a novel, device-based algorithm (SyncAV) that automatically adjusts paced atrioventricular delay (default or programmable offset) according to intrinsic atrioventricular conduction. METHODS AND RESULTS:Seventy-five patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (age 66±11 years; 65% male; 32% with ischemic cardiomyopathy; LV ejection fraction 28±8%; QRS duration 162±16 ms) with intact atrioventricular conduction (PR interval 194±34, range 128-300 ms), left bundle branch block, and optimized LV lead position were studied at implant. QRS duration (QRSd) reduction was compared for the following pacing configurations: nominal simultaneous BiV (Mode I: paced/sensed atrioventricular delay=140/110 ms), BiV+SyncAV with 50 ms offset (Mode II), BiV+SyncAV with offset that minimized QRSd (Mode III), or LV-only pacing+SyncAV with 50 ms offset (Mode IV). The intrinsic QRSd (162±16 ms) was reduced to 142±17 ms (-11.8%) by Mode I, 136±14 ms (-15.6%) by Mode IV, and 132±13 ms (-17.8%) by Mode II. Mode III yielded the shortest overall QRSd (123±12 ms, -23.9% [P<0.001 versus all modes]) and was the only configuration without QRSd prolongation in any patient. QRS narrowing occurred regardless of QRSd, PR, or LV-paced intervals, or underlying ischemic disease. CONCLUSIONS:Post-implant electrical optimization in already well-selected patients with left bundle branch block and optimized LV lead position is facilitated by patient-tailored BiV pacing adjusted to intrinsic atrioventricular timing using an automatic device-based algorithm.
| S-EPMC5850248 | biostudies-literature