Cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing vs. optimized biventricular pacing with adaptive algorithm in heart failure with left bundle branch block: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study.
Biventricular pacing
Cardiac resynchronization therapy
Heart failure
His bundle pacing
Left bundle branch block
Left bundle branch pacing
Journal
Europace : European pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac electrophysiology : journal of the working groups on cardiac pacing, arrhythmias, and cardiac cellular electrophysiology of the European Society of Cardiology
ISSN: 1532-2092
Titre abrégé: Europace
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100883649
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
03 05 2022
03 05 2022
Historique:
received:
24
12
2020
pubmed:
1
11
2021
medline:
10
5
2022
entrez:
31
10
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The 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). One 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. The 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34718539
pii: 6412761
doi: 10.1093/europace/euab249
pmc: PMC9071084
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Observational Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
807-816Subventions
Organisme : Clinical Research Special Fund of Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University
ID : 2020ZSLC08
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.
Références
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Dec;16(12):1791-1796
pubmed: 31233818
Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2012 Aug;35(8):927-34
pubmed: 22651702
Can J Cardiol. 2021 Feb;37(2):319-328
pubmed: 32387225
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Jul;30(7):1096-1101
pubmed: 31094058
Heart Rhythm. 2017 Dec;14(12):1820-1825
pubmed: 28893549
Can J Cardiol. 2017 Dec;33(12):1736.e1-1736.e3
pubmed: 29173611
Circulation. 2011 Oct 4;124(14):1527-36
pubmed: 21900084
Europace. 2020 Aug 1;22(8):1234-1239
pubmed: 32529257
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012 Jun 19;59(25):2374-7
pubmed: 22698491
Circulation. 2011 Mar 15;123(10):1061-72
pubmed: 21357819
Europace. 2020 Dec 26;22(Suppl_2):ii36-ii44
pubmed: 33370799
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2021 Sep;7(9):1166-1177
pubmed: 33933414
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;31(1):214-219
pubmed: 31778271
Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021 Mar 24;8:645947
pubmed: 33869306
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jul;6(7):849-858
pubmed: 32703568
Eur Heart J. 2011 Oct;32(20):2516-24
pubmed: 21875862
Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2021 Feb;14(2):e009261
pubmed: 33426907
Dan Med J. 2014 Dec;61(12):B4981
pubmed: 25441737
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Jul 9;74(1):157-159
pubmed: 31078637
Europace. 2019 Jun 1;21(6):837
pubmed: 30590453