Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Acute Cardiac Resynchronization in Patients With Heart Failure.
biventricular pacing
cardiac resynchronization therapy
heart failure
hemodynamics
left bundle branch pacing
Journal
Circulation. Arrhythmia and electrophysiology
ISSN: 1941-3084
Titre abrégé: Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101474365
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 2022
11 2022
Historique:
pubmed:
29
10
2022
medline:
19
11
2022
entrez:
28
10
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Left 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. LBBP 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/dt Twenty-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]; LBBP delivers greater acute electrical and mechanical resynchronization and hemodynamic improvement than BVP in predominantly nonischemic heart failure patients with left bundle branch block. URL: https://www. gov; Unique identifier: NCT04505384.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Left 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.
METHODS
LBBP 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/dt
RESULTS
Twenty-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];
CONCLUSIONS
LBBP delivers greater acute electrical and mechanical resynchronization and hemodynamic improvement than BVP in predominantly nonischemic heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.
REGISTRATION
URL: https://www.
CLINICALTRIALS
gov; Unique identifier: NCT04505384.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36306335
doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.122.011181
pmc: PMC9665950
doi:
Banques de données
ClinicalTrials.gov
['NCT04505384']
Types de publication
Clinical Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e011181Références
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;5(9):1013-1025
pubmed: 31537329
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009 Feb 17;53(7):600-607
pubmed: 19215835
Clin Res Cardiol. 2013 Feb;102(2):129-38
pubmed: 23001244
Eur J Heart Fail. 2011 Oct;13(10):1126-32
pubmed: 21791536
Heart Rhythm. 2020 Dec;17(12):2046-2055
pubmed: 32717314
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Aug;31(8):2068-2077
pubmed: 32562442
Europace. 2016 Aug;18(8):1227-34
pubmed: 26718535
JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jul;6(7):849-858
pubmed: 32703568
Heart Rhythm. 2015 May;12(5):975-81
pubmed: 25625721
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019 Dec 17;74(24):3039-3049
pubmed: 31865972
Heart Rhythm O2. 2021 Jan 22;2(1):19-27
pubmed: 34113901
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Dec;16(12):1783-1790
pubmed: 31513945
Heart Rhythm. 2021 Aug;18(8):1290-1291
pubmed: 33992731
Heart Rhythm. 2019 Dec;16(12):1791-1796
pubmed: 31233818
Circulation. 2008 May 20;117(20):2608-16
pubmed: 18458170
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020 Feb 4;75(4):347-359
pubmed: 32000945
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Dec 18;72(24):3112-3122
pubmed: 30545450
Circulation. 2011 Mar 15;123(10):1061-72
pubmed: 21357819
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021 Mar;32(3):813-822
pubmed: 33476467
J Clin Med. 2021 Feb 17;10(4):
pubmed: 33671420
Heart Rhythm. 2021 Aug;18(8):1281-1289
pubmed: 33930549
Eur Heart J. 1990 Dec;11(12):1083-92
pubmed: 2292255
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Feb 9;55(6):566-75
pubmed: 19931364
Can J Cardiol. 2021 Feb;37(2):319-328
pubmed: 32387225
Europace. 2015 Dec;17(12):1823-33
pubmed: 25855674
Europace. 2017 Jul 01;19(7):1178-1186
pubmed: 27411361
J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019 Sep;30(9):1610-1619
pubmed: 31115945
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011 Sep 6;58(11):1128-36
pubmed: 21884950
JACC Heart Fail. 2015 Jul;3(7):565-572
pubmed: 26071616
Europace. 2021 Apr 6;23(4):496-510
pubmed: 33247913
Heart Rhythm. 2015 Apr;12(4):782-91
pubmed: 25546811
Circulation. 2010 Nov 9;122(19):1910-8
pubmed: 20975000
ESC Heart Fail. 2020 Aug;7(4):1711-1722
pubmed: 32400967