Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy.
biventricular pacing
cardiac resynchronization therapy
heart failure hospitalization
left bundle branch area pacing
mortality
Journal
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
ISSN: 1558-3597
Titre abrégé: J Am Coll Cardiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8301365
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
18 07 2023
18 07 2023
Historique:
received:
29
03
2023
revised:
05
05
2023
accepted:
08
05
2023
medline:
14
7
2023
pubmed:
24
5
2023
entrez:
23
5
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT. This observational study included patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included endpoints of death, HFH, and echocardiographic changes. A total of 1,778 patients met inclusion criteria: 981 BVP, 797 LBBAP. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% ± 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 ± 19 ms vs 161 ± 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 ± 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% ± 6% to 41% ± 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% ± 7% to 37% ± 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% ± 12% vs 10% ± 12%; P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, the primary outcome was significantly reduced with LBBAP compared with BVP (20.8% vs 28%; HR: 1.495; 95% CI: 1.213-1.842; P < 0.001). LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP.
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT.
METHODS
This observational study included patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included endpoints of death, HFH, and echocardiographic changes.
RESULTS
A total of 1,778 patients met inclusion criteria: 981 BVP, 797 LBBAP. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% ± 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 ± 19 ms vs 161 ± 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 ± 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% ± 6% to 41% ± 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% ± 7% to 37% ± 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% ± 12% vs 10% ± 12%; P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, the primary outcome was significantly reduced with LBBAP compared with BVP (20.8% vs 28%; HR: 1.495; 95% CI: 1.213-1.842; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37220862
pii: S0735-1097(23)05546-8
doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.006
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Observational Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
228-241Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Vijayaraman has received honoraria and consultancy, research, and fellowship support from Medtronic; has served as a consultant for Abbott and Eaglepoint; has received honoraria from Boston Scientific and Biotronik; and has a patent for a His bundle pacing delivery tool. Dr Sharma has received honoraria from Medtronic; and has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Abbott, and Biotronik. Dr Cano has received honoraria from and served as a consultant for Medtronic, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific. Dr Ponnusamy has received honoraria from Medtronic. Dr Herweg has served as a speaker and consultant for Abbott; and has received speaking and fellowship support from Medtronic. Dr Jastrzebski has received honoraria from and served as a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Zou has received honoraria from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Microport. Dr Chelu has received research support from Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute, National Institutes of Health, Abbott, and Impulse Dynamics; and has received honorarium from Impulse Dynamics. Dr Vernooy has served as a consultant for Biosense Webster, Philips, Medtronic, Abbott, and Boston Scientific; and has received research and educational grants to his institution from Philips, Abbott, Medtronic, and Biosense Webster. Dr Whinnett has received honoraria from Medtronic and Boston Scientific; and has served as a consultant for Medtronic and Abbott. Dr Nair has received grants-in-aid from Biosense Webster, Medtronic, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada; and has received honoraria and consulting fees from Medtronic, Biosense Webster, and Boston Scientific. Dr Curila has served as a consultant for and received honoraria from Medtronic, Biotronik, and Abbott. Dr Ellenbogen has served as a consultant for Medtronic, Boston Scientific, Abbott, and Biotronik; and has received honoraria from Medtronic, Boston Scientific, and Biotronik. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.