Sex Differences in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

biventricular pacing cardiac resynchronization therapy heart failure left bundle branch area pacing left ventricular ejection fraction

Journal

JACC. Clinical electrophysiology
ISSN: 2405-5018
Titre abrégé: JACC Clin Electrophysiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101656995

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
16 May 2024
Historique:
received: 02 04 2024
revised: 06 05 2024
accepted: 08 05 2024
medline: 6 6 2024
pubmed: 6 6 2024
entrez: 6 6 2024
Statut: aheadofprint

Résumé

Women respond more favorably to biventricular pacing (BIVP) than men. Sex differences in atrioventricular and interventricular conduction have been described in BIVP studies. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) offers advantages due to direct capture of the conduction system. We hypothesized that men could respond better to LBBAP than BIVP. This study aims to describe the sex differences in response to LBBAP vs BIVP as the initial cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). In this multicenter prospective registry, we included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and left bundle branch block or a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% with an expected right ventricular pacing exceeding 40% undergoing initial CRT with LBBAP or BIVP. The composite primary outcome was heart failure-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome included all procedure-related complications. There was no significant difference in the primary outcome when comparing men and women receiving LBBAP (P = 0.46), whereas the primary outcome was less frequent in women in the BIVP group than men treated with BIVP (P = 0.03). The primary outcome occurred less frequently in men undergoing LBBAP (29.9%) compared to those treated with BIVP (46.5%) (P = 0.004). In women, the incidence of the primary endpoint was 24.14% in the LBBAP group and 36.2% in the BIVP group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.23). Complication rates remained consistent across all groups. Men and women undergoing LBBAP for CRT had similar clinical outcomes. Men undergoing LBBAP showed a lower risk of heart failure-related hospitalizations and all-cause mortality compared to men undergoing BIVP, whereas there was no difference between LBBAP and BIVP in women.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
Women respond more favorably to biventricular pacing (BIVP) than men. Sex differences in atrioventricular and interventricular conduction have been described in BIVP studies. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) offers advantages due to direct capture of the conduction system. We hypothesized that men could respond better to LBBAP than BIVP.
OBJECTIVES OBJECTIVE
This study aims to describe the sex differences in response to LBBAP vs BIVP as the initial cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).
METHODS METHODS
In this multicenter prospective registry, we included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and left bundle branch block or a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% with an expected right ventricular pacing exceeding 40% undergoing initial CRT with LBBAP or BIVP. The composite primary outcome was heart failure-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome included all procedure-related complications.
RESULTS RESULTS
There was no significant difference in the primary outcome when comparing men and women receiving LBBAP (P = 0.46), whereas the primary outcome was less frequent in women in the BIVP group than men treated with BIVP (P = 0.03). The primary outcome occurred less frequently in men undergoing LBBAP (29.9%) compared to those treated with BIVP (46.5%) (P = 0.004). In women, the incidence of the primary endpoint was 24.14% in the LBBAP group and 36.2% in the BIVP group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.23). Complication rates remained consistent across all groups.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
Men and women undergoing LBBAP for CRT had similar clinical outcomes. Men undergoing LBBAP showed a lower risk of heart failure-related hospitalizations and all-cause mortality compared to men undergoing BIVP, whereas there was no difference between LBBAP and BIVP in women.

Identifiants

pubmed: 38842969
pii: S2405-500X(24)00371-2
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2024.05.011
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Diaz has received speaker honoraria and has been a proctor for Medtronic for conduction system pacing. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

Auteurs

Usha B Tedrow (UB)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Andres F Miranda-Arboleda (AF)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

William H Sauer (WH)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Mauricio Duque (M)

Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Service, Division of Cardiology, Clinica Las Vegas, Universidad CES Medical School, Medellin, Colombia.

Bruce A Koplan (BA)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Jorge E Marín (JE)

Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Service, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Las Americas Cardiovascular Institute, Medellin, Colombia.

Julian M Aristizabal (JM)

Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Service, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Las Americas Cardiovascular Institute, Medellin, Colombia.

Cesar D Niño (CD)

Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Service, Clinica SOMER, Rionegro, Colombia.

Oriana Bastidas (O)

Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Service, Division of Cardiology, Clinica Las Vegas, Universidad CES Medical School, Medellin, Colombia.

Juan M Martinez (JM)

Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Service, Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Las Americas Cardiovascular Institute, Medellin, Colombia.

Daniela Hincapie (D)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Carolina Hoyos (C)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Carlos D Matos (CD)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Nestor Lopez-Cabanillas (N)

Electrophysiology Service, Adventist Cardiovascular Institute, Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Nathaniel A Steiger (NA)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Thomas M Tadros (TM)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Paul C Zei (PC)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Juan C Diaz (JC)

Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Service, Division of Cardiology, Clinica Las Vegas, Universidad CES Medical School, Medellin, Colombia.

Jorge E Romero (JE)

Cardiac Arrhythmia Service, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA. Electronic address: jeromero@bwh.harvard.edu.

Classifications MeSH