4.7 Article

Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2023.05.006

关键词

biventricular pacing; cardiac resynchronization therapy; heart failure hospitalization; left bundle branch area pacing; mortality

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study compared the clinical outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The results showed that LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared to BVP and may be a reasonable alternative.
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 ven-tricular 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 & PLUSMN; 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% & PLUSMN; 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 & PLUSMN; 19 ms vs 161 & PLUSMN; 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 & PLUSMN; 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% & PLUSMN; 6% to 41% & PLUSMN; 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% & PLUSMN; 7% to 37% & PLUSMN; 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% & PLUSMN; 12% vs 10% & PLUSMN; 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. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2023;82:228-241) & COPY; 2023 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据