Risk and predictors of dyssynchrony cardiomyopathy in left bundle branch block with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Left bundle branch block cardiomyopathy (LBBB-CMP): from the not-so-benign finding of idiopathic LBBB to LBBB-CMP diagnosis and treatment

Introduction Idiopathic left bundle branch block (iLBBB) is an uncommon finding. Its benignity has been increasingly questioned, though its natural history remains poorly clarified. Similarly, LBBB-cardiomyopathy (LBBB-CM) has been also increasingly recognized as a distinct entity, where electromechanical dyssynchrony seems to play a central role in left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) development. Still, it remains a scarcely studied topic. There is an urgent need for investigation and evidence reinforcement in these areas.

OBJECTIVES

two main objectives: (1) to explore the natural history of "asymptomatic" iLBBB carriers; (2) to characterize the outcomes and therapeutic approach used in a "real-world" cohort of possible LBBB-CMP patients (pts).

METHODS

tertiary care centre retrospective study of pts with iLBBB and possible LBBB-CMP, screened from a large hospital electrocardiographic database from 2011 to 2017 (LBBB = 347). To assign the 1st objective, only pts with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50% and available follow-up (FU) data were included (n = 152). Regarding the 2nd objective, possible LBBB-CMP pts were selected and defined as iLBBB pts with LVD (LVEF < 50%) and no secondary causes for LVD (n = 53). Data were based on pts' careful review of medical records.

RESULTS

focusing our 1st objective, 152 iLBBB carriers were identified. Median FU time were 8 years, and 61% were female. During FU, approximately 25% developed LVD, 20% needed ≥ 1 cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization, and 15% needed a cardiac device implantation. The majority (2/3) of pts with LVD on FU (n = 35) had no secondary causes for LVD, being classified as possible LBBB-CMP pts. Time-to-LVD analysis showed no differences between pts with a known cause for LVD vs LBBB-CMP pts (Log-rank = 0.713). Concerning the 2nd objective, 53 possible LBBB-CMP pts were identified. Median FU time were 10 years, and 51% were female. During the FU, 77% presented heart failure (HF) symptoms, and 42% needed ≥ 1 CV hospitalization, mainly due to HF. Half presented severe LVD at some point in time, and 55% needed a cardiac device, most of them a cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device. Comparing CRT with non-CRT pts, no differences were found in terms of medical therapy, but better outcomes were observed in CRT group: LVEF improvement was higher (median LVEF improvement of 11% in non-CRT vs 27% in CRT; p < 0.001), and fully recovery from LVD was more frequent (50% of CRT vs 14% non-CRT; p = 0.028).

CONCLUSION

our data strengthen current evidence on natural history of iLBBB, showing significant CV morbidity associated with the presence of iLBBB, and reinforces the need for a serial and proper FU of these carriers. Our data on "real-world" possible LBBB-CMP pts shows high rates of CV events, namely HF-related events, and supports the growing evidence pointing out CRT as this subgroup of pts' cornerstone of treatment. In conclusion, our work sheds additional light on these largely unknown topics and underlines the urgent need for larger and prospective studies addressing the identification of LVD development predictors in iLBBB carriers, as well as the establishment of diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approach for LBBB-CMP.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing With or Without Conduction System Capture in Heart Failure Models

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing includes left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), which is effective in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (DHF). However, the basic mechanisms are unknown.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to compare LBBP with LVSP and explore potential mechanisms underlying the better clinical outcomes of LBBP.

METHODS

A total of 24 beagles were assigned to the following groups: 1) control group; 2) DHF group, left bundle branch ablation followed by 6 weeks of AOO pacing at 200 ppm; 3) LBBP group, DHF for 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks of DOO pacing at 200 ppm; and 4) LVSP with the same interventions in the LBBP group. Metrics of electrocardiogram, echocardiography, hemodynamics, and expression of left ventricular proteins were evaluated.

RESULTS

Compared with LVSP, LBBP had better peak strain dispersion (44.67 ± 1.75 ms vs 55.50 ± 4.85 ms; P < 0.001) and hemodynamic effect (dP/dtmax improvement: 27.16% ± 7.79% vs 11.37% ± 4.73%; P < 0.001), whereas no significant differences in cardiac function were shown. The altered expressions of proteins in the lateral wall vs septum in the DHF group were partially reversed by LBBP and LVSP, which was associated with the contraction and adhesion process, separately.

CONCLUSIONS

The animal study demonstrated that LBBP offered better mechanical synchrony and improved hemodynamics than LVSP, which might be explained by the reversed expression of contraction proteins. These results supported the potential superiority of left bundle branch area pacing with the capture of the conduction system in DHF model.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block Patients With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) may induce or aggravate heart failure (HF). Few data are available on patients with HF and LBBB with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 40%-50%) and those with preserved EF (HFpEF. LVEF ≥ 50%). We aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) on cardiac function and remodelling in patients with LBBB and symptomatic HFmrEF and HFpEF.

METHODS

Nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF (LVEF from 40% to 60% as defined with the use of echocardiography) with LBBB who successfully underwent LBBP (n = 50) were prospectively included from 4 centres. Patient characteristics and echocardiographic and lead parameters were recorded at implantation and during follow-ups of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

All patients completed 1-year follow up. The LVEF was significantly improved from 46.5 ± 5.2% at baseline to 60.0 ± 6.1% (n = 50; P < 0.001) after 1-year follow up. Higher ΔLVEF and super-response rate were observed in the HFmrEF group (n = 30) than in the HFpEF group (n = 20).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP improved symptoms and reversed remodelling in patients with LBBB and symptomatic HF at 1-year follow-up. Improvement occurred even in HFpEF patients, and the resynchronisation effect was better in HFmrEF group.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Abnormal Conduction-Induced Cardiomyopathy: JACC Review Topic of the Week

Nonischemic cardiomyopathies are a frequent occurrence. The understanding of the mechanism(s) and triggers of these cardiomyopathies have led to improvement and even recovery of left ventricular function. Although chronic right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy has been recognized for many years, left bundle branch block and pre-excitation have been recently identified as potential reversible causes of cardiomyopathy. These cardiomyopathies share a similar abnormal ventricular propagation that can be recognized by a wide QRS duration with left bundle branch block pattern; thus, we coined the term abnormal conduction-induced cardiomyopathies. Such abnormal propagation results in an abnormal contractility that can only be recognized by cardiac imaging as ventricular dyssynchrony. Appropriate diagnosis and treatment will not only lead to improved left ventricular ejection fraction and functional class, but may also reduce morbidity and mortality. This review presents an update of the mechanisms, prevalence, incidence, and risk factors, as well as their diagnosis and management, while highlighting current gaps of knowledge.

[Left bundle branch block - dilated cardiomyopathy - heart failure: common links in the closed pathogenetic chain]

This review summarizes the available information on the epidemiology and prognosis of patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB), morphological alterations of the myocardium both resulting in and ensuing LBBB, cardiac biomechanics in LBBB, and possibilities of its correction.

Left Bundle Branch Block-induced Cardiomyopathy: Insights From Left Bundle Branch Pacing

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to report the efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in the management of left bundle branch block (LBBB)-induced cardiomyopathy (LIC).

BACKGROUND

Chronic LBBB is known to cause mechanical dyssynchrony and cardiomyopathy. Hyperresponse to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a hallmark of LIC. LBBP has recently shown promise as an alternative to BVP.

METHODS

Patients undergoing CRT between 2018 and 2020 were retrospectively screened, and those who met the criteria for LIC were included in the study. Duration of LBBB, CRT type, and response were documented. Pacing parameters, and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic data were collected.

RESULTS

Possible LIC was identified in 17 of 159 patients undergoing CRT and LBBP was successfully performed in 13 patients. Duration of LBBB before left ventricular dysfunction was 4.2 ± 3.9 years. Temporary His bundle pacing corrected underlying LBBB in all patients. During LBBP, there was significant reduction in QRS duration (167.8 ± 11.6 ms to 110.4 ± 13.1 ms; p < 0.0001) and repolarization parameters of QTc, Tpeak-Tend, and Tpeak-Tend/QTc ratio. LBBP threshold and R waves at implant were 0.53 ± 0.21 V/0.5 ms and 11.7 ± 7.1 mV and remained stable. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging showed no evidence of scar (n = 8). During follow-up, left ventricular ejection fraction improved from 30.4 ± 6.6% to 57.4 ± 4.7% (p < 0.0001) and New York Heart Association functional class improved from 3.1 ± 0.3 to 1.2 ± 0.4 (p < 0.0001) compared with baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP is a reasonable option for CRT in patients with LIC, as it provides low and stable capture threshold with complete correction of underlying electrical and mechanical abnormalities associated with LBBB.

Risk and predictors of dyssynchrony cardiomyopathy in left bundle branch block with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

Background

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony likely contribute to progressive systolic dysfunction. The evaluation of newly recognized LBBB includes screening for structural heart abnormalities and coronary artery disease (CAD). In patients whose LV ejection fraction (EF) is preserved during initial testing, the incidence of subsequent cardiomyopathy is not firmly established.

Hypothesis

The risk of developing LV systolic dysfunction among LBBB patients with preserved LVEF is high enough to warrant serial imaging.

Methods

We screened records of 1000 consecutive patients with LBBB from our ECG database and identified subjects with an initially preserved LVEF (≥45%) without clinically relevant CAD or other cause for cardiomyopathy. Baseline imaging, clinical data, and follow‐up imaging were recorded to determine the risk of subsequent LV systolic dysfunction (LVEF ≤40%).

Results

(Data are mean + SD) 784 subjects were excluded, the majority for CAD or depressed LVEF upon initial imaging. Of the remaining 216, 37 (17%) developed a decline in LVEF(≤40%) over a mean follow‐up of 55 ± 31 months; 94% of these patients had a baseline LVEF≤60% and LV end systolic diameter (ESD) ≥ 2.9 cm indicating that these measures may be useful to define which patients warrant longitudinal follow‐up. The negative predictive value of a LVEF>60% and LVESD <2.9 cm was 98%.

Conclusions

Seventeen percent of patients with LBBB and initial preserved LVEF develop dyssynchrony cardiomyopathy. We believe the risk of developing dyssynchrony cardiomyopathy is high enough to warrant serial assessment of LV systolic function in this high‐risk population.