Cardiac resynchronization performed by LBBaP-CRT in patients with cardiac insufficiency and left bundle branch block

Improved all-cause mortality with left bundle branch area pacing compared to biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiological alternative pacing strategy to biventricular pacing (BIVP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to assess the impact of LBBAP vs. BIVP on all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization in patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

Studies comparing LBBAP and BIVP for CRT in patients with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were included. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included procedural and fluoroscopy time, change in QRS duration, and change in LVEF.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (12 observational and 1 RCT, n = 3239; LBBAP = 1338 and BIVP = 1901) with a mean follow-up duration of 25.8 months were included. Compared to BIVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant absolute risk reduction of 3.2% in all-cause mortality (9.3% vs 12.5%, RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.57-0.86, p < 0.001) and an 8.2% reduction in HF-related hospitalization (11.3% vs 19.5%, RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.71, p < 0.00001). LBBAP also resulted in reductions in procedural time (mean weighted difference- 23.2 min, 95% CI - 42.9 to - 3.6, p = 0.02) and fluoroscopy time (- 8.6 min, 95% CI - 12.5 to - 4.7, p < 0.001) as well as a significant reduction in QRS duration (mean weighted difference:- 25.3 ms, 95% CI - 30.9 to - 19.8, p < 0.00001) and a greater improvement in LVEF of 5.1% (95% CI 4.4-5.8, p < 0.001) compared to BIVP in the studies that reported these outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality as well as HF-related hospitalization when compared to BIVP. Additional data from large RCTs is warranted to corroborate these promising findings.

Heart failure in China: epidemiology and current management

The Annual Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China (2022) intricate landscape of cardiovascular health in China. In connection with the previous section, this sixth section of the report offers a comprehensive analysis of heart failure (HF) in China. HF is one of the most important cardiovascular disease in the 21st century. Its mortality is equivalent to that of cancer. It is an important public health problem that seriously affects the health of Chinese residents. In recent years, with the deepening of understanding, the change of treatment principles, the innovation of treatment methods and the update of treatment guidelines, the in-hospital mortality of HF patients has declined, and the long-term prognosis is also improving. However, there are still differences in the management level of HF among different hospitals in China. How to improve the standardized diagnosis and treatment level of HF in China remains an important challenge.

The Emerging Role of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of heart failure-related hospitalisations and all-cause mortality, as well as improving quality of life and functional status in patients with persistent heart failure symptoms despite optimal medical treatment and left bundle branch block. CRT has traditionally been delivered by implanting a lead through the coronary sinus to capture the left ventricular epicardium; however, this approach is associated with significant drawbacks, including a high rate of procedural failure, phrenic nerve stimulation, high pacing thresholds and lead dislodgement. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients fail to derive any significant benefit. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a suitable alternative to traditional CRT. By stimulating the cardiac conduction system physiologically, LBBAP can result in a more homogeneous left ventricular contraction and relaxation, thus having the potential to improve outcomes compared with conventional CRT strategies. In this article, the evidence supporting the use of LBBAP in patients with heart failure is reviewed.

Effectiveness of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) is ineffective in approximately one-third of patients. CRT with Conduction system pacing (CSP-CRT) may achieve greater synchronization. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CRT with His pacing (His-CRT) or left bundle branch pacing (LBB-CRT) in lieu of biventricular CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched until August 19, 2023, for original studies including patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who received His- or LBB-CRT, that reported either CSP-CRT success, LVEF, QRS duration (QRSd), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Effect measures were compared with frequentist network meta-analysis. Thirty-seven publications, including 20 comparative studies, were included. Success rates were 73.5% (95% CI: 61.2-83.0) for His-CRT and 91.5% (95% CI: 88.0-94.1) for LBB-CRT. Compared to BiV-CRT, greater improvements were observed for LVEF (mean difference [MD] for His-CRT +3.4%; 95% CI [1.0; 5.7], and LBB-CRT: +4.4%; [2.5; 6.2]), LV end-systolic volume (His-CRT:17.2mL [29.7; 4.8]; LBB-CRT:15.3mL [28.3; 2.2]), QRSd (His-CRT: -17.1ms [-25.0; -9.2]; LBB-CRT: -17.4ms [-23.2; -11.6]), and NYHA (Standardized MD [SMD]: His-CRT:0.4 [0.8; 0.1]; LBB-CRT:0.4 [-0.7; -0.2]). Pacing thresholds at baseline and follow-up were significantly lower with LBB-CRT versus both His-CRT and BiV-CRT. CSP-CRT was associated with reduced mortality (R = 0.75 [0.61-0.91]) and hospitalizations risk (RR = 0.63 [0.42-0.96]).

CONCLUSION

This study found that CSP-CRT is associated with greater improvements in QRSd, echocardiographic, and clinical response. LBB-CRT was associated with lower pacing thresholds. Future randomized trials are needed to determine CSP-CRT efficacy.

Comparative cost analysis of implanting devices in different cardiac resynchronization therapeutic strategies

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment option for heart failure patients. However, the implementation of triple-chamber pacemakers can be cost-prohibitive. His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) can also enable cardiac resynchronization, and it can be achieved with relatively inexpensive conventional pacemakers.

HYPOTHESIS

This article aims to comparatively evaluate the cost of implanting devices in different CRT strategies to provide meaningful guidance for clinical decision-making by electrophysiologists.

METHODS

Data was collected on the prices, designed life, and price/designed life of multiple mainstream models of CRT-P, CRT-D, dual-chamber pacemakers, and single-chamber pacemakers that were sold in the Chinese market in 2022. The prices, designed lives, and price/designed life of different pacemaker models were then compared.

RESULTS

The costs of CRT-P and CRT-D (13008.44 ± 2752.30 USD and 22043.36 ± 3676.25 USD) were significantly higher than those of conventional pacemakers (dual-chamber: 11142.39 ± 4273.85 USD and single-chamber: 5634.28 ± 2032.80 USD) (p < .05). Additionally, the price/designed life of conventional pacemakers (dual-chamber: 839.63 ± 258.62 US dollar/year and single-chamber: 435.86 ± 125.44 US dollar/year) was significantly better than that of CRT-P and CRT-D (1386.91 ± 266.73 and 2585.53 ± 520.27 US dollar/year, respectively) (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Conduction system pacing (CSP)-based CRT is more cost-effective than BVP-based CRT. Furthermore, CSP-based CRT can achieve cardiac resynchronization with conventional pacemakers and may be a good option for HF patients who do not need defibrillation.

Left bundle branch area pacing for heart failure patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBP) is a novel conduction system pacing method to achieve effective physiological pacing and an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We conduted this meta-analysis and systemic review to review current data comparing BVP and LBBP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the inception of the database to November 2022. All studies that compared LBBP with BVP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT were included. Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with the Mantel-Haenszel method and mean difference (MD) with inverse variance using random effect models. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index, with I2  > 50% indicating significant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ten studies (9 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial; 616 patients; 15 centers) published between 2020 and 2022 were included. We observed a shorter fluoroscopy time (MD: 9.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.49-14.87, I2  = 95%, p < .01, minutes) as well as a shorter procedural time (MD 33.68, 95% CI: 17.80-49.55, I2  = 73%, p < .01, minutes) during the implantation of LBBP CRT compared to conventional BVP CRT. LBBP was shown to have a greater reduction in QRS duration (MD 25.13, 95% CI: 20.06-30.20, I2  = 51%, p < .01, milliseconds), a greater left ventricular ejection fraction improvement (MD: 5.80, 95% CI: 4.81-6.78, I2  = 0%, p < .01, percentage), and a greater left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduction (MD: 2.11, 95% CI: 0.12-4.10, I2  = 18%, p = .04, millimeter). There was a greater improvement in New York Heart Association function class with LBBP (MD: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.05-0.68, I2  = 61%, p = .02). LBBP was also associated with a lower risk of a composite of heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.90, I2  = 0%, p = .02) driven by reduced HFH (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.82, I2  = 0%, p = .01). However, all-cause mortality rates were low in both groups (1.52% vs. 1.13%) and similar (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.21-4.68, I2  = 0%, p = .87).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of primarily nonrandomized studies suggests that LBBP is associated with a greater improvement in left ventricular systolic function and a lower rate of HFH compared to BVP. There was uniformity of these findings in all of the included studies. However, it would be premature to conclude based solely on the current meta-analysis alone, given the limitations stated. Dedicated, well-designed, randomized controlled trials and observational studies are needed to elucidate better the comparative long-term efficacy and safety of LBBP CRT versus BIV CRT.

Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing as Initial Strategy for Cardiac Resynchronization

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVp).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes between LBBAP and BiVp as an initial implant strategy for CRT.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter, observational, nonrandomized study, first-time CRT implant recipients with LBBAP or BiVp were included. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcomes were acute and long-term complications. Secondary outcomes included postprocedural New York Heart Association functional class and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 371 patients (median follow-up of 340 days [IQR: 206-477 days]) were included. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 24.2% in the LBBAP vs 42.4% in the BiVp (HR: 0.621 [95% CI: 0.415-0.93]; P = 0.021) group, driven by a reduction in HF-related hospitalizations (22.6% vs 39.5%; HR: 0.607 [95% CI: 0.397-0.927]; P = 0.021) without significant difference in all-cause mortality (5.5% vs 11.9%; P = 0.19) or differences in long-term complications (LBBAP: 9.4% vs BiVp: 15.2%; P = 0.146). LBBAP resulted in shorter procedural (95 minutes [IQR: 65-120 minutes] vs 129 minutes [IQR: 103-162 minutes]; P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (12 minutes [IQR: 7.4-21.1 minutes] vs 21.7 minutes [IQR: 14.3-30 minutes]; P < 0.001), shorter QRS duration (123.7 ± 18 milliseconds vs 149.3 ± 29.1 milliseconds; P < 0.001), and higher postprocedural left ventricular ejection fraction (34.1% ± 12.5% vs 31.4% ± 10.8%; P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP as an initial CRT strategy resulted in a lower risk of HF-related hospitalizations compared to BiVp. A reduction in procedural and fluoroscopy times, shorter paced QRS duration, and improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction compared with BiVp were observed.

Left bundle branch area pacing prevents pacing induced cardiomyopathy in long-term observation

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is one of the methods to deliver conduction system pacing which potentially avoids the negative impact of conventional right ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

To assess echocardiographic outcomes in a long-term observation in patients with LBBAP implemented for bradyarrhythmia indications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 151 patients with symptomatic bradycardia and LBBAP pacemaker implanted, were prospectively included in the study. Subjects with left bundle branch block and CRT indications (n = 29), ventricular pacing burden <40% (n = 11), and loss of LBBAP (n = 10) were excluded from further analysis. At baseline and the last follow-up visit, echocardiography with global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment, 12-lead ECG, pacemaker interrogation, and blood level of NT-proBNP were performed. The median follow-up period was 23 months (15.5-28). None of the analyzed patients fulfilled the criteria for pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and GLS was observed in patients with LVEF <50% at baseline (n = 39): 41.4 ± 9.2% versus 45.6 ± 9.9%, and 12.9 ± 3.6% versus 15.5 ± 3.7%, respectively. In the subgroup with preserved EF (n = 62), LVEF and GLS remained stable at follow-up: 59.3 ± 5.5% versus 60 ± 5.5%, and 19 ± 3.9% versus 19.4 ± 3.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP prevents PICM in patients with preserved LVEF and improves left ventricle function in subjects with depressed LVEF. LBBAP might be the preferred pacing modality for bradyarrhythmia indications.

Left bundle branch area pacing: A promising modality for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recognized as the first-line management for patients with heart failure (HF) and conduction disorders. As a conventional mode for delivering CRT, biventricular pacing (BVP) improves cardiac function and reduces HF hospitalizations and mortality, but there are still limitations given the high incidence of a lack of response rates. Alternative pacing methods are needed either for primary or rescue therapy. In recent years, conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological pacing modality for simultaneous stimulation of the ventricles, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). CSP activates the His-Purkinje system, allowing normal ventricular stimulation. However, HBP is technically challenging with a relatively low success rate, high pacing threshold, and failure to correct distal conduction abnormalities. Therefore, LBBP stands out as a novel ideal physiological pacing modality for CRT. Several non-randomized studies compared the feasibility and safety of LBBP with BVP and concluded that LBBP is superior to BVP for delivering CRT with a narrower QRS and greater improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Concurrently, some studies showed lower and stable pacing thresholds and greater improvement of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, as well as better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. LBBP ensures better ventricular electromechanical resynchronization than BVP. In this review, we discuss current knowledge of LBBP, compare LBBP with BVP, and explore the potential of LBBP to serve as an alternative primary therapy to realize cardiac resynchronization.

Association between complete right bundle branch block and atrial fibrillation development

Background

Complete right bundle branch block (CRBBB) is an important predictor of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation. However, the association between CRBBB and AF development remains unclear.

Methods

We performed a retrospective study of 2639 patients (male, n = 1549; female, n = 1090; mean age, 58 ± 13 years). CRBBB was defined as a late R (R′) wave in lead V₁ or V₂ with a slurred S wave in lead I and/or lead V₆ with a prolonged QRS duration (≥120 ms).

Results

Among the 2639 patients, CRBBB was detected in 40 patients (1.5%), and the prevalence of AF was 7.4% (196/2639). The proportion of patients with AF and CRBBB was higher than the proportion of patients with AF without CRBBB (22.5% vs. 7.2%; p = 0.001). In the forward multivariate logistic analysis, CRBBB (odds ratio [OR], 3.329; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.350–8.211; p = 0.009), complete left bundle branch block (OR, 2.209; 95% CI, 1.238–3.940; p = 0.007), age (OR, 1.020; 95% CI, 1.005–1.035; p = 0.009), valvular heart disease (OR, 2.332; 95% CI, 1.531–3.552; p < 0.001), left atrial diameter (OR, 1.133; 95% CI, 1.104–1.163; p < 0.001), left ventricular ejection fraction (OR, 1.023; 95% CI, 1.006–1.041; p = 0.007), and class I or III anti‐arrhythmic drug use (OR, 10.534; 95% CI, 7.090–15.651; p < 0.001) were associated with AF.

Conclusion

Complete right bundle branch block was significantly associated with AF development in hospitalized patients with cardiovascular diseases.

Cardiac resynchronization performed by LBBaP-CRT in patients with cardiac insufficiency and left bundle branch block

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB), and to compare the clinical effects with traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

Thirty-two patients with dilated cardiomyopathy complicated by cardiac insufficiency and left bundle branch block were divided into CRT group and LBBaP group. Parameters including pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, pacing impedance and operation time, and X-ray exposure time were recorded. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) were examined by echocardiography. The changes of QRS complex before and after operation were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with CRT group, the LBBaP group spent less time on total operation time and X-ray exposure time and had stable electrode parameters including pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, and lead impedance after 12-month follow-up. In addition, LBBaP can achieve narrow QRS complex (117.15 ± 9.91) ms immediately than that in CRT group (130.32 ± 12.41) ms. The change of QRS between LBBaP is (50.30 ± 23.79) ms and CRT group is (33.15 ± 20.22) ms. After 6 months' follow-up in LBBaP group, EF was higher than that before operation. Followed up for 12 months after operation, EF and LVEDD in LBBaP group were significantly improved compared with those before operation.

CONCLUSION

Left bundle branch area pacing is a safe and effective resynchronization method for patients with cardiac insufficiency and asynchronization, which can achieve same clinical effects to CRT.