Left bundle branch pacing preserved left ventricular myocardial work in patients with bradycardia

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 area pacing versus conventional pacing in patients with advanced atrioventricular conduction abnormalities: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging pacing method that may prevent the deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of LBBAP with right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) in patients with advanced atrioventricular conduction abnormalities and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

METHODS

The effect of pacing was evaluated by echocardiographic indices of dyssynchrony, including global myocardial work efficiency (GWE) and peak systolic dispersion (PSD). The primary endpoint was GWE postprocedural, at 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty patients received LBBAP and 18 RVSP. Complete follow-up was accomplished in 37 patients (97.4%) due to the death of a patient (RVSP arm) from nonrelated cause. GWE was significantly increased in the group of LBBAP compared to RVSP at all time points (90.8% in LBBAP versus 85.8% in RVSP group at 12 months, p = 0.01). PSD was numerically lower in the LBBAP arm at all time points, yet not statistically significant (56.4 msec in LBBP versus 65.1 msec in RVSP arm at 12 months, p = 0.178). The implantation time was increased (median 93 min in LBBAP versus 45 min in RVSP group, p < 0.01), along with fluoroscopy time and dose area product (DAP), in the arm of LBBAP. There were no severe perioperative acute complications in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP is an emerging and safe technique for patients with a pacing indication. Despite the longer procedural and fluoroscopy time, as well as higher DAP, LBBAP seems to offer better left ventricular synchrony compared to RVSP, according to GWE measurements.