Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Preservation of left ventricular ejection fraction with left bundle branch area pacing
View through CrossRef
Abstract
Background
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an effective ventricular pacing strategy aiming to maintain physiological conduction, and potentially preserving ventricular function. While procedural aspects and lead parameter stability have been well documented, the echocardiographic impact of LBBAP, particularly on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), remains underexplored. This study aims to evaluate the mid-term effects of LBBAP on LVEF.
Methods
Single-center, retrospective study including patients who underwent LBBAP from 2021 to 2023. LBBAP was performed with the goal of achieving a right bundle branch block pattern in lead V1 during pacing and LV activation time (LVAT) of <85ms. Baseline and follow-up LVEF were collected and compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Procedural characteristics, including lead parameters, were also recorded.
Results
From a series of 112 consecutive patients submitted to physiological pacing, a total of 42 patients had an echocardiographic evaluation at 18 months (IQR 11-27); median age of 76 years (IQR 69-82) and 62% were male. Most patients (64%) had no history of cardiomyopathy, while the remaining had ischemic (17%) or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (19%). The most frequent indication for pacing was complete atrioventricular block (52%), followed by failure of biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (19%). Median baseline LVEF was 60% (IQR 40-60%): 15 patients had reduced LVEF and 27 had preserved LVEF. Median implantation duration was 57 minutes (IQR 50-80), and fluoroscopy time was 5 minutes (IQR 3-8). The median post-procedural LVAT was 86 ms (IQR 81-98), with an acute R-wave amplitude of 14.5 mV (IQR 7.3-18.7) and a pacing threshold of 0.5 V (IQR 0.4-0.7). One periprocedural complication was reported, involving post-pacemaker implantation pericarditis.
At follow-up, LVEF did not differ significantly from baseline (60% [IQR 40-60%] vs. 57% [IQR 48-60%], P=0.861). Ventricular pacing dependency was 60% (IQR 8–98). Notably, 6 out of 10 patients (60%) with reduced baseline LVEF showed improvement, achieving an LVEF of >40% at follow-up.
Conclusion
In this cohort, LVEF did not differ significantly following LBBAP implantation in the mid-term. Most patients with reduced baseline LVEF showed improved ventricular function. These findings suggest potential benefits of LBBAP, warranting further validation in larger studies.
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Title: Preservation of left ventricular ejection fraction with left bundle branch area pacing
Description:
Abstract
Background
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an effective ventricular pacing strategy aiming to maintain physiological conduction, and potentially preserving ventricular function.
While procedural aspects and lead parameter stability have been well documented, the echocardiographic impact of LBBAP, particularly on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), remains underexplored.
This study aims to evaluate the mid-term effects of LBBAP on LVEF.
Methods
Single-center, retrospective study including patients who underwent LBBAP from 2021 to 2023.
LBBAP was performed with the goal of achieving a right bundle branch block pattern in lead V1 during pacing and LV activation time (LVAT) of <85ms.
Baseline and follow-up LVEF were collected and compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Procedural characteristics, including lead parameters, were also recorded.
Results
From a series of 112 consecutive patients submitted to physiological pacing, a total of 42 patients had an echocardiographic evaluation at 18 months (IQR 11-27); median age of 76 years (IQR 69-82) and 62% were male.
Most patients (64%) had no history of cardiomyopathy, while the remaining had ischemic (17%) or non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (19%).
The most frequent indication for pacing was complete atrioventricular block (52%), followed by failure of biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (19%).
Median baseline LVEF was 60% (IQR 40-60%): 15 patients had reduced LVEF and 27 had preserved LVEF.
Median implantation duration was 57 minutes (IQR 50-80), and fluoroscopy time was 5 minutes (IQR 3-8).
The median post-procedural LVAT was 86 ms (IQR 81-98), with an acute R-wave amplitude of 14.
5 mV (IQR 7.
3-18.
7) and a pacing threshold of 0.
5 V (IQR 0.
4-0.
7).
One periprocedural complication was reported, involving post-pacemaker implantation pericarditis.
At follow-up, LVEF did not differ significantly from baseline (60% [IQR 40-60%] vs.
57% [IQR 48-60%], P=0.
861).
Ventricular pacing dependency was 60% (IQR 8–98).
Notably, 6 out of 10 patients (60%) with reduced baseline LVEF showed improvement, achieving an LVEF of >40% at follow-up.
Conclusion
In this cohort, LVEF did not differ significantly following LBBAP implantation in the mid-term.
Most patients with reduced baseline LVEF showed improved ventricular function.
These findings suggest potential benefits of LBBAP, warranting further validation in larger studies.
Related Results
e0650 The effects of biventricular synchronous pacing on CBF, MVO2 and CWE in dogs
e0650 The effects of biventricular synchronous pacing on CBF, MVO2 and CWE in dogs
Objective
To compare the effects of biventricular synchronous pacing with different pacing site on coronary Blood flow (CBF), myocardial oxygen consumption (MVO2)...
Approach to Left Bundle Branch Pacing
Approach to Left Bundle Branch Pacing
Cardiac pacing refers to the implantation tool serving as a treatment modality for various indications, the most common of which is symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Left bundle branch ...
Hydatid Disease of The Brain Parenchyma: A Systematic Review
Hydatid Disease of The Brain Parenchyma: A Systematic Review
Abstarct
Introduction
Isolated brain hydatid disease (BHD) is an extremely rare form of echinococcosis. A prompt and timely diagnosis is a crucial step in disease management. This ...
Preliminary study on left bundle branch area pacing in children: Clinical observation of 12 cases
Preliminary study on left bundle branch area pacing in children: Clinical observation of 12 cases
AbstractIntroductionLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) maintains electrical and mechanical synchronization of the ventricles. It is a relatively physiological pacing mode, with...
Left bundle branch area pacing as a first line pacing strategy, which patients should we consider?
Left bundle branch area pacing as a first line pacing strategy, which patients should we consider?
Abstract
Background
A higher right ventricular (RV) pacing burden in those with permanent pacemakers results in accelerated paci...
Long‐Term Follow‐up Impact of Dual‐Chamber Pacing on Patients with Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy
Long‐Term Follow‐up Impact of Dual‐Chamber Pacing on Patients with Hypertrophic Obstructive Cardiomyopathy
BackgroundPacing has been proposed as a treatment for patients with hypertrophic obstructive cardiomyopathy (HOCM), but there are few studies with long‐term follow‐up. We evaluated...
Increased QRS duration and dispersion are associated with mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with permanent right ventricular apical pacing
Increased QRS duration and dispersion are associated with mechanical dyssynchrony in patients with permanent right ventricular apical pacing
Background: Permanent right ventricular apical pacing may have negative effects on ventricular function and contribute to development of heart failure. We aimed to assess intra- an...
Left bundle branch area pacing: Electrocardiographic features
Left bundle branch area pacing: Electrocardiographic features
Background Left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing emerged as a promising
alternative to His bundle (HB) pacing in difficult cases of
physiological pacing and failed cases of cardiac ...

