Impact of non-typical LBBB on CRT response

Abstract Introduction Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) benefits have been established in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) who have a broad QRS and remain symptomatic despite optimized medical therapy. Responders typically are female, with LBBB and broader QRS. It remains uncertain to what extent do patients with non-LBBB QRS complex morphology respond to CRT and also if there are differences among various types of intraventricular conduction delays. Purpose To evaluate the impact of non-typical left bundle branch block (LBBB) on reverser remodeling and clinical events. Methods Single center, observational, retrospective study including patients (pts) who implanted CRT in the context of HFrEF, from 2015 to 2020. Evaluation of QRS morphology analysis was conducted. CRT response was defined by a reduction of LVESV≥15% or an increase in LVEF≥10%. Predictors of CRT response were evaluated with Chi-square and Mann- Whitney analysis. Impact on reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes was performed with Kaplan-Meyer analysis. Results A total of 361 pts were included for analysis, of which 184 had non-typical LBBB. Pts had a mean age of 71±9years old, the majority of pts were female (61%), and almost half were ischemic (47.8%). EGC evaluation prior to CRT implantation, revealed an atypical LBBB in 83 (45.1%) pts, typical RBBB in 23 (12.5%) pts, atypical RBBB 94.(9%) pts and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay in 69 (37.5%) pts. During a mean time of follow-up of 2.9 ±2.4years, 33 pts (18%) had hospitalizations due to HF and 68 (37%) died. In this cohort, 78 pts (42.4%) were deemed as responders, who presented a better clinical outcome when compared to non-responders (p < 0.001, HR 2.629 [95% CI 1.635-4.225]. There was no difference among the four types of intraventricular conduction analyzed in respect to degree of CRT response – figure 1. Regarding clinical events during follow-up, there was once again no significant difference among the different patterns of non-typical LBBB– figure 2. In this subset population we found no independent predictors of CRT response, although non-responders were significantly older than responders (72±8 vs 69±10 years-old (p=0.016). Conclusion Although pts with non-typical LBBB morphology display a lower therapy response to CRT than reported for LBBB pts, the rate of response is not negligible and represents a protective factor for clinical outcomes. Different types of intraventricular conduction delay present no difference regarding long- term prognosis or reverse remodeling.Survival according to CRT response