Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Observational Study
. 2022 Jan;19(1):3-11.
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.08.033. Epub 2021 Sep 3.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry

Affiliations
Observational Study

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry

Parikshit S Sharma et al. Heart Rhythm. 2022 Jan.

Erratum in

  • Corrigendum.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] Heart Rhythm. 2023 Jul;20(7):1100. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.05.001. Epub 2023 May 5. Heart Rhythm. 2023. PMID: 37156474 No abstract available.

Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for patients requiring ventricular pacing.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and RVP among patients undergoing pacemaker implantation METHODS: This observational registry included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for bradycardia indications between April 2018 and October 2020. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), or upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with a prespecified burden of ventricular pacing and individual outcomes.

Results: A total of 703 patients met inclusion criteria (321 LBBAP and 382 RVP). QRS duration during LBBAP was similar to baseline (121 ± 23 ms vs 117 ± 30 ms; P = .302) and was narrower compared to RVP (121 ± 23 ms vs 156 ± 27 ms; P <.001). The primary composite outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (10.0%) compared to RVP (23.3%) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95%T confidence interval [CI] 0.306-0.695; P <.001). Among patients with ventricular pacing burden >20%, LBBAP was associated with significant reduction in the primary outcome compared to RVP (8.4% vs 26.1%; HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.187-0.540; P <.001). LBBAP was also associated with significant reduction in mortality (7.8% vs 15%; HR 0.59; P = .03) and HFH (3.7% vs 10.5%; HR 0.38; P = .004).

Conclusion: LBBAP resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared to RVP. Higher burden of ventricular pacing (>20%) was the primary driver of these outcome differences.

Keywords: Biventricular pacing; Heart failure hospitalization; His-bundle pacing; Left bundle branch area pacing; Mortality; Right ventricular pacing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Comment in

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources