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
. 2024 Feb;10(2):295-305.
doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2023.10.016. Epub 2023 Dec 20.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Left Ventricular Septal Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Affiliations
Free article
Observational Study

Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Left Ventricular Septal Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Juan C Diaz et al. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2024 Feb.
Free article

Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are considered to be acceptable as LBBAP strategies. Differences in clinical outcomes between LBBP and LVSP are yet to be determined.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of LBBP vs LVSP vs BIVP for CRT.

Methods: In this prospective multicenter observational study, LBBP was compared with LVSP and BIVP in patients undergoing CRT. The primary composite outcome was freedom from heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, postprocedural NYHA functional class, and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters.

Results: A total of 415 patients were included (LBBP: n = 141; LVSP: n = 31; BIVP: n = 243), with a median follow-up of 399 days (Q1-Q3: 249.5-554.8 days). Freedom from the primary composite outcomes was 76.6% in the LBBP group and 48.4% in the LVSP group (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.143-1.649; P = 0.001), driven by a 31.4% absolute increase in freedom from HF-related hospitalizations (83% vs 51.6%; HR: 3.55; 95% CI: 1.856-6.791; P < 0.001) without differences in all-cause mortality. LBBP was also associated with a higher freedom from the primary composite outcome compared with BIVP (HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.175-1.730; P < 0.001), with no difference between LVSP and BIVP.

Conclusions: In patients undergoing CRT, LBBP was associated with improved outcomes compared with LVSP and BIVP, while outcomes between BIVP and LVSP are similar.

Keywords: cardiac resynchronization therapy; conduction system pacing; heart failure; left bundle branch area pacing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Diaz has received speaker honoraria from and is a proctor for Medtronic for LBBAP. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.

References

Publication types