Back to Search Start Over

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

Authors :
Sharma PS
Patel NR
Ravi V
Zalavadia DV
Dommaraju S
Garg V
Larsen TR
Naperkowski AM
Wasserlauf J
Krishnan K
Young W
Pokharel P
Oren JW
Storm RH
Trohman RG
Huang HD
Subzposh FA
Vijayaraman P
Source :
Heart rhythm [Heart Rhythm] 2022 Jan; Vol. 19 (1), pp. 3-11. Date of Electronic Publication: 2021 Sep 03.
Publication Year :
2022

Abstract

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for patients requiring ventricular pacing.<br />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.<br />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).<br />Conclusion: LBBAP resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared to RVP. Higher burden of ventricular pacing (>20%) was the primary driver of these outcome differences.<br /> (Copyright © 2021 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1556-3871
Volume :
19
Issue :
1
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
Heart rhythm
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
34481985
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.08.033