Complications of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy: Results of a propensity score–matched analysis from a multicenter registry.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT are lacking. The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of procedure-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT. This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled 668 consecutive patients (mean age 71.2 ± 10.0 years; 52.2% male; 59.4% with New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure symptoms) with left ventricular ejection fraction 33.4% ± 4.3% who underwent BVP (n = 561) or LBBAP (n = 107) for a class I or II indication for CRT. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 93 matched pairs. The rate and nature of intraprocedural and long-term post-procedural complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups. During a mean follow-up of 18 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 16 patients: 12 in BVP (12.9%) and 4 in LBBAP (4.3%) (P =.036). Compared with patients who underwent LBBAP, those who underwent BVP showed a lower complication-free survival (P =.032). In multivariate analysis, BVP resulted an independent predictive factor associated with a higher risk of complications (hazard ratio 3.234; P =.042). Complications related to the coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in patients who underwent BVP (50.0% of all complications). LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]