Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes with left bundle branch pacing, left ventricular septal pacing, and biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy
An erratum to this article was published (Heart Rhythm, Oct 2025 ↗)
Authors' conclusion
LBBP yielded long-term clinical outcomes superior to those of BiVP and LVSP.
Study context
- Population
- Patients with reduced LVEF (<50%) undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with successful left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) or biventricular pacing (BiVP)
- Participants
- 259 patients
- Exposure
- LBBP vs LVSP vs BiVP for CRT
- LBBPn = 68
- LVSPn = 38
- BiVPn = 153reference
- Outcome
- All-cause mortality or HF hospitalization
- Follow-up
- Mean 28.8 ± 15.8 months
Methodological detailsconsecutive patients, prospectively enrolled
- Consecutive patients
- Prospectively enrolled
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
Adjusted hazard ratio (CI)P value
LBBPvs BiVP
0.22(0.08–0.57)
P = 0.002LBBPvs LVSP
0.22(0.08–0.63)
P = 0.004Observational data: associations, not effects.
Secondary outcomes
| Outcome | LBBP | LVSP | BiVP | Adjusted HR (CI) | P value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| All-cause mortalityLVSPvs BiVP | 2.9% | 31.6% | 7.2% | 3.19 (1.38–7.39) | P = 0.007 | |
| All-cause mortalityLBBPvs BiVP | 0.33 (0.07–1.52) | P = 0.155 | ||||
| 0.050.21520Adjusted hazard ratio (log scale) |
Echocardiographic response (ΔLVEF ≥10%)
- Echocardiographic response (ΔLVEF ≥10%): P < .001
Original publication
Comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes with left bundle branch pacing, left ventricular septal pacing, and biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Heart Rhythm. Published 9 March 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →