Heart failure & cardiomyopathies
Efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: Select site – cohort study
Authors' conclusion
LBBAP-CRT is feasible and effective CRT. It results into a meaningful improvement in QoL and reduction in health care utilization.
Study context
- Population
- Patients referred with HF treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)of 479 consecutive patients referred
- Participants
- 51 vs 50
- Exposure
- LBBAP-CRT vs BiV-CRT
- LBBAP-CRTn = 51
- BiV-CRTn = 50reference
- Outcome
- Clinical response (LVEF, LV end-systolic volume, QoL, NYHA class)
Methodological detailsconsecutive patients
- Consecutive patients
Main finding
As reported in the abstract
- Greater LVEF improvement with LBBAP-CRT at 6 months
- P = .001
- Greater LVEF improvement with LBBAP-CRT at 12 months
- P = .021
- Greater reduction in LV end-systolic volume with LBBAP-CRT
- P = .007
- Greater improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class with LBBAP-CRT
- P = .031
- Greater improvement in quality-of-Life (QoL) index with LBBAP-CRT
- P = .014
Observational data: associations, not effects.
Further findings
QRS duration < 120 ms achieved
P ≤ 0.001
- QRS duration < 120 ms achieved: baseline QRS 160.82 ± 21.35 ms vs 161.08 ± 24.48 ms
HF admissions, health care utilization, lead performance
- Reduced HF admissions with LBBAP-CRT
- P = 0.003
- Reduced health care utilization with LBBAP-CRT
- P < 0.05
- Improved lead performance with LBBAP-CRT
- P < 0.001
Original publication
Efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: Select site – cohort study. Heart Rhythm. Published 15 February 2024. doi:10.
Composed by AI from the published abstract and checked against it. How Briefs are made →