Arrhythmias & electrophysiologyCohort study

Mid- to long-term mechanical performance of left bundle branch area pacing: a comprehensive echocardiographic comparison of capture modalities

EuropacePublished

  • Prospective cohort study
  • single-centre
  • paired echocardiography (intrinsic vs paced rhythm)

Authors' conclusion

In patients with preserved LVEF, LBBAP maintains global mechanical performance comparable to intrinsic rhythm while increasing constructive and wasted work. Mechanical performance is largely similar between LBBP and LVSP, supporting the physiological value of LBBAP regardless of capture type.

Study context

Population
Patients with preserved LVEF and successful left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)
Participants
88 patients
Exposure
LBBAP vs intrinsic rhythm; Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) vs left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP)
  • LBBPn = 63reference
  • LVSPn = 25
Outcome
Mechanical performance (2D, speckle-tracking and myocardial work indices)
Follow-up
Median 18 months post-implant

Main finding

As reported in the abstract

Paced (LBBAP) vs intrinsic rhythm
OutcomeLBBAPIntrinsic rhythmLBBPLVSPP value
Global longitudinal strain16.2%16.8%Not reported in the abstractNot reported in the abstractP = 0.040
Global constructive work2232.8 mmHg%2028.8 mmHg%Not reported in the abstractNot reported in the abstractP < 0.001
Global wasted work266.2 mmHg%219.1 mmHg%Not reported in the abstractNot reported in the abstractP = 0.003
Global work index1607.8 mmHg%1536.7 mmHg%Not reported in the abstractNot reported in the abstractP = 0.171
GWE88.3%89.3%Not reported in the abstractNot reported in the abstractP = 0.092

Observational data: associations, not effects.

Further findings

LBBP vs LVSP, all parameters

No statistically significant differences after covariate adjustment
all P > 0.28
LVSP independently predicted modest global work efficiency (GWE) decrease (multivariate)

Original publication

Mid- to long-term mechanical performance of left bundle branch area pacing: a comprehensive echocardiographic comparison of capture modalities. Europace. Published 29 October 2025. doi:10.1093/europace/euaf271

Summarised from the published abstract; every number is checked against it