Left bundle branch pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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

BACKGROUND

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.

OBJECTIVE

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.

METHODS

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.

RESULTS

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).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT.

Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ventricular dyssynchrony, but its benefits are uncertain. In this study, we aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of CSP vs BVP for cardiac resynchronization in patients with HFrEF. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing CSP to BVP for resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. A random-effects model was used for all outcomes. We included 7 randomized controlled trials with 408 patients, of whom 200 (49%) underwent CSP. Compared to BVP, CSP resulted in a significantly greater reduction in QRS duration (MD -13.34 ms; 95% confidence interval [CI] -24.32 to -2.36, P = .02; I2 = 91%) and New York Heart Association functional class (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.37; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.05; P = .02; I2 = 41%), and a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference [MD] 2.06%; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.97; P = .03; I2 = 0%). No statistical difference was noted for left ventricular end-systolic volume (SMD -0.51 mL; 95% CI -1.26 to 0.24; P = .18; I2 = 83%), lead capture threshold (MD -0.08 V; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.27; P = .66; I2 = 66%), and procedure time (MD 5.99 minutes; 95% CI -15.91 to 27.89; P = .59; I2 = 79%). These findings suggest that CSP may have electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and symptomatic benefits over BVP for patients with HFrEF requiring cardiac resynchronization.

Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications.

RESULTS

Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08-1.22); p < 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.78); p = 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21-0.72); p = 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.35); p < 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.

Is Conduction System Pacing a Valuable Alternative to Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) significantly improves clinical outcomes in patients with ventricular systolic dysfunction and dyssynchrony. Biventricular pacing (BVP) has a class IA recommendation for patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, approximately 30% of patients have a poor therapeutic response and do not achieve real clinical benefit. Pre-implant imaging, together with tailored programming and dedicated device algorithms, have been proposed as possible tools to improve success rate but have shown inconsistent results. Over the last few years, conduction system pacing (CSP) is becoming a real and attractive alternative to standard BVP as it can restore narrow QRS in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) by stimulating and recruiting the cardiac conduction system, thus ensuring true resynchronization. It includes His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Preliminary data coming from small single-center experiences are very promising and have laid the basis for currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP. The purpose of this review is to delve into the emerging role of CSP as an alternative method of achieving CRT. After framing CSP in a historical perspective, the pathophysiological rationale and available clinical evidence will be examined, and crucial technical aspects will be discussed. Finally, evidence gaps and future perspectives on CSP as a technique of choice to deliver CRT will be summarized.

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging, echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing (BVP). This study assessed ventricular activation patterns and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP and compared this to BVP.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients underwent LBBP or BVP for CRT. Ventricular activation mapping was obtained by ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG). Functional and echocardiographic outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality after one year from implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization vs BVP (QRS width: 170 ± 16 ms to 128 ± 20 ms vs 174 ± 15 to 144 ± 17 ms, p = 0.002 (LBBP vs BVP); e-DYS 81 ± 17 ms to 0 ± 32 ms vs 77 ± 18 to 16 ± 29 ms, p = 0.016 (LBBP vs BVP)). Improvement in LVEF (from 28 ± 8 to 42 ± 10 percent vs 28 ± 9 to 36 ± 12 percent, LBBP vs BVP, p = 0.078) was similar. Improvement in NYHA function class (from 2.4 to 1.5 and from 2.3 to 1.5 (LBBP vs BVP)), hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging is an appropriate way to gain a better insight into activation patterns of LBBP and BVP. LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization (e-DYS and QRS duration) with comparable improvement in LVEF, NYHA functional class, hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality at one year of follow up.

Spontaneous Sinus Rhythm Restoration in Patients With Refractory, Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Who Underwent Conduction System Pacing and Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Ablate and pace (A&P) with conduction system pacing (CSP) improves outcomes in patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). Data on spontaneous sinus rhythm restoration (SSRR) in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to assess the incidence and the predictors of SSRR in a population of patients with permanent AF who underwent A&P with CSP. Prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic permanent AF (of documented duration >6 months) and uncontrolled, drug-refractory high ventricular rate, who underwent A&P with CSP. The incidence and predictors of SSRR were prospectively assessed. A total of 107 patients (79.0 ± 9.1 years, 33.6% male, 74.8% with New York Heart Association class ≥III, 56.1% with ejection fraction <40%) were enrolled: 40 received His' bundle pacing, 67 left bundle branch area pacing. During a median follow-up of 12 months SSRR was observed in 14 patients (13.1%), occurring a median of 3 months after A&P (interquartile range 1 to 6; range 0 to 17). Multivariable analysis identified a duration of permanent AF <12 months (hazard ratio 7.7, p = 0.040) and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 (hazard ratio 14.8, p = 0.008) as independent predictors of SSRR. In patients with coexistence of both predictors the incidence of SSRR was of 41.4%. In a population of patients with symptomatic, permanent AF, treated with A&P with CSP, SSRR was observed in 13% of patients during follow-up. A duration of permanent AF <12 months and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 were independent predictors of this phenomenon.

Superior approach from the pocket for atrioventricular junction ablation performed at the time of conduction system pacing implantation

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Superior approach (SA) from the pocket via axillary or subclavian vein has been proposed as an alternative to the conventional femoral venous access (FA) to perform AVJA.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and safety of SA for AVJA performed simultaneously with CSP, and to compare this approach with FA.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing simultaneous CSP and AVJA.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were enrolled: in 50, AVJA was primarily attempted with SA, in 69 from FA. AVJA with SA was successful in 38 patients (76.0%), while in 12 patients, a subsequent FA was required. AVJA from FA was successful in 68 patients (98.5%), while in one patient, a left-sided approach via femoral artery was required. Compared with FA, SA was associated with a significantly longer duration of ablation (238.0 ± 218.2 vs. 161.9 ± 181.9 s; p = .035), a significantly shorter procedure time (28.1 ± 19.8 vs. 19.8 ± 16.8 min; p = .018), an earlier ambulation (2.7 ± 3.2 vs. 19.8 ± 0.1 h; p < .001), and an earlier discharge from procedure completion (24.0 ± 2.7 vs. 27.1 ± 5.1 h; p < .001). After a median follow-up of 12 months, the rate of complications was similar in the two groups (2.0% in SA, 4.3% in FA; p = .483).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous CSP and AVJA with SA is feasible, with a safety profile similar to FA. Compared to FA, this approach reduces the procedure times and allows earlier ambulation and discharge.

The Emerging Role of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of heart failure-related hospitalisations and all-cause mortality, as well as improving quality of life and functional status in patients with persistent heart failure symptoms despite optimal medical treatment and left bundle branch block. CRT has traditionally been delivered by implanting a lead through the coronary sinus to capture the left ventricular epicardium; however, this approach is associated with significant drawbacks, including a high rate of procedural failure, phrenic nerve stimulation, high pacing thresholds and lead dislodgement. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients fail to derive any significant benefit. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a suitable alternative to traditional CRT. By stimulating the cardiac conduction system physiologically, LBBAP can result in a more homogeneous left ventricular contraction and relaxation, thus having the potential to improve outcomes compared with conventional CRT strategies. In this article, the evidence supporting the use of LBBAP in patients with heart failure is reviewed.

Left bundle branch area pacing vs biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may offer greater physiological benefits than traditional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, there are limited data comparing the efficacy of LBBAP vs BiVP in patients with systolic heart failure (HF).

Objective

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the feasibility and electromechanical and clinical outcomes of both LBBAP and BiVP.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies retrieved from various databases including PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) published up to May 22, 2023. The risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

Results

We included 12 studies with a total of 3004 patients (LBBAP = 1242, BiVP = 1762). Pooled results showed that LBBAP resulted in a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.25, 0.54, P < .00001), echocardiographic response (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.29, P < .0001), improvement in New York Heart Association functional class (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23, P < .0001), QRS duration reduction (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.66, P < .00001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduction (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.05, P = .02), fewer HF hospitalizations (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62, 0.85, P < .0001), and improved survival (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.92, P = .007). In addition, LBBAP was associated with shorter fluoroscopy time (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.47, P < .0001) and lower pacing threshold at implantation (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.74, P < .00001) and at 6 months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.77, P < .0001) as compared with BiVP.

Conclusion

Compared with BiVP, LBBAP was associated with better electromechanical and clinical outcomes, including left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS duration, echocardiographic response, New York Heart Association functional class, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality in patients with systolic HF.

Ablate and pace: Comparison of outcomes between conduction system pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), have been proposed as alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients scheduled for ablate and pace (A&P) strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes, including the rate and nature of device-related complications, between BVP and CSP in a cohort of patients undergoing A&P.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing A&P. The risk of device-related complications and of heart failure (HF) hospitalization was prospectively assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 373 patients (75.3 ± 8.7 years, 53.9% male, 68.9% with NYHA class ≥III) were enrolled: 263 with BVP, 68 with HBP, and 42 with LBBAP. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were similar. Compared to BVP and HBP, LBBAP was associated with the shortest mean procedural and fluoroscopy times and with the lowest acute capture thresholds (all p < .05). At 12-month follow-up LBBAP maintained the lowest capture thresholds and showed the longest estimated residual battery longevity (all p < .05). At 12-months follow-up the three study groups showed a similar risk of device-related complications (5.7%, 4.4%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .650), and of HF hospitalization (2.7%, 1.5%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .850).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of A&P, CSP is a feasible pacing modality, with a midterm safety profile comparable to BVP. LBBAP offers the advantage of reducing procedural times and obtaining lower and stable capture thresholds, with a positive impact on the device longevity.