Left bundle branch area pacing delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy and comparison with biventricular pacing

Xiaofei Li, Chunguang Qiu, Ruiqin Xie, Wentao Ma, Zhao Wang, Hui Li, Hao Wang, Wei Hua, Shu Zhang, Yan Yao, Xiaohan Fan, Xiaofei Li, Chunguang Qiu, Ruiqin Xie, Wentao Ma, Zhao Wang, Hui Li, Hao Wang, Wei Hua, Shu Zhang, Yan Yao, Xiaohan Fan

Abstract

Aims: This multicentre observational study aimed to prospectively assess the efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and compare the 6-month outcomes between LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BVP).

Methods and results: Consecutive patients with LBBB and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were prospectively recruited if they had undergone LBBAP as a primary or rescue strategy from three separate centres from March to December 2018. Patients who received BVP in 2018 were retrospectively selected by using 2 to 1 propensity score matching to minimize bias. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were assessed during the 6-month follow-up. LBBAP procedure succeeded in 81.1% (30/37) of patients, with selective LBBAP in 10 patients, and 3 of 20 patients combined non-selective LBBAP and LV lead pacing for further QRS narrowing. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 178.2 ± 18.8 to 121.8 ± 10.8 ms, P < 0.001, paced QRS duration ≤ 130 ms in 27 patients) and improved LVEF (from 28.8 ± 4.5% to 44.3 ± 8.7%, P < 0.001) during the 6-month follow-up. The comparison between 27 patients with LBBAP alone and 54 of 130 matching patients with BVP showed that LBBAP delivered a greater reduction in the QRSd (58.0 vs. 12.5 ms, P < 0.001), a greater increase in LVEF (15.6% vs. 7.0%, P < 0.001), and greater echocardiographic (88.9% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.035) and super response (44.4% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.007) to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Conclusions: LBBAP could deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy in most patients with heart failure and LBBB, and might be a promising alternative resynchronization approach to BVP.

Keywords: Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Heart failure; Left bundle branch area pacing; Left bundle branch block.

Conflict of interest statement

None declared.

© 2020 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic diagram of the lead‐to‐device connection configurations. CRT‐D: cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator; CRT‐P: cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Pacing electrocardiogram characteristics and the location of the pacing lead for left bundle branch area pacing. Intrinsic rhythm of LBBB (A); LVAT remains stable for different pacing outputs (B and C); The transition from NS‐LBBP to S‐LBBP (discrete component in the intracardiac EGM, red arrow, D). The location of the LBB pacing lead on CT scan and 3D echocardiogram (E and F). LBB pacing with intrinsic RBB conduction. When the SAV was 110 ms, the best QRS morphology and duration were achieved (F). LBBB, left bundle branch block; LVAT, left ventricular activation time; NS‐LBBP, non‐selective left bundle branch pacing; S‐LBBP, selective left bundle branch pacing; EGM, electrogram; CT, computed tomography; LBB, left bundle branch; RBB, right bundle branch.
Figure 3
Figure 3
QRS duration and cardiac function at baseline and at the 6‐month follow up in LBBAP patients. Intrinsic QRS duration at baseline, narrowed QRS duration by LBBAP at implant, and final paced QRS duration at 6‐month follow‐up (A). NYHA functional class and left ventricular ejection fraction improvement from baseline to the 6‐month follow‐up (B to C). Left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter changes from baseline to the 6‐month follow‐up (D). NYHA, New York Heart Association.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Comparison of changes in QRS duration and cardiac functional parameters from baseline to 6 months after the procedure between BVP and LBBAP. (A) Reduction in QRS duration; (B) improvement in LVEF; (C and D) reduction in LVEDD and median improvement in NT‐proBNP level. LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVEDD, left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter.

References

    1. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Drazner MH, Fonarow GC, Geraci SA, Horwich T, Januzzi JL, Johnson MR, Kasper EK, Levy WC, Masoudi FA, McBride PE, McMurray JJ, Mitchell JE, Peterson PN, Riegel B, Sam F, Stevenson LW, Tang WH, Tsai EJ, Wilkoff BL. 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the management of heart failure: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. Circulation 2013; 128: 1810–1852.
    1. Lustgarten DL. His bundle‐CRT: elegant old science finds its modern clinical application. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72: 3123–3125.
    1. Upadhyay GA, Vijayaraman P, Nayak HM, Verma N, Dandamudi G, Sharma PS, Saleem M, Mandrola J, Genovese D, Oren JW, Subzposh FA, Aziz Z, Beaser A, Shatz D, Besser S, Lang RM, Trohman RG, Knight BP, Tung R. On‐treatment comparison between corrective His bundle pacing and biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: a secondary analysis of His‐SYNC. Heart Rhythm 2019; 16: 1797–1807.
    1. Arnold AD, Shun‐Shin MJ, Keene D, Howard JP, Sohaib SMA, Wright IJ, Cole GD, Qureshi NA, Lefroy DC, Koa‐Wing M, Linton NWF, Lim PB, Peters NS, Davies DW, Muthumala A, Tanner M, Ellenbogen KA, Kanagaratnam P, Francis DP, Whinnett ZI. His resynchronization versus biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block. J Am Coll Cardiol 2018; 72: 3112–3122.
    1. Ajijola OA, Upadhyay GA, Macias C, Shivkumar K, Tung R. Permanent His‐bundle pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: initial feasibility study in lieu of left ventricular lead. Heart Rhythm 2017; 14: 1353–1361.
    1. Deshmukh P, Casavant DA, Romanyshyn M, Anderson K. Permanent, direct His‐bundle pacing: a novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His‐Purkinje activation. Circulation 2000; 101: 869–877.
    1. Upadhyay GA, Cherian T, Shatz DY, Beaser AD, Aziz Z, Ozcan C, Broman MT, Nayak HM, Tung R. Intracardiac delineation of septal conduction in left bundle‐branch block patterns. Circulation 2019; 139: 1876–1888.
    1. Vijayaraman P, Naperkowski A, Subzposh FA, Abdelrahman M, Sharma PS, Oren JW, Dandamudi G, Ellenbogen KA. Permanent His‐bundle pacing: long‐term lead performance and clinical outcomes. Heart Rhythm 2018; 15: 696–702.
    1. Li X, Li H, Ma W, Ning X, Liang E, Pang K, Yao Y, Hua W, Zhang S, Fan X. Permanent left bundle branch area pacing for atrioventricular block: feasibility, safety and acute effect. Heart Rhythm 2019; 16: 1766–1773.
    1. Vijayaraman P, Subzposh FA, Naperkowski A, Panikkath R, John K, Mascarenhas V, Bauch TD, Huang W. Prospective evaluation of feasibility, electrophysiologic and echocardiographic characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing. Heart Rhythm 2019; 16: 1774–1782.
    1. Huang W, Su L, Wu S, Xu L, Xiao F, Zhou X, Ellenbogen KA. A novel pacing strategy with low and stable output: pacing the left bundle branch immediately beyond the conduction block. Can J Cardiol 2017; 33: 1736.e1–1736.e3.
    1. Chen X, Wu S, Su L, Su Y, Huang W. The characteristics of the electrocardiogram and the intracardiac electrogram in left bundle branch pacing. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol 2019; 30: 1096–1101.
    1. Zhang W, Huang J, Qi Y, Wang F, Guo L, Shi X, Wu W, Zhou X, Li R. Cardiac resynchronization therapy by left bundle branch area pacing in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block. Heart Rhythm 2019; 16: 1783–1790.
    1. Chen K, Li Y, Dai Y, Sun Q, Luo B, Li C, Zhang S. Comparison of electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters between left bundle branch pacing and right ventricular pacing in patients receiving pacemaker therapy. Europace 2019; 21: 673–680.
    1. Jansen AH, Bracke FA, van Dantzig JM, Meijer A, van der Voort PH, Aarnoudse W, van Gelder BM, Peels KH. Correlation of echo‐Doppler optimization of atrioventricular delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy with invasive hemodynamics in patients with heart failure secondary to ischemic or idiopathic dilated cardiomyopathy. Am J Cardiol 2006; 97: 552–557.
    1. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor‐Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L, Flachskampf FA, Foster E, Goldstein SA, Kuznetsova T, Lancellotti P, Muraru D, Picard MH, Rietzschel ER, Rudski L, Spencer KT, Tsang W, Voigt JU. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 2015; 28: 1–39 e14.
    1. Huang W, Chen X, Su L, Wu S, Xia X, Vijayaraman P. A beginner's guide to permanent left bundle branch pacing. Heart Rhythm 2019; 16: 1791–1796.
    1. Ellenbogen KA, Huizar JF. Foreseeing super‐response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a perspective for clinicians. J Am Coll Cardiol 2012; 59: 2374–2377.
    1. Upadhyay GA, Vijayaraman P, Nayak HM, Verma N, Dandamudi G, Sharma PS, Saleem M, Mandrola J, Genovese D, Tung R. His corrective pacing or biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization in heart failure. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74: 157–159.
    1. Coppola G, Ciaramitaro G, Stabile G, Donofrio A, Palmisano P, Carita P, Mascioli G, Pecora D, De Simone A, Marini M, Rapacciuolo A, Savarese G, Maglia G, Pepi P, Padeletti L, Pierantozzi A, Arena G, Giovannini T, Caico SI, Nugara C, Ajello L, Malacrida M, Corrado E. Magnitude of QRS duration reduction after biventricular pacing identifies responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Int J Cardiol 2016; 221: 450–455.
    1. Vijayaraman P, Herweg B, Ellenbogen KA, Gajek J. His‐optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy to maximize electrical resynchronization. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol 2019; 12: e006934.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer och medarbetare

Medicinska tillstånd

Läkemedelsinterventioner

3
Prenumerera