作者
Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman,Parikshit S. Sharma,Óscar Cano,Shunmuga Sundaram Ponnusamy,Bengt Herweg,Francesco Zanon,Marek Jastrzębski,Jiangang Zou,Mihail G. Chelu,Kevin Vernooy,Zachary I. Whinnett,Girish M. Nair,Manuel Molina‐Lerma,Karol Čurila,Dipen Zalavadia,Abdul Haseeb,Cicely Dye,Sharath C. Vipparthy,Ryan Brunetti,Paweł Moskal,Alexandra Ross,Antonius van Stipdonk,Jerin George,Yusuf K. Qadeer,Mishal Mumtaz,Jeffrey Kolominsky,Syeda Anum Zahra,Mehrdad Golian,Lina Marcantoni,Faiz A. Subzposh,Kenneth A. Ellenbogen
摘要
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT. This observational study included patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included endpoints of death, HFH, and echocardiographic changes. A total of 1,778 patients met inclusion criteria: 981 BVP, 797 LBBAP. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% ± 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 ± 19 ms vs 161 ± 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 ± 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% ± 6% to 41% ± 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% ± 7% to 37% ± 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% ± 12% vs 10% ± 12%; P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, the primary outcome was significantly reduced with LBBAP compared with BVP (20.8% vs 28%; HR: 1.495; 95% CI: 1.213-1.842; P < 0.001). LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.