Trending Topic

15 mins

Trending Topic

Developed by Touch
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked

Cardiovascular diseases are the most common cause of mortality and morbidity in adults worldwide.1 Coronary angiography (CAG) is the gold standard method for evaluating atherosclerotic coronary artery disease (CAD).2 It is conventionally performed via the trans-femoral (TF) route. Recently, however, the trans-radial (TR) route has become the preferred way.3 The TR route offers better procedure comfort, shorter hospitalization […]

32/Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with CRT Indication: Short-term results and 1-year follow-up

Vikas Kataria (Presenting Author) – Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi, India; Amitabh Yaduvanshi – Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi, India; Mohit Bhagwati – Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi, India
Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Published Online: Oct 8th 2020 European Journal of Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology. 2023;9(Suppl. 1):abstr32
Select a Section…
1

Article

Background and objectives: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using bi-ventricular pacing is class I recommendation for symptomatic patients with heart failure (LVEF ≤35%), QRS duration ≥150 msec and LBBB QRS morphology. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been reported as an alternative option for CRT. The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LBBAP in patients eligible for CRT.

Methods: Patients with CRT indications were subjected to LBBAP. Peri-procedural outcomes & QRS duration were recorded. Changes in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, need for HF hospitalization, echocardiographic data, lead-device parameters were evaluated at follow-up. HF status was assessed by clinical (no HF hospitalization and improvement in NYHA class) and echocardiographic response (≥5% improvement in LVEF).

Results: LBBAP was attempted in 16 patients (mean age 59.3 ± 7.04 years, 37.5% women, ischaemic cardiomyopathy in 33.3%). All patients had baseline LBBB. Pacing threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.8 ± 0.3 V at 0.5 ms and 12.1 ± 3.5 Mv at implantation and remained stable during mean follow-up of 11.25 ± 3.7 (range 6–18) months. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing from 147.5 ± 9.7 to 116 ± 10.2 ms (p<0.01). LVEF improved from 28.2 ± 2.8% to 38.9 ± 5.1% (p<0.01). Clinical and echocardiographic improvement was observed in 77% and 74% of patients, respectively.

Conclusion: LBBAP is feasible, safe and provides an alternative option for CRT. LBBAP provides low and stable pacing thresholds and is associated with improved clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. 

Figure 1: Changes in QRS duration and ejection fraction at follow up

Table 1: Baseline, procedural and outcome characteristics

2

Further Resources

Share
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
LinkedIn
Via Email
Mark CompleteCompleted
BookmarkBookmarked
Copy LinkLink Copied
Close Popup