Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Results from International Collaborative LBBAP Study (I-CLAS) Group
Language English Country United States Media print-electronic
Document type Comparative Study, Journal Article, Multicenter Study, Observational Study
PubMed
39343119
DOI
10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.09.030
PII: S1547-5271(24)03330-7
Knihovny.cz E-resources
- Keywords
- Biventricular pacing, Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Conduction system pacing, HFmrEF, Heart failure hospitalization, His bundle pacing, Left bundle branch area pacing, Mortality,
- MeSH
- Bundle-Branch Block therapy physiopathology MeSH
- Ventricular Function, Left * physiology MeSH
- Bundle of His physiopathology MeSH
- Humans MeSH
- Follow-Up Studies MeSH
- Heart Conduction System * physiopathology MeSH
- Retrospective Studies MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy * methods MeSH
- Heart Failure * therapy physiopathology MeSH
- Case-Control Studies MeSH
- Stroke Volume * physiology MeSH
- Treatment Outcome MeSH
- Check Tag
- Humans MeSH
- Male MeSH
- Aged MeSH
- Female MeSH
- Publication type
- Journal Article MeSH
- Multicenter Study MeSH
- Observational Study MeSH
- Comparative Study MeSH
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a guideline-recommended therapy in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF, 36%-50%) and left bundle branch block or indication for ventricular pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using left bundle branch area pacing or His bundle pacing has been shown to be a safe and physiologic alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and CSP for patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent BVP or CSP with HFmrEF between January 2018 and June 2023 at 16 international centers were included. The primary outcome was the composite end point of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary end points included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and individual end points of death and HFH. RESULTS: A total of 1004 patients met inclusion criteria: BVP, 178; CSP, 826 (His bundle pacing, 154; left bundle branch area pacing, 672). Mean age was 73 ± 13 years; female, 34%; and LVEF, 42% ± 5%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower compared with BVP (129 ± 21 ms vs 144 ± 19 ms; P < .001). LVEF improved during follow-up in both groups (49% ± 10% vs 48% ± 10%; P = .32). CSP was independently associated with significant reduction in the primary end point of time to death or HFH compared with BVP (22% vs 34%; hazard ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.43-0.94; P = .025). CONCLUSION: CSP was associated with improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in this large cohort of patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT. Randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP will be necessary to confirm these results.
Australian National University Canberra Heart Rhythm Canberra Australia
Baylor College of Medicine Houston Texas
Charles University Prague Czech Republic
Geisinger Heart Institute Wilkes Barre Pennsylvania
Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves Granada Spain
Imperial College London United Kingdom
Rush University Chicago Illinois
Santa Maria della Misericordia Hospital Rovigo Italy
University of Chicago Chicago Illinois
USF Morsani College of Medicine Tampa Florida
VCU Health System Richmond Virginia
Velammal Medical College Hospital and Research Institute Madurai India
References provided by Crossref.org