Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP. METHODS: The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model. RESULTS: Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.

Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: 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. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.