The association between paced left ventricular activation time and cardiac reverse remodeling in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.

INTRODUCTION: The association between paced LVAT and cardiac structure and function at baseline, as well as whether longer LVAT is associated with worse cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) has not been well investigated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the association between paced LVAT and baseline echocardiographic parameters and cardiac reverse remodeling at follow-up. METHODS: Patients with HF and LBBB receiving successful left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) from June 2018 to April 2023 were enrolled and grouped based on paced LVAT. NT-proBNP and echocardiographic parameters were recorded during routine follow-up. The relationships between paced LVAT and echocardiographic parameters at baseline and follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were enrolled (48 males, aged 65 ± 9.8, mean LVEF 32.1 ± 7.5%, mean LVEDD 63.0 ± 8.5 mm, median NT-proBNP 1057[513-3158] pg/mL). The paced QRSd was significantly decreased (177 ± 17.9 vs. 134 ± 18.5, p < .001) and median paced LVAT was 80[72-88] ms. After a median follow-up of 12[9-29] months, LVEF increased to 52.1 ± 11.2%, LVEDD decreased to 52.6 ± 8.8 mm, and NT-proBNP decreased to 215[73-532]pg/mL. Patients were grouped based on paced LVAT: LVAT < 80 ms (n = 39); 80 ≤ LVAT < 90 ms (n = 24); LVAT ≥ 90 ms (n = 20). Patients with longer LVAT had larger LVEDD and lower LVEF (LVEDDbaseline: p < .001; LVEFbaseline: p = .001). The difference in LVEF6M was statistically significant among groups (p < .001) and patients with longer LVAT had lower LVEF6M, while the difference in LVEF1Y was not seen (p = .090). There was no significant correlation between ΔLVEF6M-baseline, ΔLVEF1Y-6M and LVAT respectively (ΔLVEF6M-baseline: p = .261, r = -.126; ΔLVEF1Y-6M: p = .085, r = .218). CONCLUSION: Long paced LVAT was associated with worse echocardiographic parameters at baseline, but did not affect the cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with HF and LBBB. Those with longer LVAT required longer time to recover.

Comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes with left bundle branch pacing, left ventricular septal pacing, and biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are referred to as left bundle branch area pacing. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether long-term clinical outcomes differ in patients undergoing LBBP, LVSP, and biventricular pacing (BiVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: Consecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <50%) undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled if they underwent successful LBBP, LVSP, or BiVP. The primary composite end point was all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and echocardiographic measures of reverse remodeling. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients (68 LBBP, 38 LVSP, and 153 BiVP) were observed for a mean duration of 28.8 ± 15.8 months. LBBP was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point by 78% compared with both BiVP (7.4% vs 41.2%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.22 [0.08-0.57]; P = .002) and LVSP (7.4% vs 47.4%; aHR, 0.22 [0.08-0.63]; P = .004]. The adjusted risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in LVSP than in BiVP (31.6% vs 7.2%; aHR, 3.19 [1.38-7.39]; P = .007) but comparable between LBBP and BiVP (2.9% vs 7.2%; aHR, 0.33 [0.07-1.52], P = .155). Propensity score adjustment also obtained similar results. LBBP showed a higher rate of echocardiographic response (ΔLVEF ≥10%: 60.0% vs 36.2% vs 16.1%; P < .001) than BiVP or LVSP. CONCLUSION: LBBP yielded long-term clinical outcomes superior to those of BiVP and LVSP. The role of LVSP for CRT needs to be reevaluated because of its high mortality risk.

Early left bundle branch pacing in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) achieves resynchrony and improves cardiac function in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) by correcting left bundle branch block (LBBB). Few data on the efficacy of early LBBP in HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF) and LBBB have been reported. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy of early LBBP in patients with HFmrEF and LBBB. METHODS: Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (left ventricular EF [LVEF] 35%-50%) and LBBB were prospectively enrolled to receive LBBP (Early-LBBP group) plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT alone (GDMT group). Study outcomes included changes in LVEF, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and clinical events (HF rehospitalization or syncope). Subgroup analysis compared efficacy of LBBP between patients with LBBB only without comorbidities or late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (LBBB-Only group) and patients with either comorbidities or LGE (LBBB-Combined group). RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled and analyzed (37 Early-LBBP group; 15 GDMT group). LBBP achieved greater improvement in LVEF (+14.75% ± 7.37% vs -2.42% ± 2.84%; P <.001), reduction of LVEDD (-7.51 ± 5.40 mm vs -0.87 ± 4.36 mm; P <.001) and NYHA classification (-0.84 ± 0.76 vs -0.13 ± 0.74; P = .004), and similar reduction of NT-proBNP (-408.83 ± 920.29 pg/mL vs -229.05 ± 1579.17 pg/mL; P = .610) at 6 months. Early LBBP showed significantly reduced clinical events (0.0% vs 40.0%; P <.001) after 20.68 ± 13.55 months of follow-up. Subgroup analysis showed patients in the LBBB-Only group benefited more from LBBP with regard to LVEF improvement and LVEDD reduction than the LBBB-Combined group. CONCLUSION: Early LBBP with GDMT demonstrated greater improvement of cardiac function and reduced clinical events than GDMT alone in patients with HFmrEF and LBBB.

Randomized Trial of Left Bundle Branch vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is the most rapidly growing conduction system pacing technique that is capable of correcting intrinsic left bundle branch block (LBBB). As such, it is potentially an optimal alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiVP). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the efficacy of LBBP-CRT with BiVP-CRT in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized trial of patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB with 6-month preplanned follow-up. Crossovers were allowed if LBBP or BiVP were unsuccessful. The primary endpoint was the difference in LVEF improvement between 2 groups. The secondary endpoints included changes in echocardiographic measurements, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute walk distance, QRS duration, and CRT response. RESULTS: The study included 40 consecutive patients (20 males, mean age 63.7 years, LVEF 29.7% ± 5.6%). Crossovers occurred in 10% of LBBP-CRT and 20% of BiVP-CRT. All patients completed follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher LVEF improvement at 6 months after LBBP-CRT than BiVP-CRT (mean difference: 5.6%; 95% CI: 0.3-10.9; P = 0.039). LBBP-CRT also appeared to have greater reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-24.97 mL; 95% CI: -49.58 to -0.36 mL) and NT-proBNP (-1,071.80 pg/mL; 95% CI: -2,099.40 to -44.20 pg/mL), and comparable changes in New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute walk distance, QRS duration, and rates of CRT response compared with BiVP-CRT. CONCLUSIONS: LBBP-CRT demonstrated greater LVEF improvement than BiVP-CRT in heart failure patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB. (Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [LBBP-RESYNC]; NCT04110431).

New criterion to determine left bundle branch capture on the basis of individualized His bundle or right ventricular septal pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. How to differentiate LBBP from left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a new personalized intraoperative criterion to confirm left bundle branch (LBB) capture in patients with or without heart failure (HF). METHODS: Patients were enrolled if 12-lead surface electrocardiograms of LBBP, LVSP, temporary His bundle pacing (HBP), and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) were recorded during the procedure, with the leads placed in the basal midseptal region. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was measured during different pacing modalities. ΔLVAT1 was defined as the difference in LVAT between HBP and LBBP/LVSP. ΔLVAT2 was estimated by the difference in LVAT between RVSP and LBBP/LVSP. ΔLVAT1% and ΔLVAT2% were calculated as the percent reduction of ΔLVAT1 and ΔLVAT2, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 105 consecutive patients were included, of whom 80 (76.2%) had normal cardiac function (65 LBBP and 15 LVSP) and 25 had HF. Patients with LBBP showed significantly shorter LVAT than did those with LVSP. In patients with normal cardiac function, a cutoff value of ΔLVAT1 > 12.5 ms showed 73.9% sensitivity and 93.3% specificity to confirm LBB capture. In patients with HF, a cutoff value of ΔLVAT1% > 9.8% exhibited great accuracy for LBB capture (sensitivity 92.0%; specificity 92.3%). The optimal value of ΔLVAT2% for differentiating LBBP from LVSP was 21.2%. CONCLUSION: Temporary HBP and RVSP can serve as references to confirm LBB capture in an individualized fashion in patients with or without HF.

Complete electrical reverse remodeling of native conduction after resynchronization therapies.

BACKGROUND: Electrical reverse remodeling of native conduction is associated with better clinical outcome following cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to describe characteristics, time course and long-term outcome of patients with complete electrical reverse remodeling (CERR) after resynchronization therapies. METHODS: CRT candidates were treated with bi-ventricular, His bundle or left bundle branch pacing. CERR was defined if native QRS duration post-implantation was narrowed to ≤120 ms. RESULTS: A total of 322 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 66 were super-responders and 12 exhibited CERR. All 12 patients were diagnosed of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with left bundle branch block (LBBB) meeting the Strauss criteria. The mean native QRS duration when CERR was achieved was 110.8 ± 10.0 ms, significantly shorter than the baseline (175.0 ± 18.8 ms). The occurrence of CERR varied from several days post-implantation to 18-month follow-up. The persistence of CERR also showed great variations. Eleven patients (91.7%, 11/12) showed echocardiographic super-response. Patients with CERR showed similar baseline characteristics compared to those with echocardiographic super-response but without CERR. Two patients with CERR showed different responses after bi-ventricular pacing was turned off. One patient remained stable with narrow QRS complex and great response. The other patient had reappearance of LBBB and decreased cardiac function, but recovered by turning on the device again. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CERR exhibited great response to different resynchronization therapies. The time course of CERR and echocardiographic super-response varied greatly. The variability of native conduction system and accompanied changes of mechanical remodeling suggest the mechanisms of electrical-disorder related cardiomyopathy.

Clinical characteristics and long-term prognosis of ischemic and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES: The different etiology of HF has different prognostic risk factors. Prognosis assessment of ICM and NICM has important clinical value. This study is aimed to explore the predicting factors for ICM and NICM. METHODS: 1082 HFrEF patients were retrospectively enrolled from Jan. 01, 2016 to Dec. 31, 2017. On Jan. 31, 2019, 873 patients were enrolled for analysis excluding incomplete, unfollowed, and unexplained data. The patients were divided into ischemic and non-ischemic group. The differences in clinical characteristics and long-term prognosis between the two groups were analyzed, and multivariate Cox analysis was used to predict the respective all-cause mortality, SCD and rehospitalization of CHF. RESULTS: 873 patients aged 64(53,73) were divided into two groups: ICM (403, 46.16%) and NICM. At the end, 203 died (111 in ICM, 54.68%), of whom 87 had SCD (53 in ICM, 60.92%) and 269 had rehospitalization for HF(134 in ICM, 49.81%). Independent risk factors affecting all-cause mortality in ICM: DM, previous hospitalization of HF, age, eGFR, LVEF; for SCD: PVB, eGFR, Hb, revascularization; for readmission of HF: low T3 syndrome, PVB, DM, previous hospitalization of HF, eGFR. Otherwise; factors affecting all-cause mortality in NICM: NYHA III-IV, paroxysmal AF/AFL, previous hospitalization of HF, ß-blocker; for SCD: low T3 syndrome, PVB, nitrates, sodium, ß-blocker; for rehospitalization of HF: paroxysmal AF/AFL, previous admission of HF, LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: Both all-cause mortality and SCD in ICM is higher than that in NICM. Different etiologies of CHF have different risk factors affecting the prognosis.