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.

A novel method combining gated SPECT and vectorcardiography to guide left ventricular lead placement to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: The segment of the latest mechanical contraction (LMC) does not always overlap with the site of the latest electrical activation (LEA). By integrating both mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, this proof-of-concept study aimed to propose a new method for recommending left ventricular (LV) lead placements, with the goal of enhancing response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: The LMC segment was determined by single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) phase analysis. The LEA site was detected by vectorcardiogram. The recommended segments for LV lead placement were as follows: (1) the LMC viable segments that overlapped with the LEA site; (2) the LMC viable segments adjacent to the LEA site; (3) If no segment met either of the above, the LV lateral wall was recommended. The response was defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) 6-months after CRT. Patients with LV lead located in the recommended site were assigned to the recommended group, and those located in the non-recommended site were assigned to the non-recommended group. RESULTS: The cohort comprised of 76 patients, including 54 (71.1%) in the recommended group and 22 (28.9%) in the non-recommended group. Among the recommended group, 74.1% of the patients responded to CRT, while 36.4% in the non-recommended group were responders (P = .002). Compared to pacing at the non-recommended segments, pacing at the recommended segments showed an independent association with an increased response by univariate and multivariable analysis (odds ratio 5.00, 95% confidence interval 1.73-14.44, P = .003; odds ratio 7.33, 95% confidence interval 1.53-35.14, P = .013). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that pacing at the recommended LV lead position demonstrated a better long-term prognosis. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that pacing at the recommended segments, by integrating of mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, is significantly associated with an improved CRT response and better long-term prognosis.

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.