Late Breaking Clinical TrialsClinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry
Graphical abstract
Introduction
Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF), heart failure (HF), pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, and mortality.1, 2, 3 Earlier studies have suggested that ventricular pacing burden ≥40% is associated with increased risk for death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and incident AF.2 More recent data suggest that ventricular pacing burden ≥20% may be associated with an increased risk of a pacing-induced cardiomyopathy.4,5
Large observational studies have demonstrated that permanent His-bundle pacing (HBP) may be a physiological alternative to RVP and has been associated with improved clinical outcomes compared to RVP.6, 7, 8 HBP has been associated with a decreased risk of HFH6, 7, 8 and a lower incidence of AF9 compared to conventional RVP. However, HBP has procedural challenges with variable success rates (65%–92%)6,8,10,11 due to inability to localize the His bundle (HB) or inability to place the lead distal to the site of block, particularly in patients with infranodal atrioventricular (AV) block. Furthermore, performance challenges with unpredictable rise in HB capture thresholds and loss of HB capture have been reported in 8%–17% of cases in published reports.7,8,12 Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has gained greater acceptance over the past few years since its initial description in a patient with cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block (LBBB) by Huang et al.13 Various observational studies have demonstrated the feasibility and safety of this technique with better success rates and more stable capture thresholds compared to HBP.14, 15, 16 However, no large-scale studies have compared the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing LBBAP compared to conventional RVP.
The primary aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome differences between LBBAP and RVP in a large cohort of patients.
Section snippets
Study design
We studied consecutive patients referred to Geisinger Health System, Pennsylvania and Rush University Medical Center (Chicago, Illinois) from April 2018 to October 2020 for permanent pacemaker implantation for standard indications.17 All patients underwent an attempt at permanent HBP, LBBAP, or conventional right ventricular (RV) lead implantation (RV apex or septum) based on operator preference and/or the clinical practice at that institution. The study protocol was approved by the
Baseline characteristics
A total of 1141 patients underwent permanent pacemaker implantations during the study period at the 2 health systems. A total of 703 patients (581 patients in the Geisinger Health System and 122 patients in the Rush Health System) met final inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis (Figure 1). LBBAP was successful in 321 patients, whereas 382 patients underwent successful RVP. Mean age of the cohort was 75.13 ± 12 years, 48% were women, 34% of patients had a history of HF (systolic
Discussion
The primary findings from this large multicenter study were as follows. (1) LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or HFH or upgrade to BVP compared to conventional RVP in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantations for routine bradycardia indications. (2) LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in HFH compared to RVP. (3) LBBAP was also associated with a significant reduction in mortality compared to RVP.
Conclusion
In this large multicenter cohort, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, HFH, or upgrade to BVP compared to conventional RVP. These differences in clinical outcomes were primarily driven by patients who needed >20% ventricular pacing.
References (19)
- et al.
Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy
Heart Rhythm
(2014) - et al.
Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with complete atrioventricular block and preserved left ventricular systolic function
Heart Rhythm
(2016) - et al.
Permanent His-bundle pacing is feasible, safe, and superior to right ventricular pacing in routine clinical practice
Heart Rhythm
(2015) - et al.
Permanent His-bundle pacing: long-term lead performance and clinical outcomes
Heart Rhythm
(2018) - et al.
Clinical outcomes of His bundle pacing compared to right ventricular pacing
J Am Coll Cardiol
(2018) - et al.
[Permanent His-bundle pacing in patients with infra-Hisian atrioventricular block]
Rev Esp Cardiol
(2006) - et al.
The efficacy of His bundle pacing: lessons learned from implementation for the first time at an experienced electrophysiology center
JACC Clin Electrophysiol
(2018) - et al.
Intermediate-term performance and safety of His-bundle pacing leads: a single-center experience
Heart Rhythm
(2021) - et al.
Prospective evaluation of feasibility and electrophysiologic and echocardiographic characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing
Heart Rhythm
(2019)
Cited by (0)
Funding Sources: The authors have no funding sources to disclose. Disclosure: Dr Sharma has received honoraria from Medtronic; and has served as a consultant to Medtronic, Abbott, Biotronik, and Boston Scientific. Dr Krishnan has served as a consultant to Abbott/St. Jude Medical, Cardiva, and Zoll; and has received research funding from Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr Trohman has served as an advisor to Boston Scientific; has received research grants from Boston Scientific, Medtronic Inc, Abbott/St. Jude Medical, Vitatron, and Wyeth Ayerst/Wyeth Pharmaceuticals; has served as a consultant to Biosense Webster, Alta Thera Pharmaceuticals, and St. Jude Medical Newron Pharmaceuticals P.s.A.; and has received honoraria from Boston Scientific/Guidant CRM, Medtronic Inc, Alta Thera Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi Sankyo, and Abbott/St. Jude Medical. Dr Huang has received honoraria from Cardiofocus, Medtronic, and Biotronik; and has served as a consultant to Cardiofocus. Dr Vijayaraman has received honoraria, served as a consultant to, and received research and fellowship support from Medtronic; has served as a consultant to Abbott, Biotronik, and Eaglepoint LLC; and declares a patent for an HBP delivery tool. All other authors have reported that they no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose.