Left bundle branch area pacing versus endocardial resynchronization in patients with heart failure.

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and endocardial resynchronization (Endo‐CRT) are alternatives to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Objective: To compare the outcomes of LBBAP versus Endo‐CRT using conventional pacing leads. Methods: Patients with he...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Publicado en:Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology Vol. 36; no. 1; pp. 135 - 144
Autores principales: Diaz, Juan Carlos, Bastidas, Oriana, Aristizabal, Julian, Marin, Jorge, Niño, Cesar, Moreno, Sebastian, Ruiz, Luis Miguel, Caceres, Manuel, Jaraba, Elmer, Cabanillas, Nestor, Duque, Mauricio
Formato: research tables/charts Journal Article
Publicado: Wiley-Blackwell Jan2025
Acceso en línea:Ver este registro en EBSCOhost
fields @attributes:
  recordID: 1
pdfLink:
plink: https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ccm&AN=183983595&site=ehost-live
header:
  @attributes:
    shortDbName: ccm
    uiTerm: 183983595
    longDbName: CINAHL Complete
    uiTag: AN
  controlInfo:
    bkinfo:
    dissinfo:
    jinfo:
      jid:
        10453873
        GSB
      jtl: Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
      issn: 10453873
      maglogo: Y
    pubinfo:
      dt: Jan2025
      vid: 36
      iid: 1
      pid: 480
      pub: Wiley-Blackwell
      place: Malden, Massachusetts
    artinfo:
      ui:
        183983595
        180715955
        183983595
        183983595
        10.1111/jce.16479
        183983595
      ppf: 135
      ppct: 9
      formats:
        fmt:
          – @attributes:
              type: T
          – @attributes:
              type: C
          – @attributes:
              type: P
      tig:
        atl: Left bundle branch area pacing versus endocardial resynchronization in patients with heart failure.
      aug:
        au:
          Diaz, Juan Carlos
          Bastidas, Oriana
          Aristizabal, Julian
          Marin, Jorge
          Niño, Cesar
          Moreno, Sebastian
          Ruiz, Luis Miguel
          Caceres, Manuel
          Jaraba, Elmer
          Cabanillas, Nestor
          Duque, Mauricio
        affil: Division of Cardiology, Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Service, Clinica Las Vegas, Medellin, Colombia
      sug:
        subj:
          Heart Failure Therapy
          Bundle-Branch Block
          Cardiac Pacing, Artificial
          Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy
          Treatment Outcomes Evaluation
          Human
          Comparative Studies
          Hospitalization
          Patient Safety
          Electrocardiography
          Male
          Female
          Middle Age
          Aged
          Fluoroscopy
          Descriptive Statistics
          Confidence Intervals
          Odds Ratio
          Ventricular Ejection Fraction
          Middle Aged: 45-64 years
          Aged: 65+ years
          Male
          Female
      ab: Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and endocardial resynchronization (Endo‐CRT) are alternatives to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Objective: To compare the outcomes of LBBAP versus Endo‐CRT using conventional pacing leads. Methods: Patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing CRT with LBBAP or Endo‐CRT were included. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of HF‐related hospitalization and all‐cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any procedure‐related complication. Secondary outcomes included procedural characteristics, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters. Results: A total of 223 patients (LBBAP n = 197, Endo‐CRT n = 26; mean age 69 ± 10.3 years, 32.3% female) were included. Patients in the LBBAP group had lower NYHA class, shorter preprocedural QRS durations (161 [142–183] vs. 180 [170–203] msec, p <.001), and a lower preprocedural spironolactone use (57.4% vs. 84.6%, p =.009) than patients in the Endo‐CRT group. Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in patients undergoing LBBAP (11.4 [7.2–20] vs. 23 [14.2–34.5] min; p <.001). There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy outcome between both groups (Cox proportional HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.635–2.31; p =.56). During follow‐up, patients undergoing LBBAP had a lower incidence of stroke than patients in the Endo‐CRT group (0% vs. 11.5%, p =.001). Postprocedural LVEF (35% [25–45] vs. 40% [20–55]; p =.307) and change in LVEF (7% [0–20] vs. 11% [2–18]; p =.384) were similar between the LBBAP and the Endo‐CRT groups, respectively. Conclusion: LBBAP and Endo‐CRT using conventional leads are associated with similar mortality and HF‐related hospitalization, as well as improvements in LVEF. Endo‐CRT is associated with longer fluoroscopy times and a higher risk of stroke.
      pubtype: Academic Journal
      doctype:
        research
        tables/charts
        Journal Article
      ougenre: Article
    language: English
    refInfo:
    holdings:
      @attributes:
        islocal: N