Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry

Sharma, Parikshit S.; Patel, Neil; Ravi, Venkatesh; Zalavadia, Dipen; Dommaraju, Sujithraj; Garg, Varun; Larsen, Timothy R.; Naperkowski, Angela; Wasserlauf, Jeremiah; Krishnan, K. Ranga Rama; Young, W. Glenn; Pokharel, Parash; Oren, Jess W.; Storm, Randle; Trohman, Richard G.; Huang, Henry; Subzposh, Faiz A.; Vijayaraman, Pugazhendhi

doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.08.033

Cited by 148 publications

(175 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

156

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the initial description of LBBAP by Huang et al, 11 LBBAP has been more widely adopted with higher success rates, superior, and stable capture thresholds 12–15 . Recently Sharma et al, 17 in a similar large nonrandomized, observational, multicenter cohort study of 701 patients, demonstrated LBBAP was associated with significant reduction in death, HFH or upgrade to BVP compared to RVP (10.0% vs. 23.3%; HR: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.306–0.695, p < .001). This difference was again observed primarily in patients requiring >20% and 40% ventricular pacing,…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing

Vijayaraman

Rajakumar

Naperkowski

et al. 2022

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiologic form of pacing and has been associated with reduced risk for heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and mortality compared to right ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a safe and effective alternative option for patients needing ventricular pacing. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between LBBAP and HBP among a large cohort of patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation. Methods: This observational registry included consecutive patients with AV block/ AV node ablation who underwent de novo permanent pacemaker implantations with successful LBBAP or HBP between April 2018 and October 2020. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death from any cause or HFH.Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with prespecified ventricular pacing burden and individual outcomes. Results:The study population included 359 patients who met the inclusion criteria (163 in the HBP and 196 in the LBBAP group). Paced QRSd during LBBAP was similar to HBP (125 ± 20.2 vs. 126 ± 23.5 ms, p = .643). There were no statistically significant differences in the primary composite outcome in LBBAP (17.3%) compared to HBP (24.5%) (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.72-1.82, p = .552).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing

Vijayaraman

Rajakumar

Naperkowski

et al. 2022

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Of note, patients with diabetes had a higher cumulative incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy compared to patients without diabetes before and after PSM, consequently, more HF hospitalization in patients with diabetes, and these findings were consistent with our prior study [ 32 ]. Recently, conduction system pacing, such as His-bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing, has been reported to reduce HF hospitalization compared to right ventricular pacing [ 33 , 34 ]. Our study was the first to show that diabetes was an independent predictor for cardiovascular events, including HF hospitalization, in patients after right ventricular PPM implantation, potentially related to more pacing-induced cardiomyopathy.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Diabetes Increases Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Patients Receiving Permanent Pacemaker: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

Chen

Liu

Tseng

et al. 2022

Journal of Diabetes Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Type 2 diabetes was associated with a higher risk for permanent pacemaker (PPM) treatment. The difference in cardiovascular outcomes between patients with and without diabetes receiving PPM treatment remains unexplored. Method. Between January 2003 and December 2017, 1742 patients receiving naïve PPM treatment comprised this retrospective cohort study and were categorized into two groups by the diagnosis of diabetes: group with diabetes ( n = 632 , 36.3%) and group without diabetes ( n = 1110 , 63.7%). The primary outcome was cardiovascular events including heart failure (HF) hospitalization and acute myocardial infarction (AMI). The secondary outcomes of this study included pacemaker infection, pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, cerebrovascular accident, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality. Propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to reduce selection bias between the study groups. Result. During a mean follow-up period of 7.8 ± 4.8 years, 264 patients had a cardiovascular event. Before PSM, the incidence of cardiovascular events was higher in patients with diabetes compared to patients without diabetes (19.8% vs. 12.5%, P < 0.001 ), and the incidences of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, cardiovascular mortality, and all-cause mortality were all higher in patients with diabetes compared to patients without diabetes. After PSM, the incidence of cardiovascular events was higher in patients with diabetes compared to patients without diabetes (18.8% vs. 12.3%, P = 0.015 ). The incidence of HF hospitalization was higher in patients with diabetes compared to patients without diabetes (15.3% vs. 10.2%, P = 0.037 ), whereas the incidence of AMI did not differ between the two groups. Moreover, after PSM, patients with diabetes had higher cumulative incidences of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and all-cause mortality compared to patients without diabetes. Conclusions. The prevalence of diabetes was over one-third of naïve PPM recipients of this cohort, and diabetes increased the risk of cardiovascular events in PPM recipients, especially for HF hospitalization.

show abstract

“…It may be currently considered as a serious alternative to CRT for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block (LBBB) or to avoid chronic pacing complications. 3,4 LBBAP leads also provide excellent sensing allowing ventricular arrhythmias detection. In case of nonresponse, there is still the possibility to upgrade the device to a left bundle branch-optimized CRT as described in LOT-CRT study.…”

Section: Case-reportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Physiological pacing with a DF‐1 single chamber defibrillator in a patient with permanent atrial fibrillation and heart block: A case report

Nasarre

Clémenty

Bodin

et al. 2022

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We report a case report of a 68-year-old man with chemotherapy-induced cardiomyopathy and uncontrolled permanent atrial fibrillation. Cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation and atrioventricular junction ablation were planned. DF-1 single chamber defibrillator was connected to lead's defibrillation and a lead destinated to left bundle branch area pacing. This system leads to reduce costs by one-third, improve battery longevity, and provide a more physiological pacing.

show abstract

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry

Cited by 148 publications

References 19 publications

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing

Diabetes Increases Risk of Cardiovascular Events in Patients Receiving Permanent Pacemaker: A Propensity Score-Matched Cohort Study

Physiological pacing with a DF‐1 single chamber defibrillator in a patient with permanent atrial fibrillation and heart block: A case report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About