[Comparing the impact of left bundle branch area pacing and traditional left ventricular pacing on right heart...

Objective: To compare the effects of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) versus traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) on left ventricular function in patients after dual-chamber pacemaker implantation. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted on patients who underwent dual-chamber pacemaker implantation from March 2017 to April 2021 in Beijing Anzhen Hospital. The patients were divided into the LBBaP group and RVP group based on the placement of the ventricular lead. Follow-up was conducted until March 2022, comparing baseline and follow-up echocardiographic parameters, pacing parameters, and the incidence and timing of complications between the two groups. The complications included ventricular electrode perforation, dislocation, pericardial effusion, tricuspid valve perforation, etc. Results: A total of 163 patients aged (68.3±13.5) years were included, including 82 (50.3%) men, with 80 patients in the LBBaP group and 83 in the RVP group. Baseline left ventricular end-diastolic diameter ((50.49±4.95) mm vs. (47.43±8.15) mm, P=0.01) and left atrium (LA) ((33.14±5.94) mm vs. (30.18±3.92) mm, P=0.001) in the LBBaP group were significantly higher than those in the RVP group. Follow-up LA diameter ((37.10±6.70) mm vs. (40.10±8.90) mm, P=0.016) showed a statistically significant difference in the LBBaP group compared to the RVP group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in baseline QRS duration(P=0.490). Postoperative QRS duration in the LBBaP group was significantly lower ((110.69±24.01) ms vs. (139.65±29.85) ms, P<0.010). Intraoperative threshold in the LBBaP group was significantly higher ((0.83±0.32) V/0.48 ms vs. (0.71±0.23) V/0.48 ms, P=0.004), while impedance was lower ((754.53±205.59) Ω vs. (905.41±302.75) Ω, P<0.01). Comparing with the RVP group, postoperative ventricular pacing ratio (VP) ((87.39±20.92) % vs. (79.49±25.76) %, P=0.034), threshold ((0.90±0.38) V/0.48 ms vs. (0.69±0.27) V/0.48 ms, P<0.01) in the LBBaP group were higher, and impedance ((507.45±77.37) Ω vs. (620.52±197.29) Ω, P<0.01) in the LBBaP group was lower. Postoperative follow-up period was 5 to 51 months, with a median follow-up time of 17 months. No statistically significant difference in overall complications between the LBBaP and RVP groups was found (13.8% (11/80) vs. 7.2% (6/83), P>0.05). The median time to occurrence of complications after surgery was significantly earlier in the LBBaP group (29.74 (95%CI 27.21-32.26) months vs. 46.17 (95%CI 42.48-49.86) months, P=0.030). Conclusion: LBBaP demonstrates more stable pacing parameters, substantial improvement in clinical left ventricular function, with a relatively higher threshold compared to traditional RVP, and complications occurs relatively early.