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

Juan Carlos Diaz1,2, Oriana Bastidas1,2, Julian Aristizabal2,3

  • 1Division of Cardiology, Cardiac Arrhythmia and Electrophysiology Service, Clinica Las Vegas, Medellin, Colombia.

Insights

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy (Endo-CRT) show similar heart failure outcomes. LBBAP is linked to shorter procedure times and reduced stroke risk compared to Endo-CRT.

Area of Science:

  • Cardiology
  • Electrophysiology
  • Heart Failure Management

Background:

  • Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy (Endo-CRT) are emerging alternatives to traditional biventricular pacing for CRT.
  • These techniques aim to improve heart failure outcomes by optimizing ventricular depolarization.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP versus Endo-CRT in patients with heart failure (HF) requiring CRT.
  • The study utilized conventional pacing leads for both LBBAP and Endo-CRT procedures.

Main Methods:

  • A comparative study included 223 patients undergoing CRT with either LBBAP (n=197) or Endo-CRT (n=26).
  • Primary efficacy endpoint: composite of HF-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Primary safety endpoint: procedure-related complications.
  • Secondary endpoints included procedural characteristics, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters.

Main Results:

  • No significant difference was observed in the primary efficacy outcome (mortality and HF hospitalization) between LBBAP and Endo-CRT groups.
  • Patients undergoing LBBAP experienced significantly shorter fluoroscopy times compared to the Endo-CRT group.
  • The LBBAP group demonstrated a lower incidence of stroke during follow-up (0% vs. 11.5%, p=0.001).

Conclusions:

  • Both LBBAP and Endo-CRT with conventional leads yield comparable rates of mortality, HF hospitalization, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement.
  • Endo-CRT is associated with longer fluoroscopy times and a higher risk of stroke.
  • LBBAP presents a potentially safer alternative with procedural efficiencies.
Abstract