Left Bundle-Branch Area Pacing vs Right Ventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block and Preserved Left Ventricular Function: The LEAP-Block Randomized Clinical Trial
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 30, 2026

Benefits of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in an Asynchronous Heart Failure Model Induced by Left Bundle Branch Ablation and Rapid Pacing
Published on: December 11, 2017
Xiaofei Li1, Haixiong Wang2, Wenjuan Zhang3
1Cardiac Arrhythmia Center, Fuwai Hospital, National Center for Cardiovascular Diseases, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China.
Importance:
For patients with atrioventricular block requiring high-burden ventricular pacing, the optimal pacing strategy to reduce heart failure (HF) and all-cause mortality remains uncertain. Robust comparative evidence on the clinical outcomes of left bundle-branch area pacing (LBBAP) vs right ventricular pacing (RVP) in this population is needed.
Objective:
To compare 24-month clinical outcomes of LBBAP vs RVP in patients with atrioventricular block and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; ≥50%).
Design, Setting, And Participants:
The LEAP-Block study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized, controlled, superiority trial conducted across 14 Chinese hospitals from January 2021 to August 2025, with last follow-up on June 3, 2025. Of 551 patients with LVEF 50% or greater requiring ventricular pacing who underwent eligibility assessment, 499 with anticipated ventricular pacing greater than 40% were randomized.
Interventions:
Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to LBBAP (n = 249) or RVP (n = 250).
Main Outcomes And Measures:
The primary end point was a composite of all-cause death, HF events, or upgrade to biventricular pacing at 24 months. Secondary end points included pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and device-related complications.
Results:
The primary analysis included 482 patients (LBBAP, n = 242; RVP, n = 240; mean age, 67 years; 46% female). Acute procedure success was comparable between the 2 groups (LBBAP, 237/242 [97.9%] vs RVP, 239/240 [99.6%]; P = .22), with left bundle-branch capture confirmed in 188 of 236 patients (79.7%). LBBAP significantly reduced the primary end point vs RVP (2.4% vs 12.5%, respectively; absolute risk difference, -10.1% [95% CI, -16.8% to -3.4%]; P = .003). Among secondary outcomes, the LBBAP group had fewer HF events (3.4% vs 11.3%; -7.9% [95% CI, -13.0% to -2.8%]). No significant differences were observed in all-cause death, biventricular pacing upgrade, device-related complications, or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. The 24-month Kaplan-Meier estimated cumulative incidence of the primary end point was 5.0% for LBBAP vs 13.2% for RVP (hazard ratio, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.73]; P = .004). LBBAP superiority was consistent across all prespecified subgroups.
Conclusions And Relevance:
Among patients with atrioventricular block and preserved LVEF requiring high-burden ventricular pacing, LBBAP was superior to RVP in reducing the risk of the composite end point of all-cause death, HF events, or upgrade to biventricular pacing at 24 months.
Trial Registration:
ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04730921.
Related Concept Videos
Dysrhythmias IV: Characteristics of Bradyarrhythmias
Dysrhythmias VI: Management of Dysrhythmias
Electrophysiology of Normal Cardiac Rhythm
Antiarrhythmic Drugs: Class II Agents as β-Adrenergic Blockers
ECG Interpretation of Arrhythmias II: Atrial, Junctional and Ventricular Arrhythmias
Heart Failure Drugs: β-Blockers

