Sex Differences and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Right Ventricular Pacing

<b>Background</b>: Long-term right ventricular pacing (RVP) can cause electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony, resulting in adverse outcomes. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiological pacing modality and is considered a promising alternative. To date, the long-term outcomes of LBBAP compared with RVP, particularly with respect to sex differences, remain unclear. <b>Methods</b>: Between January 2017 and July 2024, 1211 patients who underwent de novo pacemaker implantation were enrolled and categorized into RVP (<i>n</i> = 789) and LBBAP (<i>n</i> = 422). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to minimize the selection bias and achieve comparability among the study population. A post hoc power analysis based on the observed effect size and sample size showed a power of 80%, confirming sufficient sensitivity to detect group differences. <b>Results</b>: After PSM, 764 patients were analyzed. The mean age of the patients was 74.6 ± 10.5 years in RVP and 74.5 ± 9.8 years in LBBAP, respectively, and 52.3% patients were male. Patients with LBBAP had a lower incidence of the primary outcome (8.6% vs. 24.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), HFH (2.6% vs. 13.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and all-cause mortality (6.5% vs. 13.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared with RVP. There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes, including the primary outcome, HFH and all-cause mortality, between the sexes in the group with either RVP or LBBAP. However, during a 2-year follow-up period for survival analysis, male patients with LBBAP had a significant lower incidence of all the endpoints, whereas female patients with LBBAP had a lower incidence of HFH [HR 0.14 (95% CI 0.06-0.32), <i>p</i> = 0.001] compared with those with RVP. <b>Conclusions</b>: Regardless of sex, patients with LBBAP had a lower risk of poor clinical outcomes, including HFH and all-cause mortality, compared to those with RVP. Moreover, compared with RVP, LBBAP decreased the risks of all the major endpoints in male patients and the risk of HFH particularly in female patients. Further research is needed to establish the sex-specific responses to LBBAP.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-07-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm14155256
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
2.78

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Sex Differences and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Right Ventricular Pacing

Shaur-Zheng Chong, Uei -LIN Chen, Mien‐Cheng Chen, Po‐Jui Wu et al.
2 citations
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
2.78
article

Sex Differences and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Right Ventricular Pacing

Shaur-Zheng Chong, Uei -LIN Chen, Mien‐Cheng Chen, Po‐Jui Wu, Yung‐Lung Chen, Huang‐Chung Chen, Yen‐Nan Fang, Peilin Yang
article en
2 citations

Abstract

<b>Background</b>: Long-term right ventricular pacing (RVP) can cause electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony, resulting in adverse outcomes. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiological pacing modality and is considered a promising alternative. To date, the long-term outcomes of LBBAP compared with RVP, particularly with respect to sex differences, remain unclear. <b>Methods</b>: Between January 2017 and July 2024, 1211 patients who underwent de novo pacemaker implantation were enrolled and categorized into RVP (<i>n</i> = 789) and LBBAP (<i>n</i> = 422). The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Propensity score matching (PSM) was employed to minimize the selection bias and achieve comparability among the study population. A post hoc power analysis based on the observed effect size and sample size showed a power of 80%, confirming sufficient sensitivity to detect group differences. <b>Results</b>: After PSM, 764 patients were analyzed. The mean age of the patients was 74.6 ± 10.5 years in RVP and 74.5 ± 9.8 years in LBBAP, respectively, and 52.3% patients were male. Patients with LBBAP had a lower incidence of the primary outcome (8.6% vs. 24.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), HFH (2.6% vs. 13.6%, <i>p</i> < 0.001), and all-cause mortality (6.5% vs. 13.9%, <i>p</i> < 0.001) compared with RVP. There were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes, including the primary outcome, HFH and all-cause mortality, between the sexes in the group with either RVP or LBBAP. However, during a 2-year follow-up period for survival analysis, male patients with LBBAP had a significant lower incidence of all the endpoints, whereas female patients with LBBAP had a lower incidence of HFH [HR 0.14 (95% CI 0.06-0.32), <i>p</i> = 0.001] compared with those with RVP. <b>Conclusions</b>: Regardless of sex, patients with LBBAP had a lower risk of poor clinical outcomes, including HFH and all-cause mortality, compared to those with RVP. Moreover, compared with RVP, LBBAP decreased the risks of all the major endpoints in male patients and the risk of HFH particularly in female patients. Further research is needed to establish the sex-specific responses to LBBAP.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 14(15)
Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital (TW)
Chang Gung Medical Foundation, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital
Good health and well-being
Openalex Percentile: Top 9%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
2.78
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.