Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: How Does It Compare to Biventricular Pacing in Terms of Electrocardiographic Parameters and Procedural Outcomes?

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Biventricular pacing (BVP) to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a standard intervention for heart failure, yet suboptimal response remains common due to challenges in left ventricular (LV) lead placement. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising alternative, offering physiological activation via direct conduction system engagement. However, comparative data on electrocardiographic (ECG) and procedural outcomes between LBBAP-CRT and BVP-CRT are limited. <b>Methods</b>: This retrospective, single-center study compared LBBAP-CRT and BVP-CRT in 114 patients with left bundle branch block and LV ejection fraction ≤ 35%. LBBAP-CRT was performed using a Medtronic SelectSecure™ 3830 lead via a fixed-curve sheath Medtronic C315HIS, with successful capture confirmed by ECG criteria (Qr/qR in V1, LV activation time < 100 ms). BVP-CRT involved coronary sinus LV lead placement. Outcomes included QRS duration, pacing thresholds, complications, and procedural metrics. Statistical analysis employed logistic regression to identify predictors of optimal pacing thresholds (≤1.0 V at 0.5 ms). <b>Results</b>: LBBAP-CRT yielded greater degree of QRS narrowing than BVP-CRT (136.7 ± 13.5 ms vs. 147.2 ± 14.6 ms, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and lower pacing thresholds (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Complications occurred in 18.1% of BVP-CRT patients (phrenic nerve stimulation, lead dislocation) versus none in LBBAP-CRT (<i>p</i> = 0.011). According to the multivariable analysis LBBAP-CRT was associated with an optimal thresholds (<i>p</i> = 0.007), alongside lower E/e' ratio and lead impedance. <b>Conclusions</b>: LBBAP-CRT was associated with superior electrical resynchronization, fewer complications, and better pacing thresholds compared to BVP, suggesting its potential as a preferred CRT strategy. Larger randomized trials are needed to validate long-term outcomes.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Published
2025-12-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm15010200
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: How Does It Compare to Biventricular Pacing in Terms of Electrocardiographic Parameters and Procedural Outcomes?

Т. A. Atabekov, R. E. Batalov, С. Н. Криволапов, Sergey Popov
Journal of Clinical Medicine
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: How Does It Compare to Biventricular Pacing in Terms of Electrocardiographic Parameters and Procedural Outcomes?

Т. A. Atabekov, R. E. Batalov, С. Н. Криволапов, Sergey Popov
article en

Abstract

<b>Background/Objectives</b>: Biventricular pacing (BVP) to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a standard intervention for heart failure, yet suboptimal response remains common due to challenges in left ventricular (LV) lead placement. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising alternative, offering physiological activation via direct conduction system engagement. However, comparative data on electrocardiographic (ECG) and procedural outcomes between LBBAP-CRT and BVP-CRT are limited. <b>Methods</b>: This retrospective, single-center study compared LBBAP-CRT and BVP-CRT in 114 patients with left bundle branch block and LV ejection fraction ≤ 35%. LBBAP-CRT was performed using a Medtronic SelectSecure™ 3830 lead via a fixed-curve sheath Medtronic C315HIS, with successful capture confirmed by ECG criteria (Qr/qR in V1, LV activation time < 100 ms). BVP-CRT involved coronary sinus LV lead placement. Outcomes included QRS duration, pacing thresholds, complications, and procedural metrics. Statistical analysis employed logistic regression to identify predictors of optimal pacing thresholds (≤1.0 V at 0.5 ms). <b>Results</b>: LBBAP-CRT yielded greater degree of QRS narrowing than BVP-CRT (136.7 ± 13.5 ms vs. 147.2 ± 14.6 ms, <i>p</i> < 0.001) and lower pacing thresholds (<i>p</i> < 0.05). Complications occurred in 18.1% of BVP-CRT patients (phrenic nerve stimulation, lead dislocation) versus none in LBBAP-CRT (<i>p</i> = 0.011). According to the multivariable analysis LBBAP-CRT was associated with an optimal thresholds (<i>p</i> = 0.007), alongside lower E/e' ratio and lead impedance. <b>Conclusions</b>: LBBAP-CRT was associated with superior electrical resynchronization, fewer complications, and better pacing thresholds compared to BVP, suggesting its potential as a preferred CRT strategy. Larger randomized trials are needed to validate long-term outcomes.

Journal of Clinical MedicineVol. 15(1)
Tomsk National Research Medical Center (RU)
Openalex Percentile: Top 30%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
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.