Comparison of Pacing Performance and Clinical Outcomes Between Left Bundle Branch and His Bundle Pacing

Abstract

BackgroundLeft bundle branch (LBBP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) provide physiological ventricular activation. ObjectivesThis study investigated differences in feasibility, device performance, and clinical outcomes between LBBP and HBP. MethodsConsecutive patients with LBBP and HBP from 2018 to 2021 in 2 centers were prospectively studied. The primary endpoint was optimal device performance during follow-up, defined as the presence of pacing thresholds <2.5 V, R-wave amplitude ≥5 V, and absence of conduction system pacing (CSP)–related complications. The secondary endpoint was the composite of heart failure hospitalizations or all-cause mortality. ResultsAmong 338 patients, 282 underwent successful CSP (119 HBP, 163 LBBP). Success rates, CSP-related complications, and need for reoperations did not differ between LBBP and HBP (P > 0.05). Pacing thresholds were lower, whereas R-wave amplitudes and lead impedance were higher in LBBP (P < 0.05). The primary endpoint was more frequent in LBBP than HBP (79% vs 34%; P < 0.001), with LBBP independently associated with 9-fold increased odds of optimal device performance (adjusted OR: 9.31; 95% CI: 5.14-16.86). LBBP was less likely to have increased pacing thresholds by >1 V (1% vs 19% HBP, P < 0.001). The secondary outcome was less frequent in LBBP than HBP (9% vs 24%, P = 0.001), with LBBP trending towards higher event-free survival (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31-1.23). The secondary outcome was independent of pacing burden or pacing indication. ConclusionsDespite similar feasibility and safety profiles, LBBP confers additional benefits in pacing performance and reliability, shows trends towards improved survival compared to HBP, and should be the preferred first-line CSP modality of choice.