Comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes with left bundle branch pacing, left ventricular septal pacing, and biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Abstract

BackgroundLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are referred to as left bundle branch area pacing. ObjectiveThis study investigated whether long-term clinical outcomes differ in patients undergoing LBBP, LVSP, and biventricular pacing (BiVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). MethodsConsecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <50%) undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled if they underwent successful LBBP, LVSP, or BiVP. The primary composite end point was all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and echocardiographic measures of reverse remodeling. ResultsA total of 259 patients (68 LBBP, 38 LVSP, and 153 BiVP) were observed for a mean duration of 28.8 ± 15.8 months. LBBP was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point by 78% compared with both BiVP (7.4% vs 41.2%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.22 [0.08–0.57]; P = .002) and LVSP (7.4% vs 47.4%; aHR, 0.22 [0.08–0.63]; P = .004]. The adjusted risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in LVSP than in BiVP (31.6% vs 7.2%; aHR, 3.19 [1.38–7.39]; P = .007) but comparable between LBBP and BiVP (2.9% vs 7.2%; aHR, 0.33 [0.07–1.52], P = .155). Propensity score adjustment also obtained similar results. LBBP showed a higher rate of echocardiographic response (ΔLVEF ≥10%: 60.0% vs 36.2% vs 16.1%; P < .001) than BiVP or LVSP. ConclusionLBBP yielded long-term clinical outcomes superior to those of BiVP and LVSP. The role of LVSP for CRT needs to be reevaluated because of its high mortality risk.