Impact of left bundle branch block morphology in predicting response to left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Abstract

Abstract Background Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing technique with an emerging role in resynchronization therapy [1-4]. QRS morphology has shown to significantly influence cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response [5-6]. Purpose The aim of this study was to assess whether different left bundle branch block (LBBB) definitions are associated with response to LBBAP resynchronization therapy. Methods 40 consecutive CRT candidates with previously unsuccessful biventricular (BiV) pacing or in which effective CRT could not be achieved with BiV pacing based on anatomical or functional criteria were selected for this study. Both ischemic and non-ischemic heart failure (HF) patients were included. Patients were divided into two groups according to LBBB morphology. Group 1 included 20 patients (45% ischemic HF) with strict LBBB definition according to Strauss criteria [7], while 20 patients in Group 2 (55% ischemic HF) had conventional LBBB morphology. Response to CRT was defined for (1) reduction in QRS duration; (2) increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 5% and (3) decrease in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) ≥ 15%. Results LBBAP was successfully achieved in all patients (mean age: 72.0 years; male: 29). The mean baseline QRS duration before implantation was 178.6±13.8 in the Group 1 and 170.8±29.4 in the Group 2, without a statistically significant difference. Over a mean follow-up of 5.6 months, LBBAP resulted in QRS narrowing in both groups, with a greater reduction in Group 1 (-40.6 ms) compared to Group 2 (-15.1 ms), (p 0.002). Pre-implantation ventricular systolic function did not show significant differences between the two groups, with a mean of 30.1±3.5% in the Strauss LBBB group and 31.0±6.0% in the conventional LBBB group. After implantation LVEF was 42.1±8.5 % in the true LBBB patients and 33.2±7.5 in the conventional LBBB group. Echocardiographic response was observed in 65% of patients with a statistically significant difference between Group 1 (90% of responders) and Group 2 (40% of responders), (p 0,001). HF etiology did not impact the response to LBBAP CRT. Conclusions Strict LBBB definition is associated to a greater electrocardiographic and echocardiographic response in patients receiving LBBAP CRT compared to conventional LBBB criteria.\