Left bundle branch area pacing versus endocardial resynchronization in patients with heart failure.

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and endocardial resynchronization (Endo-CRT) are alternatives to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

OBJECTIVE

To compare the outcomes of LBBAP versus Endo-CRT using conventional pacing leads.

METHODS

Patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing CRT with LBBAP or Endo-CRT were included. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of HF-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome was any procedure-related complication. Secondary outcomes included procedural characteristics, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 223 patients (LBBAP n = 197, Endo-CRT n = 26; mean age 69 ± 10.3 years, 32.3% female) were included. Patients in the LBBAP group had lower NYHA class, shorter preprocedural QRS durations (161 [142-183] vs. 180 [170-203] msec, p < .001), and a lower preprocedural spironolactone use (57.4% vs. 84.6%, p = .009) than patients in the Endo-CRT group. Fluoroscopy time was significantly shorter in patients undergoing LBBAP (11.4 [7.2-20] vs. 23 [14.2-34.5] min; p < .001). There was no significant difference in the primary efficacy outcome between both groups (Cox proportional HR 1.21, 95% CI 0.635-2.31; p = .56). During follow-up, patients undergoing LBBAP had a lower incidence of stroke than patients in the Endo-CRT group (0% vs. 11.5%, p = .001). Postprocedural LVEF (35% [25-45] vs. 40% [20-55]; p = .307) and change in LVEF (7% [0-20] vs. 11% [2-18]; p = .384) were similar between the LBBAP and the Endo-CRT groups, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP and Endo-CRT using conventional leads are associated with similar mortality and HF-related hospitalization, as well as improvements in LVEF. Endo-CRT is associated with longer fluoroscopy times and a higher risk of stroke.