Left bundle branch area versus conventional pacing after transcatheter valve implant for aortic stenosis: the LATVIA study

• Published in: Journal of cardiovascular medicine (Hagerstown, Md.)
• Main Authors: Dell'Era, Gabriele, Baroni, Matteo, Frontera, Antonio, Ghiglieno, Chiara, Carbonaro, Marco, Penela Maceda, Diego, Romano, Carmine, Giordano, Federica, Del Monaco, Guido, Galimberti, Paola, Mazzone, Patrizio, Patti, Giuseppe
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.06.2024
• ISSN: 1558-2035
• DOI: 10.2459/JCM.0000000000001619

Atrioventricular block (AVB) is a frequent complication in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Right apex ventricular pacing (RVP) represents the standard treatment but may induce cardiomyopathy over the long term. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising alternative, minimizing the risk of desynchrony. However, available evidence with LBBAP after TAVI is still low. To assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP for AVB post-TAVI compared with RVP. Consecutive patients developing AVB early after TAVI were enrolled between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 at three high-volume hospitals and received LBBAP or RVP. Data on procedure and at short-term follow-up (at least 3 months) were collected. A total of 38 patients (61% men, mean age 83 ± 6 years) were included; 20 patients (53%) received LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in all patients according to chosen pacing strategy. Electrical pacing performance at implant and after a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 2.8 months was clinically equivalent for both pacing modalities. In the LBBAP group, procedural time was longer (70 ± 17 versus 58 ± 15 min in the RVP group, P = 0.02) and paced QRS was shorter (120 ± 19 versus 155 ± 12 ms at implant, P < 0.001; 119 ± 18 versus 157 ± 9 ms at follow-up, P < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the two groups. In patients with AVB after TAVI, LBBAP is feasible and safe, resulting in a narrow QRS duration, either acutely and during the follow-up, compared with RVP. Further studies are needed to evaluate if LBBAP reduces pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this clinical setting.