Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: an acute electrical and haemodynamic within-patient comparison of left bundle branch area, His bundle, and biventricular pacing

• Published in: Europace (London, England) Vol. 25; no. 3; pp. 1060 - 1067
• Main Authors: Ali, Nadine, Arnold, Ahran D, Miyazawa, Alejandra A, Keene, Daniel, Chow, Ji-Jian, Little, Ian, Peters, Nicholas S, Kanagaratnam, Prapa, Qureshi, Norman, Ng, Fu Siong, Linton, Nick W F, Lefroy, David C, Francis, Darrel P, Phang Boon, Lim, Tanner, Mark A, Muthumala, Amal, Shun-Shin, Matthew J, Cole, Graham D, Whinnett, Zachary I
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: US Oxford University Press 30.03.2023
• Subjects: Bundle of His; Bundle-Branch Block - diagnosis; Bundle-Branch Block - therapy; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial - methods; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy - adverse effects; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy - methods; Clinical Research; Electrocardiography - methods; Heart Failure - diagnosis; Heart Failure - therapy; Hemodynamics; Humans; Male; Treatment Outcome; Biventricular pacing; Left bundle branch area pacing; His bundle pacing
• ISSN: 1099-5129; 1532-2092
• DOI: 10.1093/europace/euac245

Abstract Aims Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP). Methods and results Patients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP −35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP −19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (−46 ± 15 ms, −36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP −43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP −45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP −13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8). Conclusion HBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response. Graphical Abstract Graphical Abstract