Comparison of long-term risk of device-related complications between left bundle branch area pacing and biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy

Abstract Introduction Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Europace (London, England) England), 2024-05, Vol.26 (Supplement_1)
Main Authors: Coluccia, G, Ziacchi, M, Dell'era, G, Donateo, P, Ammendola, E, Aspromonte, V, Guido, A, Ghiglieno, C, Parlavecchio, A, Nigro, G, Senes, J, Patti, G, Biffi, M, Accogli, M, Palmisano, P
Format: Article
Language:English
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Abstract Introduction Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among CRT candidates are lacking. Purpose The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of device-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT. Methods Prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolling 668 consecutive patients (71.2±10.0 years, 52.2% male, 59.4% NYHA class >II), with LVEF ≤35% (mean 33.4±4.3%) who underwent BVP (n=560) or LBBAP (n=108) for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2020 to June 2023 at 6 Italian centers. Propensity matching for baseline characteristics yielded 90 matched pairs. Rate and nature of device-related complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the two groups. Results During a mean follow-up of 18 months, device-related complications were observed in 14 patients: 11 in BVP (12.2%), and in 3 in LBBAP (3.3%) (p=0.026). Compared to BVP patients, LBBAP patients showed a higher cumulative survival free from first device–related complication (Figure). Complications related to coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in BVP patients (36.4% of all complications). The rate of overall lead-related complications was 6.7 and 2.2% in BVP and LBBAP patients, respectively (p=0.149). Conclusion LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications.
ISSN:1099-5129
1532-2092
DOI:10.1093/europace/euae102.470