What question did this study set out to answer?

To investigate the differences in clinical outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing and deep septal pacing after TAVR.

May 6, 20260 citations

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Deep Septal Pacing in Patients After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.

View Full Paper

LQLiangzhen Qu XDXueting Duan HCHan Chen

Key Points

To investigate the differences in clinical outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing and deep septal pacing after TAVR.
Conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing either pacing technique post-TAVR.
Assessed short-term outcomes via echocardiographic measures and NT-proBNP levels.
Evaluated long-term outcomes through a composite endpoint of mortality and heart failure hospitalization.
No significant difference in primary endpoint risk between LBBAP (23.1%) and DSP (23.3%).
LBBAP showed superior NYHA class improvement compared to DSP (53.8% vs. 27.9%).
Both pacing methods improved electromechanical and biochemical outcomes without significant differences.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been reported to improve long-term clinical outcomes in patients requiring permanent pacemaker implantation (PPMI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). Deep septal pacing (DSP) has emerged as a potential alternative to LBBAP. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether short-term and long-term clinical outcomes differ between LBBAP and DSP in post-TAVR patients. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing LBBAP or DSP following TAVR were retrospectively included at our institution. Short-term clinical outcomes (1-year follow-up) were assessed by echocardiographic measures of reverse remodeling and changes in QRS duration and N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels. For long-term outcomes, the primary composite endpoint was all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary endpoints included HFH and improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class (≥ 2 grades). RESULTS: A total of 82 patients (39 LBBAP and 43 DSP) were observed for a mean duration of 731.8 days. There was no significant difference between two groups in the risk of primary endpoint (23.1% vs. 23.3%, adjusted hazard ratio aHR 0.61; 95% CI: 0.23-1.61, p = 0.315) and HFH (17.9% vs. 20.9%, aHR 0.64; 95% CI: 0.22-1.82; p = 0.402). However, LBBAP was a robust predictor of NYHA class improvement compared to DSP (53.8% vs. 27.9%, aHR 2.23; 95% CI: 1.03-4.87, p = 0.043), especially when left bundle branch (LBB) capture was independently confirmed (aHR 2.74, p = 0.006). Both modalities were similarly effective in improving electromechanical and biochemical parameters, including LVEF, LVEDD, QRS duration, and NT-proBNP (all p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: LBBAP and DSP yield comparable risks for the primary composite endpoint and HFH, yet LBBAP provides superior symptomatic relief. Confirmation of left bundle branch capture is advisable to optimize clinical benefits. Liangzhen Qu and Xueting Duan contributed equally to this manuscript.

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Qu et al. (Sun,) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fa8ef304f884e66b531539 https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70361

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

KI fragen

Bookmark

View Full Paper