Table 2.
Principal studies reporting data on LBBAP-CRT.
| Study | Design | Patients’ Allocation | Implant Success Rate | Pacing Threshold at Implant (V) | Pacing Threshold at Follow-Up (V) | Mean Follow-Up (Months) | Outcomes # | LBBAP/CS Lead Related Complications (%) # |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li et al. [65] ESC Heart Failure, 2020 | observational, prospective, multicentre | LBBAP: 37 BiVP: 54 |
LBBAP: 81% BiVP: N/A |
LBBAP: 0.81 ± 0.30BiVP: 1.22 ± 0.62 | LBBAP: 0.75 ± 0.31 BiVP: 1.43 ± 0.74 | 6 | narrower QRS, greater LVEF improvement, greater echocardiographic response and higher rate of super-responders with LBBAP vs. BiVP | LBBAP: 0 BiVP: N/A |
| Vijayaraman et al. [66] JACC EP, 2021 | observational, retrospective, multicentre | LBBAP: 325 | 85% | 0.6 ± 0.3 | 0.7 ± 0.3 | 6 | QRS narrowing, LVEF and NYHA class improvement | 2.5 |
| Jastrzębski et al. [67] Eur Heart J, 2022 | observational, retrospective, multicentre | LBBAP: 696 | 82% | N/A | N/A | 6.4 | N/A | N/A |
| Chen X et al. [68] Europace, 2022 | observational, prospective, multicentre | LBBAP: 49 BiVP: 51 |
LBBAP: 98% BiVP: 91% |
LBBAP: 0.92 ± 0.20 BiVP: 1.45 ± 0.39 |
LBBAP: 0.66 ± 0.17 BiVP: 1.42 ± 0.33 |
12 | narrower QRS, greater LVEF improvement and higher rate of super-responders with LBBAP vs. BiVP | LBBAP: 0 BiVP: 1.8 |
| Wang Y et al. [69] JACC EP, 2022 | randomized, prospective, multicentre | LBBAP: 20 BiVP: 20 |
LBBAP: 90% BiVP: 80% |
LBBAP: 0.69 ± 0.26 BiVP: 0.92 ± 0.40 |
LBBAP: 0.82 ± 0.20 BiVP: 1.12 ± 0.67 |
6 | higher LVEF improvement and greater reduction in LVESV and NT-proBNP with LBBAP | LBBAP: 0 BiVP: 5 |
| Pujol-López et al. [70] JACC EP, 2022 | randomized, prospective, single-centre | LBBAP *: 35 BiVP: 35 |
LBBAP: 77% BiVP: 94% |
LBBAP: 1.0 ± 0.4 BiVP: 1.2 ± 0.5 |
LBBAP: 0.8 ± 0.4 BiVP: 1.0 ± 0.3 |
6 | similar decrease in LVAT and LVESV; similar rates of mortality and HF hospitalization | LBBAP: 0 BiVP: 5 |
| Vijayaraman et al. [71] Heart Rhythm, 2022 | observational, retrospective, multicentre | HBP: 87 LBBAP: 171 BiVP: 219 |
CSP: 86% BiVP: 75% |
HBP: 1.1 ± 0.7 LBBAP: 0.8 ± 0.4 BiVP: 1.3 ± 0.6 |
HBP: 1.1 ± 0.7 LBBAP: 0.9 ± 0.5 BiVP: 1.4 ± 0.7 |
27 | greater improvement of LVEF with CS; combined outcome of death or HF hospitalization lower with CSP vs. BiVP | HBP: 2.3 LBBAP: 0.6 BiBP: 0.5 |
| Ezzedine et al. [72] Heart Rhythm, 2023 | observational, retrospective, multicentre | HBP: 69 LBBAP: 50 BiVP: 119 |
N/A | HBP: 1.29 ± 1 LBBAP: 0.92 ± 0.54 BiVP: N/A |
HBP: 1.46 ± 1.14 LBBAP: 0.86 ± 0.5 BiVP: N/A |
9 | greater proportion of CRT responders in CSP groups vs. BiVP. No differences in overall survival or time to first HF hospitalization | HBP: 11.1 LBBAP: 2.1 BiVP: 2.5 |
| Díaz et al. [73] JACC EP, 2023 | observational, prospective, multicentre | LBBAP: 128 BiVP: 243 |
LBBAP: 84.4% BiVP: 94.7% |
N/A | N/A | 11 | higher LVEF improvement with LBBAP; significant reduction in all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization with LBBAP | LBBAP: 7 BiVP: 6.2 |
| Vijayaraman et al. [74] JACC, 2023 | observational, retrospective, multicentre | LBBAP: 797 BiVP: 981 |
N/A | LBBAP: 0.72 ± 0.4 BiVP: 1.15 ± 0.7 |
LBBAP: 0.74 ± 0.3 BiVP: 1.31 ± 0.7 |
33 | higher LVEF improvement with LBBAP and higher proportion of patients with NYHA class improvement; significant reduction in time to death or HF hospitalization with LBBAP | LBAP: 1.3 BiVP: 2.5 |
* This study included 4 patients with HBP-CRT. # In randomized studies, pacing thresholds, outcomes, and HBP lead-related complications are reported as per-protocol analyses. BBB: Bundle branch block; BiVP: Biventricular pacing; CS: Coronary sinus; HBP: His bundle pacing; LBBAP: Left bundle branch area pacing; LVEF: Left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV: Left ventricular end-systolic volume; NYHA: New York Heart Association.