Abstract:Aims: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) upgrade can improve cardiac function and clinical outcomes in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM), but the specific value especially compared with the level before right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients with PICM and non-pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (Non-PICM) is still unknown. Methods: This study retrospectively enrolled 108 patients with LBBP upgrade (38 patients with PICM and 70 patients with Non-PICM). PICM patients were defined as patients who had a normal left ventricular function and a > 10% decrease in LVEF after RVP, among patients experiencing > 40% RVP, when other organic heart diseases were excluded. Non-PICM patients were defined as patients requiring pacemaker upgrades with non-decreased cardiac function reasons, such as battery exhaustion, pacing system infection, and right ventricular lead failure. All upgrade patients experienced three stages: before RVP (Pre-RVP), before LBBP upgrade (Pre-LBBP), and after LBBP upgrade (Post-LBBP). QRS duration (QRSd) , lead parameters, echocardiographic indicators, and clinical outcomes evaluation were recorded at multiple time points. Univariable analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U-tests for repeated measures were used to assess the effects of the LBBP upgrade. Results: At the follow-up of 12 months, for PICM patients, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) significantly increased from 36.6 ± 7.2% at Pre-LBBP to 51.3 ± 8.7% after LBBP upgrade (P < 0.001), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) significantly decreased from 61.5 ± 6.4mm at Pre-LBBP to 55.2 ± 6.5mm after LBBP upgrade (P < 0.001), besides, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification improved from 3.16 ± 0.82 at Pre-LBBP to 1.76 ± 0.88 after LBBP upgrade (P < 0.001), but they all failed to restore the level of the initial status before RVP (LVEF: 51.3 ± 8.7% vs 60.3 ± 7.6%, P < 0.001) (LVEDD: 55.2 ± 6.5mm vs 49.7 ± 6.1mm, P < 0.001) (NYHA:1.76 ± 0.88 vs 1.11±0.31, P < 0.001). Furthermore, for PICM patients, the number of moderate-to-severe heart failure (HF) (NYHA III-IV) and diuretics used after the LBBP upgrade also could not restore the level before RVP (P = 0.002 and P = 0.004). At the follow-up of 12 months, Non-PICM patients after the LBBP upgrade had no significant improvement in LVEF, LVEDD, NYHA classification (LVEF: P = 0.521; LVEDD: P = 0.383; NYHA classification: P = 0.279) and no difference compared with Pre-RVP (LVEF: P = 0.559; LVEDD: P = 0.952; NYHA classification: P = 0.942). Conclusion: LBBP upgrade effectively improved the cardiac function and clinical outcomes in PICM patients but failed to restore the functional levels before RVP. For Non-PICM patients, the cardiac function and clinical outcomes after the LBBP upgrade had no significant difference when compared to Pre-RVP and Pre-LBBP.

Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared with right ventricular pacing in TAVI patients

Long-term outcomes of TAVI patients undergoing different pacing modality: LBBAP versus RVP

Feasibility and Outcomes of Upgrading to Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy and Infranodal Atrioventricular Block.

Feasibility and Safety of Both His Bundle Pacing and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Intermediate Term Follow-Up

Effects of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Permanent Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: A Retrospective Study

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Using Left Bundle Branch Pacing

His-bundle pacing vs biventricular pacing following atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced ejection fraction: A multicenter, randomized, crossover study-The ALTERNATIVE-AF trial

Mid-term clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to accurate right ventricular septal pacing

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Right Ventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block

The Feasibility and Safety of Left Bundle Branch Pacing Vs. Right Ventricular Pacing after Mid-Long-term Follow-Up: a Single-Centre Experience

Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing in older patients

THE SPECIFIC VALUE OF UPGRADING TO LEFT BUNDLE BRANCH PACING IN PATIENTS WITH PACING INDUCED CARDIOMYOPATHY OR NON-PACING INDUCED CARDIOMYOPATHY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY

Long-term efficacy of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure complicated with left bundle branch block

Chronic Right Ventricular Pacing Post-Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Attenuates the Benefit on Left Ventricular Function

Reduction of Unnecessary Right Ventricular Pacing by Managed Ventricular Pacing and Search AV+ Algorithms in Pacemaker Patients: 12-Month Follow-Up Results of a Randomized Study.

Impact of left bundle branch block or permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve replacement on mid-term left ventricular ejection fraction

Is Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Pacing Superior To Right Ventricular Apex Pacing? A Long-Term Follow-Up Study

Long-term follow-up results of the pacing to avoid cardiac enlargement (PACE) trial.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Postatrioventricular Junction Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Propensity Score Matching With His Bundle Pacing

Predictors and clinical outcomes of permanent pacemaker implantation after transcatheter aortic valve implantation

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