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.

Occurrence of Ventricular Septal Perforation in Patients with Permanent Left Bundle Branch Pacing Followed Up Using Echocardiographic and Computed Tomography Images

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

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

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

Electrophysiological Insights into Three Modalities of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients Indicated for Pacing Therapy

Anatomical and Histological Assessment of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Human Heart with Refractory Heart Failure

Long-term Safety and Feasibility of Permanent His Bundle Pacing

Preliminary Experience of Permanent Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Using Stylet‐directed Pacing Lead Without Delivery Sheath

Comparison Of Synchronization Between Left Bundle Branch And His Bundle Pacing In Atrial Fibrillation Patients: An Intra-Patient-Controlled Study

Procedure-Related Complications of Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Single-Center Experience

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

Clinical Features and Outcomes of Long-Term Lead Performance by Left Bundle Branch Pacing

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

Durability of left bundle branch area pacing

Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation

Intracardiac Ultrasound-Guided Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Bradycardia Patient.

Electrophysiological characteristics of lead-position-dependent EGM uninterrupted transition during left bundle branch pacing

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block

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

Permanent Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for High-Degree Atrioventricular Block in a 6-Year-old Child with 2-Year Follow-Up

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