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.

The association between paced left ventricular activation time and cardiac reverse remodeling in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block

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

Electrical Synchrony Optimization for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients with Bradycardia and Heart Failure.

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

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

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

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

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

Left bundle branch pacing for heart failure and left bundle branch block patients with mildly reduced and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch pacing on ventricular function in atrial fibrillation patients referred for pacing: a prospective crossover comparison

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

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

Effect of Left Bundle Branch Pacing on Right Ventricular Function: A 3-Dimensional Echocardiography Study.

Left atrial remodeling and reduced atrial pump function after chronic right ventricular apical pacing in patients with preserved ejection fraction

The effects of right ventricular outflow tract and right ventricular apex pacing on left ventricular systolic function and cardiac remodeling

Left Bundle Branch Conduction Recovery Following Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Heart Failure Patient

Short QRS Duration After His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Predicts Left Ventricular Complete Reverse Remodeling in Patients With True Left Bundle Branch Block and Heart Failure

Electrocardiographic predictors of clinical outcomes in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with left bundle branch area pacing cardiac resynchronization therapy

Resynchronization Effects and Clinical Outcomes During Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing with and Without Conduction System Capture.

Predictors of left ventricular reverse remodeling after cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure secondary to idiopathic dilated or ischemic cardiomyopathy.

Relationship of Different Left Bundle Branch Pacing Sites and Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients