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.

Prognostic benefits of His‐Purkinje capture in physiological pacemakers for bradycardia

Upgrade to his bundle pacing in pacing-dependent patients referred for pulse generator change: Feasibility and intermediate term follow up

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

Long-term Safety and Feasibility of Permanent His Bundle Pacing

Application of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing in patients with giant right atrium

Cardiovascular imaging in conduction system pacing: What does the clinician need?

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.

Clinical outcomes of His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing

Is conduction system pacing more effective than right ventricular pacing in reducing atrial high-rate episodes in patients with heart failure and preserved ejection fraction?

Evaluation of Electrophysiological Characteristics and Ventricular Synchrony: an Intrapatient-Controlled Study During His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing.

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

Efficacy of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in the treatment of patients with atrioventricular block and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

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

Conduction system pacing associated with reduced heart failure hospitalizations and all-cause mortality compared with traditional right ventricular pacing in the Medicare population

Risk factors of pacing dependence and cardiac dysfunction in patients with permanent pacemaker implantation

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

Integrative and quantitive evaluation of the efficacy of his bundle related pacing in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing: a meta-analysis

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 His-purkinje Bundle Pacing and Right Ventricular Inflow Tract Septal Pacing in the Elderly

Outcomes with Physiologic His Bundle Pacing in Patients with Narrow QRS Complex

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