TY - JOUR
T1 - Conduction System Pacing Versus Conventional Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Congenital Heart Disease
AU - Moore, Jeremy P.
AU - de Groot, Natasja M.S.
AU - O'Connor, Matthew
AU - Cortez, Daniel
AU - Su, Jonathan
AU - Burrows, Austin
AU - Shannon, Kevin M.
AU - O'Leary, Edward T.
AU - Shah, Maully
AU - Khairy, Paul
AU - Atallah, Joseph
AU - Wong, Tom
AU - Lloyd, Michael S.
AU - Taverne, Yannick J.H.J.
AU - Dubin, Anne M.
AU - Nielsen, Jens C.
AU - Evertz, Reinder
AU - Czosek, Richard J.
AU - Madhavan, Malini
AU - Chang, Philip M.
AU - Aydin, Alper
AU - Cano, Óscar
N1 - Publisher Copyright:© 2023
PY - 2023/3
Y1 - 2023/3
N2 - Background: Dyssynchrony-associated left ventricular systolic dysfunction is a major contributor to heart failure in congenital heart disease (CHD). Although conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has shown benefit, the comparative efficacy of cardiac conduction system pacing (CSP) is unknown. Objectives: The purpose of this study was compare the clinical outcomes of CSP vs conventional CRT in CHD with biventricular, systemic left ventricular anatomy. Methods: Retrospective CSP data from 7 centers were compared with propensity score–matched conventional CRT control subjects. Outcomes were lead performance, change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and QRS duration at 12 months. Results: A total of 65 CSP cases were identified (mean age 37 ± 21 years, 46% men). The most common CHDs were tetralogy of Fallot (n = 12 [19%]) and ventricular septal defect (n = 12 [19%]). CSP was achieved after a mean of 2.5 ± 1.6 attempts per procedure (38 patients with left bundle branch pacing, 17 with HBP, 10 with left ventricular septal myocardial). Left bundle branch area pacing [LBBAP] vs HBP was associated with a smaller increase in pacing threshold (Δ pacing threshold 0.2 V vs 0.8 V; P = 0.05) and similar sensing parameters at follow-up. For 25 CSP cases and control subjects with baseline left ventricular systolic dysfunction, improvement in LVEF was non-inferior (Δ LVEF 9.0% vs 6.0%; P = 0.30; 95% confidence limits: -2.9% to 10.0%) and narrowing of QRS duration was more pronounced for CSP (Δ QRS duration 35 ms vs 14 ms; P = 0.04). Complications were similar (3 [12%] CSP, 4 [16%] conventional CRT; P = 1.00). Conclusions: CSP can be reliably achieved in biventricular, systemic left ventricular CHD patients with similar improvement in LVEF and greater QRS narrowing for CSP vs conventional CRT at 1 year. Among CSP patients, pacing electrical parameters were superior for LBBAP vs HBP.
AB - Background: Dyssynchrony-associated left ventricular systolic dysfunction is a major contributor to heart failure in congenital heart disease (CHD). Although conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has shown benefit, the comparative efficacy of cardiac conduction system pacing (CSP) is unknown. Objectives: The purpose of this study was compare the clinical outcomes of CSP vs conventional CRT in CHD with biventricular, systemic left ventricular anatomy. Methods: Retrospective CSP data from 7 centers were compared with propensity score–matched conventional CRT control subjects. Outcomes were lead performance, change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and QRS duration at 12 months. Results: A total of 65 CSP cases were identified (mean age 37 ± 21 years, 46% men). The most common CHDs were tetralogy of Fallot (n = 12 [19%]) and ventricular septal defect (n = 12 [19%]). CSP was achieved after a mean of 2.5 ± 1.6 attempts per procedure (38 patients with left bundle branch pacing, 17 with HBP, 10 with left ventricular septal myocardial). Left bundle branch area pacing [LBBAP] vs HBP was associated with a smaller increase in pacing threshold (Δ pacing threshold 0.2 V vs 0.8 V; P = 0.05) and similar sensing parameters at follow-up. For 25 CSP cases and control subjects with baseline left ventricular systolic dysfunction, improvement in LVEF was non-inferior (Δ LVEF 9.0% vs 6.0%; P = 0.30; 95% confidence limits: -2.9% to 10.0%) and narrowing of QRS duration was more pronounced for CSP (Δ QRS duration 35 ms vs 14 ms; P = 0.04). Complications were similar (3 [12%] CSP, 4 [16%] conventional CRT; P = 1.00). Conclusions: CSP can be reliably achieved in biventricular, systemic left ventricular CHD patients with similar improvement in LVEF and greater QRS narrowing for CSP vs conventional CRT at 1 year. Among CSP patients, pacing electrical parameters were superior for LBBAP vs HBP.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85150306404&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jacep.2022.10.012
DO - 10.1016/j.jacep.2022.10.012
M3 - Article
C2 - 36752449
AN - SCOPUS:85150306404
SN - 2405-5018
VL - 9
SP - 385
EP - 393
JO - JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
JF - JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
IS - 3
ER -