Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is considered an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, LBBP is not suitable for all patients with heart failure.
Objective: The aim of our study was to identify predictors of unsuccessful LBBP implantation in CRT candidates.
Methods: A cohort of consecutive patients with indications for CRT were included. Clinical, echocardiographic, and electrocardiographic variables were prospectively recorded.
Results: A total of 187 patients were included in the analysis. LBBP implantation was successful in 152 of 187 patients (81.2%) and failed in 35 of 187 patients (18.7%). The causes of unsuccessful implantation were unsatisfactory paced QRS morphology (28 of 35 [80%]), inability to screw the helix (4 of 35 [11.4%]), lead instability (2 of 35 [5.7%]), and high pacing thresholds (1 of 35 [2.8%]). The left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), non-LBBB (left bundle branch block) QRS morphology, and QRS width were predictors of failed implantation according to the univariate analysis. According to the multivariate regression analysis, LVEDD (odds ratio 1.31 per 5-mm increase; 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.63 per 5-mm increase; P = .02) and non-LBBB (odds ratio 3.07; 95% confidence interval 1.08-8.72; P = .03) were found to be independent predictors of unsuccessful LBBP implantation. An LVEDD of 60 mm has 60% sensitivity and 71% specificity for predicting LBBP implant failure.
Conclusion: When LBBP was used as CRT, LVEDD and non-LBBB QRS morphology predicted unsuccessful implantation. Non-LBBB triples the likelihood of failed implantation independent of LVEDD. Caution should be taken when considering these parameters to plan the best pacing strategy for patients.
Keywords: Cardiac resynchronization therapy; Intraventricular conduction delay; Left bundle branch pacing; Left ventricular diameter; Successful implant.
Copyright © 2024 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.