Skip to content

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block: an Observational Cohort Study

Status
UNKNOWN
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT05722379
Enrollment
1000
Registered
2023-02-10
Start date
2023-01-01
Completion date
2023-04-01
Last updated
2023-02-10

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

AVB - Atrioventricular Block

Keywords

Left bundle branch pacing, Right ventricular pacing, Mortality, Systolic dyssynchrony

Brief summary

Although emerging evidence demonstrated that left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a promising alternative for patients with either a bradycardia or a heart failure pacing indication. However, a direct comparison of the safety, efficacy and LV systolic synchrony between LBBP and RVP regimens was rare. In this study, the investigators aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between these two pacing methods for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). The investigators focused on AVB patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantations from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital.

Detailed description

Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is the standard treatment for patients with continuous ventricular pacing needs. However, clinical studies have shown that RVP can cause electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony of the left ventricle and increase the risks of cardiac insufficiency, atrial fibrillation (AF) and death. Although emerging evidence demonstrated that left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a promising alternative for patients with either a bradycardia or a heart failure pacing indication. However, a direct comparison of the safety, efficacy and LV systolic synchrony between LBBP and RVP regimens was rare. In this study, the investigators aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between these two pacing methods for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). The investigators focused on AVB patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantations from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital.

Interventions

PROCEDUREleft bundle branch pacing (LBBP)

After recording the His potential, the 3830-69 lead (Medtronic Inc., Minneapolis, MN USA) was sent 1-2 cm forward and downward to find the insertion point of the right side of intra-ventricular septum combined with the pre-rotation impedance and ECG changes. Ultimately, the tip was perpendicularly straightforward posited against the septum to the left septal side .

Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is the standard treatment for patients with continuous ventricular pacing needs.

Sponsors

West China Hospital
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
RETROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* included consecutively high-grade AVB patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantations from the 1 s t of January 2018 to the 18 thof November 2021 at West China Hospital

Exclusion criteria

* patients with pacemaker replacements were excluded.

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
composed of all-cause mortality, lead failure and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) during the follow-upsthrough study completion, an average of 2.45 yearcomposed of all-cause mortality, lead failure and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) during the follow-ups
Lead failurethrough study completion, an average of 2.45 yearreintervention for increased pacing thresholds, lead dislocation or ventricular perforation after the initial implantation procedure
HFHthrough study completion, an average of 2.45 yearHFH was defined as the admission to hospital for \>24 hours with worsening symptoms and signs of heart failure and requiring one or more intravenous diuretics or intravenous inotropic medications

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
peri-procedure complicationthrough study completion, an average of 2.45 yearincluded pericardial tamponade and pneumothorax
cardiac deaththrough study completion, an average of 2.45 yeardocumented arrhythmogenic death, an unexpected presumed pulseles condition with the absence of an obvious noncardiac explanation, or a death due to congestive cardiac failure or structural heart disease
recurrent unexplained syncopethrough study completion, an average of 2.45 yearrecurrent unexplained syncope

Countries

China

Contacts

Primary ContactZhongxiu Chen, Dr
619087296@qq.com18030708238

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 8, 2026