Mode
Text Size
Log in / Sign up

Left bundle-branch pacing reduced death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing in heart failure with left bundle-branch block.

Left bundle-branch pacing reduced death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular…
Photo by Danielle-Claude Bélanger / Unsplash
Key Takeaway
Consider LBBP over BiVP for patients with LBBB and LVEF ≤35% to reduce death or HFH risk, noting mortality data were not significant.

This multicenter randomized clinical trial evaluated long-term clinical outcomes in 200 patients with heart failure and left bundle-branch block (LBBB) across six centers in China. Participants had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and were randomized to receive left bundle-branch pacing (LBBP) or biventricular pacing (BiVP). The median follow-up duration was 36 months, ranging from 33 to 39 months.

The primary outcome was time to death from any cause or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). The LBBP group demonstrated a significantly lower risk of the primary composite endpoint compared with the BiVP group, with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.26 (95% CI, 0.12-0.57; P < .001). Absolute event rates were 8% in the LBBP group versus 28% in the BiVP group. Specifically, HFH risk was significantly reduced with LBBP (HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.52; P < .001), corresponding to absolute rates of 7.0% versus 28.0%.

All-cause mortality showed no significant difference between groups (HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.08-2.04; P = .25), with absolute rates of 2.0% versus 5.0%. Echocardiographic response rates were similar (86.0% vs 81.0%; P = .34), although the super-response rate was numerically higher in the LBBP group (55.0% vs 36.0%; P < .007). Safety data, including adverse events and tolerability, were not reported.

The study authors note that further trials are warranted in this patient population. Given the robust design of this randomized trial, LBBP appears superior to BiVP for reducing the risk of death or HFH in patients with LBBB and severely reduced LVEF, though the mortality benefit remains uncertain.

Study Details

Study typeRct
Sample sizen = 200
EvidenceLevel 2
PublishedApr 2026
View Original Abstract ↓
IMPORTANCE: Left bundle-branch pacing (LBBP) has been proposed as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP) for patients with heart failure with left bundle-branch block (LBBB). However, robust clinical evidence from randomized clinical trials is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of LBBP and BiVP. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: This multicenter, prospective, randomized clinical trial enrolled 200 patients at 6 centers in China with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of 35% or less and LBBB from October 2020 to March 2022. This study was took place from October 2020 to September 2024. These data were analyzed September 2024 to December 2024. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either LBBP or BiVP. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary end point was the time to death from any cause or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). The secondary end points included all-cause death, HFH, echocardiographic response (absolute increase in LVEF ≥5%), and super response (absolute increase in LVEF ≥15% or improvement of LVEF to ≥50%) rates. RESULTS: Of the 200 included patients, 136 were male and 64 were female. The success rate was 98% in the LBBP group and 94% in the BiVP group (P = .28). The median follow-up duration was 36 (range, 33-39) months. The primary end point of time to death or HFH was significantly lower in the LBBP group compared with BiVP (8% vs 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.26; 95% CI, 0.12-0.57; P < .001). There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the groups (2.0% vs 5.0%; HR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.08-2.04; P = .25). However, LBBP significantly reduced the risk of HFH (7.0% vs 28.0%; HR, 0.23; 95% CI, 0.10-0.52; P < .001). The echocardiographic response rates were similar in both groups (86.0% vs 81.0%; P = .34) but the super-response rate was higher in the LBBP group (55.0% vs 36.0%; P < .007). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this study, LBBP was superior to BiVP in reducing the risk of death or HFH in patients with LBBB and severely reduced LVEF. Further trials are warranted in this patient population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry identifier: ChiCTR2000036554.
Free Newsletter

Clinical research that matters. Delivered to your inbox.

Join thousands of clinicians and researchers. No spam, unsubscribe anytime.