Raffaella Mistrulli , Sara Gharehdaghi , Arthur Iturriagagoitia , Elayne Kelen de Oliveira , Lucio Addeo , Stefano Valcher , Sara Corradetti , Michele Mattia Viscusi , Peter Peytchev , Ward A. Heggermont , Marc Vanderheyden , Emanuele Barbato , Guy Van Camp , Martin Penicka
{"title":"Myocardial work parameters in left bundle branch area pacing versus other pacing techniques: a systematic review and aggregate comparative analysis","authors":"Raffaella Mistrulli , Sara Gharehdaghi , Arthur Iturriagagoitia , Elayne Kelen de Oliveira , Lucio Addeo , Stefano Valcher , Sara Corradetti , Michele Mattia Viscusi , Peter Peytchev , Ward A. Heggermont , Marc Vanderheyden , Emanuele Barbato , Guy Van Camp , Martin Penicka","doi":"10.1016/j.ijcha.2025.101683","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>Cardiac conduction disease often necessitates permanent pacemaker implantation. While right ventricular pacing (RVP) effectively treats bradycardia, it may lead to adverse cardiac remodeling and heart failure. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative, potentially preserving myocardial function. Non-invasive myocardial work (MW) assessment provides valuable insights into left ventricular systolic function, energetics, and efficiency. This study systematically reviewed and analyzed MW parameters, comparing LBBAP to RVP and His bundle pacing (HBP). A meta-analysis of 241 patients across five studies examined four MW parameters—Global Work Index (GWI), Global Constructive Work (GCW), Global Wasted Work (GWW), and Global Work Efficiency (GWE)—at baseline, post-implantation, and last follow-up (median: 180 days, IQR: 7–360 days). At baseline, MW parameters were similar between LBBAP and RVP. Post-implantation, LBBAP preserved MW more effectively, showing significantly higher GWI than RVP (2250.0 ± 400.0 vs. 1600.0 ± 300.0 mmHg%, p = 0.027), a difference that remained significant at follow-up (p = 0.035). GWE was also significantly higher at follow-up (p = 0.011), while GCW and GWW showed no significant differences. MW parameters did not differ significantly between LBBAP and HBP (all p-values >0.05). These findings suggest that LBBAP provides superior MW preservation compared to RVP, with significant benefits in GWI and GWE, while demonstrating comparable performance to HBP.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38026,"journal":{"name":"IJC Heart and Vasculature","volume":"58 ","pages":"Article 101683"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IJC Heart and Vasculature","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352906725000867","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Cardiac conduction disease often necessitates permanent pacemaker implantation. While right ventricular pacing (RVP) effectively treats bradycardia, it may lead to adverse cardiac remodeling and heart failure. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative, potentially preserving myocardial function. Non-invasive myocardial work (MW) assessment provides valuable insights into left ventricular systolic function, energetics, and efficiency. This study systematically reviewed and analyzed MW parameters, comparing LBBAP to RVP and His bundle pacing (HBP). A meta-analysis of 241 patients across five studies examined four MW parameters—Global Work Index (GWI), Global Constructive Work (GCW), Global Wasted Work (GWW), and Global Work Efficiency (GWE)—at baseline, post-implantation, and last follow-up (median: 180 days, IQR: 7–360 days). At baseline, MW parameters were similar between LBBAP and RVP. Post-implantation, LBBAP preserved MW more effectively, showing significantly higher GWI than RVP (2250.0 ± 400.0 vs. 1600.0 ± 300.0 mmHg%, p = 0.027), a difference that remained significant at follow-up (p = 0.035). GWE was also significantly higher at follow-up (p = 0.011), while GCW and GWW showed no significant differences. MW parameters did not differ significantly between LBBAP and HBP (all p-values >0.05). These findings suggest that LBBAP provides superior MW preservation compared to RVP, with significant benefits in GWI and GWE, while demonstrating comparable performance to HBP.
期刊介绍:
IJC Heart & Vasculature is an online-only, open-access journal dedicated to publishing original articles and reviews (also Editorials and Letters to the Editor) which report on structural and functional cardiovascular pathology, with an emphasis on imaging and disease pathophysiology. Articles must be authentic, educational, clinically relevant, and original in their content and scientific approach. IJC Heart & Vasculature requires the highest standards of scientific integrity in order to promote reliable, reproducible and verifiable research findings. All authors are advised to consult the Principles of Ethical Publishing in the International Journal of Cardiology before submitting a manuscript. Submission of a manuscript to this journal gives the publisher the right to publish that paper if it is accepted. Manuscripts may be edited to improve clarity and expression.