Florien Klein, Metra Daliry, Karin C Smits, Edoardo Bressi, Peter M Deissler, Johan van Koll, Jesse H J Rijks, Antonius M W van Stipdonk, Rachel M A Ter Bekke, Domenico Grieco, Chiara Manfuro, Giorgia Spiridigliozzi, Annalisa Casalese, Justin G L M Luermans, Frits W Prinzen, Roel Meiburg, Leonard M Rademakers, Kevin Vernooy, Uyên Châu Nguyên
{"title":"Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Reverts Electromechanical Window Negativity to a Similar Extent as Biventricular Pacing.","authors":"Florien Klein, Metra Daliry, Karin C Smits, Edoardo Bressi, Peter M Deissler, Johan van Koll, Jesse H J Rijks, Antonius M W van Stipdonk, Rachel M A Ter Bekke, Domenico Grieco, Chiara Manfuro, Giorgia Spiridigliozzi, Annalisa Casalese, Justin G L M Luermans, Frits W Prinzen, Roel Meiburg, Leonard M Rademakers, Kevin Vernooy, Uyên Châu Nguyên","doi":"10.1111/pace.70250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been associated with reduced arrhythmogenic risk compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP). Electromechanical window (EMW) is a marker of electromechanical instability, and a negative EMW is associated with ventricular arrhythmias. We hypothesized that LBBA-CRT increases EMW at least as much as BiVP-CRT does.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>129 CRT recipients (LBBAP: n = 63; BiVP: n = 66) were included. EMW and echocardiographic reverse remodeling were evaluated before and 6-12 months after CRT implantation in the entire cohort and in a subgroup of patients with a negative EMW at baseline. EMW is calculated by subtracting the QT interval from the time interval of QRS onset to the aortic valve closure artifact (QAoC) using CW-Doppler echocardiography.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>EMW measurements were feasible in 67% of patients (n = 86). No significant difference in ΔEMW was observed between LBBAP and BiVP. In patients with a negative EMW at baseline, both CRT strategies led to significant EMW increase (LBBAP: n = 21, ΔEMW +13 ms (IQR -1 to 70), p = 0.003; BiVP: n = 36, ΔEMW +26 ms (IQR -2 to 54), p = 0.006). There was no significant difference between CRT groups (p = 0.779). Left ventricular ejection fraction improved by 10% ± 11% and end-diastolic volume decreased by 37 ± 51 mL (<0.001), with no significant differences between LBBAP and BiVP. In multivariable analysis, a negative EMW at baseline, but not echocardiographic reverse remodeling, was the only independent predictor of EMW increase.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In CRT patients with a negative EMW at baseline, LBBAP and BiVP revert EMW to a similar degree.</p>","PeriodicalId":520740,"journal":{"name":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","volume":" ","pages":"1464-1472"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13638766/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pacing and clinical electrophysiology : PACE","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/pace.70250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/4/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been associated with reduced arrhythmogenic risk compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP). Electromechanical window (EMW) is a marker of electromechanical instability, and a negative EMW is associated with ventricular arrhythmias. We hypothesized that LBBA-CRT increases EMW at least as much as BiVP-CRT does.
Methods: 129 CRT recipients (LBBAP: n = 63; BiVP: n = 66) were included. EMW and echocardiographic reverse remodeling were evaluated before and 6-12 months after CRT implantation in the entire cohort and in a subgroup of patients with a negative EMW at baseline. EMW is calculated by subtracting the QT interval from the time interval of QRS onset to the aortic valve closure artifact (QAoC) using CW-Doppler echocardiography.
Results: EMW measurements were feasible in 67% of patients (n = 86). No significant difference in ΔEMW was observed between LBBAP and BiVP. In patients with a negative EMW at baseline, both CRT strategies led to significant EMW increase (LBBAP: n = 21, ΔEMW +13 ms (IQR -1 to 70), p = 0.003; BiVP: n = 36, ΔEMW +26 ms (IQR -2 to 54), p = 0.006). There was no significant difference between CRT groups (p = 0.779). Left ventricular ejection fraction improved by 10% ± 11% and end-diastolic volume decreased by 37 ± 51 mL (<0.001), with no significant differences between LBBAP and BiVP. In multivariable analysis, a negative EMW at baseline, but not echocardiographic reverse remodeling, was the only independent predictor of EMW increase.
Conclusion: In CRT patients with a negative EMW at baseline, LBBAP and BiVP revert EMW to a similar degree.