Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Completed

NCT Number: NCT04110431

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

The present study will recruit 40 symptomatic heart failure patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) below 35% and complete left bundle branch block(QRSd≥130 ms). Each patient was randomized to either left bundle branch pacing(LBBP) or biventricular pacing(BivP) and was followed up for at least 6 months. The objective is to compare the effects of LBBP and BivP on cardiac resynchronization in the treatment of heart failure by measurable clinical parameters.

Completed

Looking for future studies?

Notify Me

Key information

Age range

18 year–80 year

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

Loading trial locations.

About this study

The traditional biventricular pacing (BivP) is an established treatment to corrected the cardiac dyssynchrony in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block(LBBB). It has been proved that BivP can improve clinical symptoms and reduce all-cause mortality in heart failure. However, BivP is subject to the variable coronary sinus(CS) anatomy and LV-pacing lead fail to be implanted in 5%-10% of patients due to the lack of appropriate target branch, high threshold or phrenic nerve stimulation. Almost 30%-40% of patients with successful implantation show no response. What's more, BivP just corrects the mechanical dyssynchrony caused by LBBB not corrects the LBBB. Recent studies have demonstrated that His bundle pacing (HBP) can correct LBBB, achieve physiological pacing and realize the cardiac resynchronization. But HBP has high technical requirements, lower sense value and higher threshold of correcting LBBB, which may be further increased in long-term follow-up.

The lastest research shows that pacing left ventricular septum using a transseptal approach can reduce left ventricular(LV) electrical dyssynchrony. Huang et al first confirmed that left bundle branch pacing(LBBP) can correct LBBB and improve cardiac function. LBBP has been reported to offer higher success rate with higher sense value and lower pacing thresholds compared with HBP. In chronic heart failure patients with LBBB that need cardiac resynchronization therapy(CRT), LBBP can achieve the similar electrical and mechanical resynchronization as well as HBP.

There is to date no randomized studies between LBBP and BivP in HFrEF patients with complete LBBB that need CRT. The purpose of this study is to compare the therapeutic effects of LBBP and conventional BivP on LV function and clinical endpoints in such patients. The present study will randomize 40 patients in two centres to LBBP or BivP. Baseline assessments including echocardiography parameters[left ventricular ejection fraction(LVEF ), left ventricular end-systolic volume(LVESV), left ventricular end-diastolic volume(LVEDV)], electrocardiogram(ECG), N-terminal pro B-type natriuretic peptide(NT-proBNP) level, New York Heart Association(NYHA) class, 6-minute walking distance(6MWD) and quality of life score(QOL) will be obtained. At the same time, the LBBP and BivP success rate, intraoperative and postoperative complications are recorded.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • LVEF≤35% as assessed by echocardiography and NYHA class II-IV despite optimal medical therapy for at lest 3 months;
  • Sinus rhythm, complete left bundle branch block (QRS duration ≥130ms);
  • Between the ages of 18 and 80;
  • With informed consent signed.

Exclusion criteria

  • After mechanical tricuspid valve replacement;
  • Unstable angina, acute MI, CABG or PCI within the past 3 months;
  • Persistent atrial fibrillation without atrioventricular block, the expected percentage of ventricular pacing below 95%;
  • Enrollment in any other study;
  • A life expectancy of less than 12 months;
  • Pregnant or with child-bearing potential;
  • History of heart transplantation.

Treatment and study plan

Left bundle branch pacing

Procedure

Successful LBBP was defined as (1) LBBP lead is located at 1.5-2cm from His-bundle towards right ventricular apex; (2) Paced QRS morphology of right bundle branch delay(CRBBD) in lead V1; (3) Stimulus to the peak of R wave in V5 and V6 QRS wave, which represents left ventricular activation time(Stim-LVAT), is less than 100ms and constant at high and low output pacing; (4) Unipolar pacing threshold<1.5V/0.5ms; (5) Recording P potential when narrow QRS escape rhythm or CRBBB escape rhythm(not essential).

Biventricular pacing

Procedure

Implantation of a LV pacing lead is attempted using the standard-of-care technique first.

Primary outcomes

  1. Echocardiography parameters(LVEF,LVESV and LVEDV)

    Time frame: Baseline; 6-month follow-up

    Changes in LVEF,LVESV and LVEDV between baseline and follow-up

Secondary outcomes

  1. Paced QRS duration

    Time frame: Postoperative day 1; 1-month,3-month and 6-month follow-upP

    Paced QRS duration is evaluated postoperative day 1 and 1 months, 3 months and 6 months after implantation.

  2. Changes in concentration of NT-proBNP in blood between baseline and follow-up

    Time frame: Baseline; 1-month,3-month and 6-month follow-up

    Blood test is performed at each time frame to determine the concentration of NT-proBNP(unit: pg/mL)

  3. Changes in New York Heart Association Heart Function Classification between baseline and follow-up

    Time frame: Baseline; 1-month,3-month and 6-month follow-up

    The higher the classification, the more severe the heart failure symptoms(four levels: I, II, III and IV)

  4. Changes in 6-minute Walk Distance between baseline and follow-up

    Time frame: Baseline; 1-month,3-month and 6-month follow-up

    Distance that a participant walk within 6 minutes

  5. Change in Quality Of Life Questionnaire score between baseline and follow-up

    Time frame: Baseline; 1-month,3-month and 6-month follow-up

    Reflect the effect of heart failure on quality of life, and higher scores represent a worse outcome

  6. Incidence of clinical adverse events

    Time frame: 6-month follow-up

    Including date and number of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, cardiovascular hospitalization and malignant ventricular arrhythmia

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University

Other

Collaborators

  • Fu Wai Hospital, Beijing, China

Registry information

Official study title

Comparison Between Left Bundle Branch Pacing and Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure(LBBP-RESYNC)

Acronym: LBBP-RESYNC

Important dates

Study start
2019
Primary completion
2021
Study completion
2021
First posted
Oct 1, 2019
Registry last updated
Mar 18, 2022

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.