Scholarlink

Background <p>The electromechanical window (EMW), defined as the difference between mechanical and electrical systole, is an emerging marker of arrhythmic risk and ventricular dysfunction. Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves mechanical synchrony, the influence of different pacing strategies on EMW is not well established. This study compared the effects of conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) on EMW, reverse remodeling, CRT response, and arrhythmic burden.</p> Methods <p>In this prospective, observational study, 80 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% undergoing CRT received BiV pacing (<i>n</i> = 40) or LBBAP (<i>n</i> = 40). Echocardiography with simultaneous electrocardiography was performed at baseline and 6 months. The primary endpoint was change in EMW.</p> Results <p>At 6 months, LBBAP was associated with greater QRS narrowing (42 ± 15 vs. 28 ± 13 ms, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and EMW normalization (− 38 ± 22 to − 5 ± 18 ms vs. − 36 ± 20 to − 18 ± 19 ms; <i>p</i> = 0.003). Improvements in LVEF, global longitudinal strain, and left ventricular end-systolic volume were also greater with LBBAP. EMW improvement correlated with reverse remodeling and QRS narrowing. Baseline EMW predicted CRT response (AUC 0.71), while persistent EMW negativity was associated with a higher incidence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (45% vs. 18%, <i>p</i> = 0.01).</p> Conclusions <p>LBBAP was associated with greater EMW normalization, improved reverse remodeling, and a lower arrhythmic burden than BiV pacing. EMW may represent an integrative marker of CRT response and residual arrhythmic risk. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require validation in larger multicenter randomized studies.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Electromechanical window as an integrative marker of remodeling and arrhythmic risk in biventricular vs. left bundle branch area pacing

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年8月5日

查看全文
  • Arvind Kumar,
  • Tania Bansal,
  • Salil Jaura

摘要

Background

The electromechanical window (EMW), defined as the difference between mechanical and electrical systole, is an emerging marker of arrhythmic risk and ventricular dysfunction. Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves mechanical synchrony, the influence of different pacing strategies on EMW is not well established. This study compared the effects of conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) on EMW, reverse remodeling, CRT response, and arrhythmic burden.

Methods

In this prospective, observational study, 80 patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% undergoing CRT received BiV pacing (n = 40) or LBBAP (n = 40). Echocardiography with simultaneous electrocardiography was performed at baseline and 6 months. The primary endpoint was change in EMW.

Results

At 6 months, LBBAP was associated with greater QRS narrowing (42 ± 15 vs. 28 ± 13 ms, p < 0.001) and EMW normalization (− 38 ± 22 to − 5 ± 18 ms vs. − 36 ± 20 to − 18 ± 19 ms; p = 0.003). Improvements in LVEF, global longitudinal strain, and left ventricular end-systolic volume were also greater with LBBAP. EMW improvement correlated with reverse remodeling and QRS narrowing. Baseline EMW predicted CRT response (AUC 0.71), while persistent EMW negativity was associated with a higher incidence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (45% vs. 18%, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

LBBAP was associated with greater EMW normalization, improved reverse remodeling, and a lower arrhythmic burden than BiV pacing. EMW may represent an integrative marker of CRT response and residual arrhythmic risk. These findings are hypothesis-generating and require validation in larger multicenter randomized studies.