Login
Search
Search
0 Dates
2026
2025
2024
2023
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
0 Events
CPC 2018
CPC 2019
Curso de Atualização em Medicina Cardiovascular 2019
Reunião Anual Conjunta dos Grupos de Estudo de Cirurgia Cardíaca, Doenças Valvulares e Ecocardiografia da SPC
CPC 2020
CPC 2021
CPC 2022
CPC 2023
CPC 2024
CPC 2025
CPC 2026
0 Topics
A. Basics
B. Imaging
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
D. Heart Failure
E. Coronary Artery Disease, Acute Coronary Syndromes, Acute Cardiac Care
F. Valvular, Myocardial, Pericardial, Pulmonary, Congenital Heart Disease
G. Aortic Disease, Peripheral Vascular Disease, Stroke
H. Interventional Cardiology and Cardiovascular Surgery
I. Hypertension
J. Preventive Cardiology
K. Cardiovascular Disease In Special Populations
L. Cardiovascular Pharmacology
M. Cardiovascular Nursing
N. E-Cardiology / Digital Health, Public Health, Health Economics, Research Methodology
O. Basic Science
P. Other
0 Themes
01. History of Cardiology
02. Clinical Skills
03. Imaging
04. Arrhythmias, General
05. Atrial Fibrillation
06. Supraventricular Tachycardia (non-AF)
07. Syncope and Bradycardia
08. Ventricular Arrhythmias and Sudden Cardiac Death (SCD)
09. Device Therapy
10. Chronic Heart Failure
11. Acute Heart Failure
12. Coronary Artery Disease (Chronic)
13. Acute Coronary Syndromes
14. Acute Cardiac Care
15. Valvular Heart Disease
16. Infective Endocarditis
17. Myocardial Disease
18. Pericardial Disease
19. Tumors of the Heart
20. Congenital Heart Disease and Pediatric Cardiology
21. Pulmonary Circulation, Pulmonary Embolism, Right Heart Failure
22. Aortic Disease
23. Peripheral Vascular and Cerebrovascular Disease
24. Stroke
25. Interventional Cardiology
26. Cardiovascular Surgery
27. Hypertension
28. Risk Factors and Prevention
29. Rehabilitation and Sports Cardiology
30. Cardiovascular Disease in Special Populations
31. Pharmacology and Pharmacotherapy
32. Cardiovascular Nursing
33. e-Cardiology / Digital Health
34. Public Health and Health Economics
35. Research Methodology
36. Basic Science
37. Miscellanea
0 Resources
Abstract
Slides
Vídeo
Report
CLEAR FILTERS
Physiologic vs. conventional pacing: comparative outcomes in patients with >40% ventricular pacing
Session:
Sessão de Comunicações Orais 15 – Instabilidade eléctrica e terapêuticas do sistema de condução: do pacing à tempestade arrítmica
Speaker:
Ana L. Silva
Congress:
CPC 2026
Topic:
C. Arrhythmias and Device Therapy
Theme:
09. Device Therapy
Subtheme:
09.1 Antibradycardia Pacing
Session Type:
Comunicações Orais
FP Number:
---
Authors:
Ana L. Silva; Maria João Primo; Tatiana Pereira dos Santos; Mariana Rodrigues Simões; Ana Luísa Rocha; Inês Cruz; Didier Martinez; Carolina Saleiro; Patrícia Alves; João André Ferreira; Natália António; Lino Gonçalves
Abstract
<p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Background:</strong> Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiologically favourable alternative to conventional right ventricular (RV) septal/apical pacing. However, comparative evidence regarding clinical outcomes in real-world populations remains limited.</p> <p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Purpose:</strong> To compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and conventional RV septal/apical pacing in patients with a high pacing percentage (≥40%).</p> <p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Methods: </strong>This single-center, retrospective study included patients who underwent pacemaker implantation between September 2022 and July 2024 and achieved ≥40% ventricular pacing during follow-up. QRS duration at baseline and under pacing was measured, and specific LBBAP parameters were recorded. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was assessed at baseline and at follow-up when available. Clinical outcomes included heart failure (HF) hospitalization, HF-related emergency department (ED) visits, and a composite endpoint of these events. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 31.0 software. Cox regression was used to compare clinical outcomes. </p> <p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 663 patients were included: 257 (38.8%) received LBBAP and 406 (61.2%) RV septal/apical pacing. Median age was 80.0 years (IQR 12.0), 68.3% were male, and median follow-up was 26.8±6.5 months. Indications for pacing were mostly third (41.9%) or second-degree (21.3%) atrioventricular block. Median pacing percentage was 99.0% (IQR 7.3) in the LBBAP group and 96.5% (IQR 22.0) in the RV pacing group (p<0.001). Most patients were in sinus rhythm (62.3%).<br /> Baseline QRS duration was wider in the LBBAP group (146.4±33.0ms vs. 128.3±28.1ms, p<0.001), whereas paced QRS was significantly narrower (120.0±16.1ms vs. 155.8±19.5ms; p<0.001). QRS variation differed markedly between groups (LBBAP: −27.5±30.7ms vs. RV: +26.7±28.8ms; p<0.001). Mean LVAT in LBBAP was 79.7±10.5ms, and the V6–V1 interpeak interval was 42.1±10.4ms.<br /> LBBAP was associated with an improvement in LVEF after pacing (+5.0±9.2%), whereas RV pacing resulted in a decline (−4.72±8.6%) (B=−9.667, 95% CI -11,924 to -7,409, p<0.001). The proportion of patients who lost LVEF after pacing was significantly higher in RV pacing (43.5% vs. 9.3%, p<0.001).<br /> RV pacing was associated with higher rates of HF-related ED visits (HR 1.998, 95% CI 1.159–3.444; p=0.013) and with a higher risk of the composite clinical endpoint (HR 1.777, 95% CI 1.054–2.995; p=0.031). No significant differences were found in HF hospitalizations (HR 1.381, 95% CI 0.680-2.807; p=0.372).</p> <p style="text-align:justify"><strong>Conclusion:</strong> In patients with ventricular pacing ≥40%, LBBAP was associated with narrower paced QRS complexes, improved left ventricular systolic function, and fewer HF-related ED visits compared with RV septal/apical pacing. These findings reinforce the physiological advantages of conduction system pacing in routine clinical practice. </p>
Our mission: To reduce the burden of cardiovascular disease
Visit our site