Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Using Quantitative Guidance of Multimodal Data in the Treatment of Heart Failure

Trial statusRecruiting
Trial phaseNot applicable
Trial typeInterventional
Biological sexAll
Age18-80
SponsorSecond Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

About this trial

Heart failure is a common chronic cardiovascular disease that seriously impairs patients' quality of life and long-term prognosis. When heart failure is complicated by complete left bundle branch block, the electrical signals that regulate orderly heart contraction cannot be transmitted normally along the left conduction pathway, causing the left and right ventricles to contract out of sync. This will gradually weaken the heart's pumping capacity, leading to symptoms such as exertional shortness of breath, persistent fatigue and body edema, and significantly increasing the risk of repeated hospital admissions and premature death.

Traditional biventricular pacing is the standard treatment recommended by international clinical guidelines for this condition. By implanting pacing leads in both ventricles to deliver synchronized electrical stimulation, it restores cardiac synchrony, improves cardiac function and reduces mortality in most eligible patients. However, the placement of left ventricular leads is entirely dependent on the anatomy of the coronary venous system. Due to wide individual differences in venous structure, many patients encounter intraoperative difficulties such as failed coronary sinus intubation, absence of suitable target veins, phrenic nerve stimulation, high pacing thresholds and postoperative lead displacement. More importantly, approximately 30% to 40% of patients still show no significant improvement in cardiac function or symptoms even after optimized device programming, a condition known as non-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Left bundle branch area pacing is an innovative physiological pacing technique originally developed in China. It advances a pacing lead through the ventricular septum to directly activate the heart's intrinsic conduction bundle, allowing electrical impulses to spread along the natural conduction pathway and restore ventricular synchrony. Previous single-center observational studies have shown that this technique features stable long-term pacing parameters, relatively low operative difficulty and a favorable safety profile, and can achieve satisfactory cardiac resynchronization effects. Nevertheless, there is still a lack of high-quality multicenter randomized controlled evidence to confirm its long-term clinical hard endpoint benefits. In addition, current implantation operations largely rely on the personal experience of operators, without a unified quantitative positioning standard.

This multicenter prospective randomized controlled study is led by the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University, with three other tertiary general hospitals participating. A total of 100 eligible heart failure patients with left bundle branch block and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% will be enrolled. All participants have received at least 3 months of standardized guideline-directed anti-heart failure drug therapy before enrollment, and will be randomly assigned to two groups at a 1:1 ratio. One group will receive left bundle branch area pacing guided by multimodal quantitative data, and the other will receive traditional biventricular pacing. If the initially assigned pacing strategy cannot be successfully implemented during surgery, the patient will cross over to the alternative approach to ensure clinical safety and therapeutic effect.

After the implantation procedure, all patients will receive regular follow-up every 3 months for at least 1 year. During follow-up, the research team will perform examinations including 12-lead electrocardiogram, echocardiogram, 6-minute walk test and pacemaker device interrogation, and systematically record clinical events such as all-cause death, heart failure rehospitalization, malignant arrhythmia and procedure-related complications. The core goal of this study is to compare the incidence of the composite endpoint of all-cause death and heart failure rehospitalization between the two groups, and verify whether multimodal quantitative-guided left bundle branch area pacing can bring superior long-term clinical benefits to heart failure patients. The findings are expected to provide reliable evidence for the clinical application of this technique, help establish standardized quantitative implantation standards, and offer a more optimized treatment option for more heart failure patients.

Eligibility criteria

This trial does not accept healthy volunteers

Qualifiers

Age 18-80 years;

Sinus rhythm, complete left bundle branch block (LBBB) fulfilling the Strauss criteria (QRS duration >140 ms in men or >130 ms in women);

Non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class II-IV;

Signed informed consent.

Disqualifiers

Coronary CT-confirmed ischemic cardiomyopathy;

wide QRS complex with non-LBBB morphology, including right bundle branch block and nonspecific intraventricular conduction block;

persistent atrial fibrillation;

pacemaker replacement without reimplantation of ventricular leads;

Trial design

Design model

Parallel

Treatments tested in this trial

  • Apply multimodal data fusion for quantitative guidance of left bundle branch region pacing

    Procedure/Surgery

    This intervention adopts the trans-septal approach. A 3830 active fixation lead is delivered via a C315 delivery sheath under 30° right anterior oblique fluoroscopy to the right ventricular septal side. The implantation site is guided by multimodal data fusion, including imaging distance parameters and intraoperative pacing electrocardiographic indicators. The lead is screwed into the deep interventricular septum to reach the left ventricular subendocardial region, with paced QRS in lead V1 presenting right bundle branch block morphology to correct baseline left bundle branch block. Sensing function, pacing thresholds and pacing impedance are tested intraoperatively, and left ventricular activation time is measured to confirm left bundle branch capture. If LBBP is not achieved after 5 site attempts, participants will cross over to the biventricular pacing arm. Postoperatively, devices are programmed to DDD mode with optimized AV intervals to achieve the narrowest paced QRS duration.

  • Conventional Biventricular Pacing

    Procedure/Surgery

    This intervention delivers standard cardiac resynchronization therapy via the coronary sinus approach to correct left bundle branch block and restore biventricular electromechanical synchrony. Retrograde coronary venography is performed intraoperatively to visualize the coronary sinus trunk and its branch vessels, and the lateral or posterolateral vein is selected as the target for left ventricular lead implantation. For defibrillator devices, the defibrillation lead is implanted in the right ventricular outflow tract septum or apex. If no target vein is available, implantation fails, pacing threshold is excessively high, or phrenic nerve stimulation occurs, participants will cross over to the LBBAP arm. For patients with quadripolar left ventricular leads, pacing vectors are selected based on pacing threshold and paced QRS width. Postoperatively, devices are programmed to DDD mode with optimized AV and VV intervals to maintain a biventricular pacing proportion above 92%.

Treatment groups

100 Participants
are divided into 2 treatment groups
Group A: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) groupExperimental treatment 1 intervention
Group B: Biventricular pacing (BiVP) groupActive comparator 1 intervention

Trial outcomes

Primary outcomes

1

Incidence of composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and/or heart failure rehospitalization

This is the primary endpoint of the study. The composite endpoint consists of all-cause mortality and/or heart failure rehospitalization (HFH). HFH is defined as worsening of heart failure symptoms and signs in outpatient, emergency or inpatient settings, requiring oral or intravenous diuretics to relieve clinical symptoms. The incidence of the composite endpoint during follow-up is compared between the two study arms to evaluate the difference in clinical efficacy.

Time frame
Postoperative follow-up is conducted every 3 months for a total of one year.

Secondary outcomes

1

Incidence of all-cause mortality during study follow-up

This secondary endpoint records the occurrence of all-cause death during the follow-up period. The incidence of all-cause mortality is compared between the left bundle branch area pacing group and the conventional biventricular pacing group.

Time frame
Postoperative follow-up is conducted every 3 months for a total of one year.
2

Incidence of heart failure rehospitalization during study follow-up

This secondary endpoint records the occurrence of heart failure rehospitalization, which is defined as rehospitalization due to exacerbated heart failure requiring diuretic therapy. The incidence is compared between the two study groups.

Time frame
Postoperative follow-up is conducted every 3 months for a total of one year.
3

Incidence of malignant ventricular arrhythmia during study follow-up

This secondary endpoint records the occurrence of malignant ventricular arrhythmia, whose definition is consistent with the previously published VANIS study. The incidence is compared between the two study arms.

Time frame
Postoperative follow-up is conducted every 3 months for a total of one year.
4

Incidence of procedure-related complications

This secondary safety endpoint records all procedure- and device-related complications. The incidence of complications is compared between the two groups to evaluate the safety profile of each pacing strategy.

Time frame
Postoperative follow-up is conducted every 3 months for a total of one year.

Other outcomes

Sponsors and contacts

Click on the lead sponsor to view all of their trials.

Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University

Lead sponsor

The Affiliated Hospital of Inner Mongolia Medical University

Collaborator

Chifeng Municipal Hospital

Collaborator

Hohhot First Hospital, Hohhot, Inner Mongolia, China

Collaborator