Protection of Cardiac Function With Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block
NCT ID: NCT04624763
Last Updated: 2025-05-20
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
ACTIVE_NOT_RECRUITING
NA
683 participants
INTERVENTIONAL
2021-06-22
2028-06-30
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Atrioventricular Block
NCT05722379
Safety and Effectiveness of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients With Cardiac Dysfunction and AV Block
NCT05553626
Impact of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Right Ventricular Pacing in Atrioventricular Block (LEAP-Block)
NCT04730921
Feasibility of Simplified Permanent Left Bundle Branch Pacing Without Electrophysiological Recording System
NCT05553431
Comparison of Cardiac Function Between Left Bundle Branch Pacing and Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Septal Pacing in Pacemaker-dependent Patients
NCT04386473
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
Right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been the standard-of-care therapy for patients with bradycardia for sixty years. However, the selection of optimal pacing site is still controversial. Right ventricular septal or outflow tract pacing has not resulted in improved outcomes. RVP is considered to result in electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony and an increased risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM), heart failure and mortality. Biopace (Biventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block to Prevent Cardiac Desynchronization) study is a randomized controlled trial with a large population evaluating biventricular pacing versus RVP in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. But biventricular pacing was not shown superiority in clinical outcomes compared with RVP. As biventricular pacing is delivered at two non-physiological sites, it actually creates ventricular dyssynchrony in patients with narrow QRS durations. Thus, seeking for the optimal pacing site has been the ultimate goal of doctors who specialize in cardiac pacing.
His-bundle pacing (HBP) is thought to be the most physiological pacing modality, which was initial applied by Deshmukh et al in 2000. HBP activates native His-Purkinje system and produces favorable electrical and mechanical synchrony. Clinical observations have shown HBP could reduce the incidence of PICM and improve combined clinical outcomes. However, HBP is not widely applied because of challenging operating techniques, unstable long-term pacing parameters and risk of loss of ventricular capture in a significant number of patients.
Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) was first introduced by Huang et al in 2017. Since then, LBBP has been carried out boomingly in China. Similar with HBP, LBBP could activate left bundle branch (LBB) fibers and provide narrower paced QRS duration and better left ventricular (LV) mechanical synchrony than RVP. Animal studies also confirmed the physiological characteristics and anatomical lead locations of LBBP. Several clinical studies showed that LBBP could produce significantly narrower paced QRS duration and better echocardiographic response than biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and LBB block. Furthermore, the implantation procedure appears easier and capture threshold is lower when compared with HBP. LBBP has appeared to be a promising approach in the clinical practice. However, no randomized controlled studies have been reported to compare the efficacy of LBBP and other pacing modalities.
Objectives
The study aimed to demonstrate (1) the superiority of LBBP in preserving LV systolic function over RVP and (2) the feasibility and long-term safety of LBBP in patients with AV block.
Methods
Stratified randomization
A balanced randomization is applied according to the following stratifying criteria:
1. AF with slow ventricular rate: present or absent;
2. LVEF: ≤ 50% or \> 50%.
Lead implantation of LBBP
The lead implantation of LBBP has been well described previously. The implantation was performed using the Select Secure (3830) pacing lead delivered through a fixed-curve sheath. The 3830 lead was introduced transvenously into the right ventricle and screwed into the interventricular septum (IVS) until LV septum was reached, without protruding into the LV cavity.
Venous access was obtained via the left axillary vein or subclavian vein. The 3830 lead was inserted through the C315 HIS sheath. An intracardiac electrogram was recorded from the lead tip using the electrophysiological recording system. His-bundle electrogram was identified at the right anterior oblique 25° position and fluoroscopic image of the lead position was recorded as a reference. The sheath and lead tip were first advanced to the anterior lower site of the His-bundle position, and subsequently rotated in a counterclockwise fashion to place the lead tip in a perpendicular orientation to the IVS. A paced morphology of QS complex with a north in the nadir ("W"-shaped morphology) in surface lead V1 was usually observed at this location. As the lead tip was gradually screwed into the IVS, a rightward shift of the second notch in the "W"-shaped pacing morphology can be observed. The lead tip was considered to be in the final position once a paced morphology of right bundle branch delay (RBBD) in surface lead V1 was achieved. Moreover, a discrete potential before the QRS complex could be often recorded from the lead tip, and we defined this potential as the LBB potential. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was measured from the intracardiac pacing spike to the R-wave peak of QRS complex in lead V5 or V6. The penetration depth in the IVS was finally assessed by injecting a small amount of contrast medium through the sheath in left anterior oblique 45°. Echocardiography was routinely performed to evaluate the lead depth in the IVS before discharge.
Device programming
The devices are routinely programmed with a lower rate limit of 60 ppm. For DDD devices, the paced and sensed AV intervals are set as 150 and 120 ms, respectively.
Study organization
Echocardiographic core lab Echocardiographic examinations are performed at each study center before pacemaker implantation and at follow-up. All images are stored on DVD disks and sent to the core lab (Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University) for central analysis.
Study Steering Committee
The study steering committee is composed of three experts who are not the investigators of this study. The committee is responsible for the academic issues including the judgment of LBBP or LVSP.
Independent Data Monitoring Committee (iDMC)
The iDMC is composed of three experts including at least one statistical expert. The committee is responsible for the data examination including mid-term evaluation during the study and also the patient privacy protection.
Safety Review Committee
The safety review committee is composed of three experts who are not the investigators of this study. In case of severe adverse events, including all-cause death, acute cardiovascular or cerebrovascular events and other lethal or disabling diseases, the committee will be responsible for the investigation of the events. The physicians should report the events to the principal investigator of each center and the committee within 2 hours. The committee should report the events to the hospital ethics committee in 24 hours. The committee may recommend the early termination of the study if an excessive rate of adverse events is suspected.
Statistical analysis
Intention-to-treat principle
Data analyses are performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. If LBBP or LVSP fails, RVP will be performed and the patient will not be crossed over to the other group. If LBBP fails but LVSP succeeds, the sub-group analysis for these patients with LVSP will be done.
Sample size
According to previous publications of HBP and RVP, we supposed that the rate of 5-year composite endpoints in RVP group was 25% and the rate in LBBP group was 15%. With a recruitment period of 2 years and follow-up time of at least 3 years, at least 100 events are required to achieve a power of 80%. With alpha as 0.05, rate of lost-of-follow-up rate as 10%, the final sample size was estimated as 683 by using PASS Version 15.
Endpoint analysis
Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to compare the rate of endpoints between the two groups over time. Cox proportional risk model will be applied to calculate the hazard ratio. A p-value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Mid-term analysis
Mid-term analysis is performed by iDMC when the rate of events reaches 50% (at least 50 events of primary endpoint). If LBBP group exhibits statistically significant superiority over RVP group with the significant level of 0.003, the study could be effectively early terminated. Otherwise, the sample size will be re-evaluated. The iDMC may determine if the study will continue according to the re-evaluation of the sample size. Eventually, the data prior to and after the mid-term analysis are put together for final analysis with the significant level of 0.047.
Statistical software
All statistical analyses were performed using SAS Version 9.4 or R Software Version 3.6.
Study timeframe
The study will start in October 2020 and the complete enrollment will be expected by the end of 2022. At least 11 medical centers across China will participate in the study. With a period of at least 3-year follow-up, the study is expected to finish at the end of 2025. The recruitment might be slower if the mid-term analysis does not reach the statistical significance and a larger population is required.
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
RANDOMIZED
PARALLEL
TREATMENT
DOUBLE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
LBBP group
In this arm, a left bundle branch pacing(LBBP) lead is attempted to be placed.
Left bundle branch pacing
LBBP is defined if fulfilling criterion 1 and at least one in criteria 2:
1. Paced morphology of RBBD in surface lead V1 (QR, Qr, rSr', rSR' or Qrs);
2. One of the following should be met:
1. Selective LBBP with an iso-electrical window between the pacing spike and QRS onset;
2. If using dual-lead method with one at His-bundle and the other at LBB region, a retrograde His-bundle potential is recorded from His-bundle lead during LBBP;
3. LVATs at lead tip pacing of 1.5V/0.5ms and 10V/0.5ms are ≤ 80ms and the difference is \< 10ms;
4. A discrete LBB potential is recorded from lead tip and LVAT at tip pacing of 3V/0.5ms is ≤ 80ms19.
If criterion 1 is fulfilled but none in criteria 2 is met, the procedure is considered to be left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP).
RVP group
In this arm, a right ventricular pacing(RVP) lead are placed.
Right ventricular pacing
Implantation of a RV pacing lead is attempted using the standard-of-care technique first.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Left bundle branch pacing
LBBP is defined if fulfilling criterion 1 and at least one in criteria 2:
1. Paced morphology of RBBD in surface lead V1 (QR, Qr, rSr', rSR' or Qrs);
2. One of the following should be met:
1. Selective LBBP with an iso-electrical window between the pacing spike and QRS onset;
2. If using dual-lead method with one at His-bundle and the other at LBB region, a retrograde His-bundle potential is recorded from His-bundle lead during LBBP;
3. LVATs at lead tip pacing of 1.5V/0.5ms and 10V/0.5ms are ≤ 80ms and the difference is \< 10ms;
4. A discrete LBB potential is recorded from lead tip and LVAT at tip pacing of 3V/0.5ms is ≤ 80ms19.
If criterion 1 is fulfilled but none in criteria 2 is met, the procedure is considered to be left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP).
Right ventricular pacing
Implantation of a RV pacing lead is attempted using the standard-of-care technique first.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
2. LVEF \> 35%, NYHA classification I-III
3. Age \> 18 years
4. Signed informed consent
Exclusion Criteria
2. Unstable angina, acute myocardial infarction, CABG or PCI within the last 3 months
3. Cardiac surgery like valvular replacement, TAVI, ventricular septal myectomy or ablation within the last 3 months
4. Enrolled in any other study
5. A life expectancy of less than 12 months or unable to undergo the planned 6. follow-up for any reasons
6. Pregnant or with a child-bearing plan
7. A history of heart transplantation
8. Complex congenital heart disease (whether surgical correction or not) and post-surgery repair or post-closure of ventricular septal defect
9. Ventricular septal hypertrophy (≥ 15mm during diastole)
10. Isolated persistent left superior vena cava
11. With ICD, CRT or CRTD indications
12. Pacemaker replacement, upgrade and pocket infection needing re-implantation
18 Years
ALL
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
West China Hospital
OTHER
First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University
OTHER
Shanghai Zhongshan Hospital
OTHER
Zhongshan Hospital Xiamen University
OTHER
Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University
OTHER
Fujian Medical University Union Hospital
OTHER
Xijing Hospital
OTHER
First Affiliated Hospital Xi'an Jiaotong University
OTHER
Southwest Hospital, China
OTHER
Beijing Chao Yang Hospital
OTHER
The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Principal Investigators
Learn about the lead researchers overseeing the trial and their institutional affiliations.
Jiangang Zou
Role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University
Locations
Explore where the study is taking place and check the recruitment status at each participating site.
The First Affiliated Hospital with Nanjing Medical University
Nanjing, Jiangsu, China
Countries
Review the countries where the study has at least one active or historical site.
References
Explore related publications, articles, or registry entries linked to this study.
Sweeney MO, Hellkamp AS, Ellenbogen KA, Greenspon AJ, Freedman RA, Lee KL, Lamas GA; MOde Selection Trial Investigators. Adverse effect of ventricular pacing on heart failure and atrial fibrillation among patients with normal baseline QRS duration in a clinical trial of pacemaker therapy for sinus node dysfunction. Circulation. 2003 Jun 17;107(23):2932-7. doi: 10.1161/01.CIR.0000072769.17295.B1. Epub 2003 Jun 2.
Khurshid S, Epstein AE, Verdino RJ, Lin D, Goldberg LR, Marchlinski FE, Frankel DS. Incidence and predictors of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Heart Rhythm. 2014 Sep;11(9):1619-25. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.05.040. Epub 2014 Jun 2.
Funck RC, Blanc JJ, Mueller HH, Schade-Brittinger C, Bailleul C, Maisch B; BioPace Study Group. Biventricular stimulation to prevent cardiac desynchronization: rationale, design, and endpoints of the 'Biventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block to Prevent Cardiac Desynchronization (BioPace)' study. Europace. 2006 Aug;8(8):629-35. doi: 10.1093/europace/eul075.
Ruschitzka F, Abraham WT, Singh JP, Bax JJ, Borer JS, Brugada J, Dickstein K, Ford I, Gorcsan J 3rd, Gras D, Krum H, Sogaard P, Holzmeister J; EchoCRT Study Group. Cardiac-resynchronization therapy in heart failure with a narrow QRS complex. N Engl J Med. 2013 Oct 10;369(15):1395-405. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1306687. Epub 2013 Sep 2.
Deshmukh P, Casavant DA, Romanyshyn M, Anderson K. Permanent, direct His-bundle pacing: a novel approach to cardiac pacing in patients with normal His-Purkinje activation. Circulation. 2000 Feb 29;101(8):869-77. doi: 10.1161/01.cir.101.8.869.
Zhang J, Guo J, Hou X, Wang Y, Qian Z, Li K, Ge P, Zou J. Comparison of the effects of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing on cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony. Europace. 2018 Jun 1;20(6):1010-1017. doi: 10.1093/europace/eux120.
Vijayaraman P, Naperkowski A, Subzposh FA, Abdelrahman M, Sharma PS, Oren JW, Dandamudi G, Ellenbogen KA. Permanent His-bundle pacing: Long-term lead performance and clinical outcomes. Heart Rhythm. 2018 May;15(5):696-702. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2017.12.022. Epub 2017 Dec 20.
Abdelrahman M, Subzposh FA, Beer D, Durr B, Naperkowski A, Sun H, Oren JW, Dandamudi G, Vijayaraman P. Clinical Outcomes of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 May 22;71(20):2319-2330. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.02.048. Epub 2018 Mar 10.
Sharma PS, Dandamudi G, Naperkowski A, Oren JW, Storm RH, Ellenbogen KA, Vijayaraman P. Permanent His-bundle pacing is feasible, safe, and superior to right ventricular pacing in routine clinical practice. Heart Rhythm. 2015 Feb;12(2):305-12. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2014.10.021. Epub 2014 Oct 22.
Vijayaraman P, Chung MK, Dandamudi G, Upadhyay GA, Krishnan K, Crossley G, Bova Campbell K, Lee BK, Refaat MM, Saksena S, Fisher JD, Lakkireddy D; ACC's Electrophysiology Council. His Bundle Pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018 Aug 21;72(8):927-947. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2018.06.017.
Huang W, Su L, Wu S, Xu L, Xiao F, Zhou X, Ellenbogen KA. A Novel Pacing Strategy With Low and Stable Output: Pacing the Left Bundle Branch Immediately Beyond the Conduction Block. Can J Cardiol. 2017 Dec;33(12):1736.e1-1736.e3. doi: 10.1016/j.cjca.2017.09.013. Epub 2017 Sep 22.
Hou X, Qian Z, Wang Y, Qiu Y, Chen X, Jiang H, Jiang Z, Wu H, Zhao Z, Zhou W, Zou J. Feasibility and cardiac synchrony of permanent left bundle branch pacing through the interventricular septum. Europace. 2019 Nov 1;21(11):1694-1702. doi: 10.1093/europace/euz188.
Cai B, Huang X, Li L, Guo J, Chen S, Meng F, Wang H, Lin B, Su M. Evaluation of cardiac synchrony in left bundle branch pacing: Insights from echocardiographic research. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Feb;31(2):560-569. doi: 10.1111/jce.14342. Epub 2020 Jan 20.
Qian Z, Hou X, Wang Y, Jiang H, Wu H, Chen X, Wang B, Zou J. Physiological Left Bundle Branch Pacing Validated by Ultra-High Density Ventricular Mapping in a Swine Model. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;13(1):e007898. doi: 10.1161/CIRCEP.119.007898. Epub 2020 Jan 14. No abstract available.
Chen X, Jin Q, Li B, Jia J, Sharma PS, Huang W, Su Y, Ge J. Electrophysiological parameters and anatomical evaluation of left bundle branch pacing in an in vivo canine model. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Jan;31(1):214-219. doi: 10.1111/jce.14300. Epub 2019 Dec 18.
Huang W, Wu S, Vijayaraman P, Su L, Chen X, Cai B, Zou J, Lan R, Fu G, Mao G, Ellenbogen KA, Whinnett ZI, Tung R. Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Using Left Bundle Branch Pacing. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020 Jul;6(7):849-858. doi: 10.1016/j.jacep.2020.04.011.
Wang Y, Gu K, Qian Z, Hou X, Chen X, Qiu Y, Jiang Z, Zhang X, Wu H, Chen M, Zou J. The efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: A matched case-control study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Aug;31(8):2068-2077. doi: 10.1111/jce.14628. Epub 2020 Jul 6.
Li X, Qiu C, Xie R, Ma W, Wang Z, Li H, Wang H, Hua W, Zhang S, Yao Y, Fan X. Left bundle branch area pacing delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy and comparison with biventricular pacing. ESC Heart Fail. 2020 Aug;7(4):1711-1722. doi: 10.1002/ehf2.12731. Epub 2020 May 13.
Ponnusamy SS, Arora V, Namboodiri N, Kumar V, Kapoor A, Vijayaraman P. Left bundle branch pacing: A comprehensive review. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020 Sep;31(9):2462-2473. doi: 10.1111/jce.14681. Epub 2020 Jul 30.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
FirstNanjingMU003
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.