LBBP-FAVOUR: Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs. Right Ventricular Pacing in High Pacing Burden Patients Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is emerging as a promising alternative to traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) for patients who require long-term ventricular pacing. Recent clinical evidence suggests LBBP may reduce the risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and improve cardiac function compared to RVP, particularly in patients with high pacing burden. Understanding the Problem with Right Ventricular Pacing For decades, RVP has been the standard approach for cardiac pacing. However, long-term RVP can cause dyssynchronous ventricular activation, which may lead to structural and functional changes in the left ventricle over time. This condition, known as pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM), is a significant concern for patients dependent on ventricular pacing, especially those with high pacing percentages. What is Left Bundle Branch Pacing? LBBP involves placing the pacing lead in the left bundle branch area of the heart’s electrical conduction system. This technique aims to stimulate the ventricles in a more physiological manner, promoting synchronized activation similar to the heart’s natural electrical pathway. By preserving ventricular synchrony, LBBP may mitigate the adverse effects associated with RVP. Key Findings from the LBBP-FAVOUR Trial The LBBP-FAVOUR randomized trial, a multicenter prospective study, evaluated LBBP versus RVP in patients at high risk of cardiac dysfunction due to significant pacing burden. With a median follow-up of 36 months, the study found that LBBP significantly reduced the risk of a composite endpoint comprising pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, all-cause mortality and heart failure readmission. Specifically, during a 12-month follow-up period in a related study of ventricular pacing-dependent patients, the LBBP group experienced a lower incidence of primary endpoint events compared to the RVP group. The primary endpoint occurred in 3 patients in the LBBP group versus 11 in the RVP group, corresponding to Kaplan-Meier rates of 3.77% and 13.9%, respectively. This difference was primarily driven by a reduction in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, with a hazard ratio of 0.256 (95% CI 0.072–0.919; P=0.024) favoring LBBP. Clinical Implications and Future Directions These findings suggest that LBBP may offer a superior pacing strategy for reducing long-term cardiac complications in patients requiring substantial ventricular pacing. By minimizing ventricular dyssynchrony, LBBP has the potential to preserve cardiac function, reduce hospitalizations for heart failure, and improve overall outcomes. While current evidence supports the feasibility and short-to-medium term efficacy of LBBP, ongoing research continues to assess its long-term safety and effectiveness across broader patient populations. As lead technology and implantation techniques evolve, LBBP may become an increasingly critical tool in the management of patients needing cardiac pacing. For patients and clinicians evaluating pacing options, understanding the differences between LBBP and RVP is essential. Consulting with a cardiac electrophysiologist can facilitate determine the most appropriate pacing strategy based on individual clinical needs and risk factors.
17