Left Bundle Branch Pacing Reduces Cardiomyopathy Risk in High-Burden Patients

Mitigating the Risk of Pacing Induced Cardiomyopathy

Conventional right ventricular pacing remains the standard of care for bradyarrhythmias, yet its association with electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony often leads to pacing induced cardiomyopathy [1, 2]. This complication affects approximately 12% to 25% of patients with a high pacing burden (defined as a high percentage of ventricular beats initiated by the pacemaker), manifesting as a significant decline in left ventricular ejection fraction and increased heart failure morbidity [2, 3]. While physiological strategies like His bundle pacing have been explored, technical challenges and high lead revision rates have limited their widespread clinical adoption [4, 5]. Consequently, clinicians frequently face the challenge of identifying pacing modalities that preserve cardiac function in patients already predisposed to ventricular dysfunction [6, 3]. The LBBP-FAVOUR trial, a multicenter randomized controlled trial, now provides evidence regarding the clinical efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (a technique that anchors the lead in the left bundle branch area to engage the heart's natural conduction system) in this high risk population.

Trial Design and Patient Selection

The LBBP-FAVOUR trial represents the first multicenter, prospective, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of left bundle branch pacing compared to traditional right ventricular pacing in patients at high risk for cardiac dysfunction. To ensure sufficient statistical power and clinical relevance, the researchers enrolled 160 patients characterized by both a high pacing burden and a high risk of developing pacing induced cardiomyopathy. This specific population is of particular concern to clinicians, as frequent right ventricular stimulation in these individuals often accelerates the progression toward heart failure by inducing an uncoordinated contraction pattern. Following enrollment, participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive one of the two pacing modalities. This randomization resulted in 80 patients being allocated to the left bundle branch pacing group and 80 patients to the right ventricular pacing group. By utilizing this rigorous prospective design across multiple clinical centers, the study aimed to provide a definitive comparison of how physiological pacing, which directly engages the heart's natural conduction system, affects long term outcomes and ventricular function when compared to the apical or septal stimulation used in right ventricular pacing.

Primary Composite Outcomes and Mortality

The researchers evaluated the clinical efficacy of both pacing modalities over a median follow-up duration of 36 months, focusing on a primary composite endpoint that included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and pacing induced cardiomyopathy. During this three year period, the primary composite endpoint occurred in 9 patients (11.6%) in the left bundle branch pacing group, compared to 25 patients (33.9%) in the right ventricular pacing group. This difference represented a significantly lower risk for those receiving physiological pacing, with a hazard ratio of 0.310 (95% CI 0.145-0.664; P=0.001). A hazard ratio of 0.310 indicates that patients in the left bundle branch pacing group were 69% less likely to experience a primary endpoint event at any given time compared to the control group. When analyzing the individual components of the composite endpoint, the study found that the overall benefit was primarily driven by a reduction in pacing induced cardiomyopathy. In contrast, the researchers observed no significant differences between the two groups for all-cause mortality (P=0.391) or for heart failure hospitalization (P=0.100). These findings suggest that while left bundle branch pacing effectively mitigates the risk of pacing induced ventricular dysfunction in high burden patients, its impact on isolated mortality and hospitalization rates did not reach statistical significance within the 36 month study window.

Impact on Ventricular Remodeling and Function

The clinical benefit observed in the LBBP-FAVOUR trial was primarily attributed to the prevention of pacing induced cardiomyopathy, a condition where frequent artificial pacing leads to a progressive decline in heart muscle function. While right ventricular pacing is known to increase the risk of this complication in patients with a high pacing burden, left bundle branch pacing demonstrated a protective effect. Specifically, the incidence of pacing induced cardiomyopathy was 6.5% in the left bundle branch pacing group compared to 18.2% in the right ventricular pacing group. This reduction was statistically significant, with a subdistribution hazard ratio of 0.324 (95% CI 0.119-0.883; P=0.028), a statistical measure used to estimate the risk of a specific event while accounting for other competing risks. Beyond preventing clinical cardiomyopathy, left bundle branch pacing was associated with superior objective measures of cardiac structure and performance over the 36 month follow up period. The researchers found that left bundle branch pacing resulted in a greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (the percentage of blood pumped out of the heart with each contraction) compared to right ventricular pacing, with a mean difference of 5.34 (95% CI 3.18-7.50; P <0.001). This functional improvement was accompanied by favorable reverse remodeling of the left ventricle, which refers to the heart returning toward its normal shape and size. Patients receiving left bundle branch pacing showed a greater reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (the size of the heart when full of blood), with a mean difference of -3.06 (95% CI -4.38 to -1.73; P <0.001), as well as a greater reduction in left ventricular end-systolic diameter (the size of the heart after contraction), with a mean difference of -3.74 (95% CI -5.07 to -2.41; P <0.001).

Clinical Function and Physiological Benefits

The clinical advantages observed in the LBBP-FAVOUR trial stem from the use of left bundle branch pacing as a more physiological pacing modality, which is a method that mimics the heart's natural electrical conduction system. By directly engaging the native conduction pathways, this technique may better preserve cardiac function compared to conventional methods that rely on apical or septal right ventricular placement. To assess the impact of this approach on patient well-being, the researchers evaluated several secondary endpoints, including the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class (a standardized scale used to grade the severity of heart failure symptoms and physical activity limitations). The symptomatic benefits of maintaining a more natural activation pattern were quantifiable at the conclusion of the study. At the 36 month follow up, the NYHA functional class was 1.66 ± 0.60 in the left bundle branch pacing group compared to 1.90 ± 0.56 in the right ventricular pacing group (P = 0.014). This difference indicates that patients who received physiological pacing experienced significantly fewer limitations during physical activity and reported better overall functional status. For clinicians managing patients with a high pacing burden, these findings suggest that the choice of pacing site is a critical determinant of long term symptomatic outcomes. By prioritizing the preservation of the heart's intrinsic electrical architecture, physicians may reduce the risk of functional decline and improve the quality of life for patients at high risk of cardiac dysfunction.

References

1. DeAngelo S, Aryal B, Haghshomar M, et al. Impact of Right Ventricular Pacing Sites on Right Ventricular Function: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.. Arrhythmia & Electrophysiology Review. 2026. doi:10.15420/aer.2025.17

2. Somma V, Ha F, Palmer S, Mohamed U, Agarwal S. Abstract 10177: Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Definition, Incidence, Risk Factors and Management. Circulation. 2022. doi:10.1161/circ.146.suppl_1.10177

3. Asturias K, Li S, Reddy S, et al. Advanced Cardiac Imaging for Risk Prediction of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy: A Narrative Literature Review.. Journal of clinical medicine. 2026. doi:10.3390/jcm15041358

4. Amador WFO, Iqbal A, Fonseca PEO, et al. Abstract 4370068: Clinical Outcomes of Conduction System Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Initial Pacemaker Implantation. Circulation. 2025. doi:10.1161/circ.152.suppl_3.4370068

5. Pajareya P, Chuanchai W, Siranart N, Phutinart S, Chumpangern Y, Chung EH. Is Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing the Optimal Pacing Strategy for Bradyarrhythmia with Preserved Ejection Fraction? A Network Meta-Analysis.. Heart Rhythm. 2025. doi:10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.08.017

6. Crea F. The ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and resynchronization, and the many facets of atrial fibrillation.. European Heart Journal. 2021. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab628