Fixation beats: A novel marker for reaching the left bundle branch area during deep septal lead implantation

The strength-duration curves for left bundle branch area pacing

BACKGROUND

Despite growing clinical use of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) there is scarcity of data regarding fundamentals of this pacing modality including chronaxie and rheobase.

OBJECTIVE

The aims of this study were to calculate strength-duration curves with chronaxie, rheobase values for LBBP and left ventricular septal myocardial pacing (LVSP), to analyse battery current drain and presence of selective LBBP at very short pulse duration (PD).

METHODS

The group of 141 patients with permanent LBBP were studied. The LBBP and LVSP capture thresholds were assessed at 6 different PDs to calculate the strength-duration curves. Battery current drain at these PDs and presence of selective LBBP were determined. For comparison of strength-duration curves between His bundle pacing (HBP) and LBBP, source data from our previous work based on 127 patients with HBP were obtained.

RESULTS

The chronaxies for LBBP and LVSP were very similar (0.38 ms vs. 0.39 ms) and the rheobases were identical (0.27V). The chronaxie for LBBP was lower than for HBP (0.38ms vs. 0.53 ms, p < 0.001), whereas rheobases were similar (0.27V vs. 0.26V). A narrow zone of selective capture was present in 19% and 41% of patients at PD of 0.06 ms and 0.03 ms, respectively. When pacing with the safety margin of +1 V, the lowest battery current drain was achieved with PD of 0.2 ms.

CONCLUSION

The obtained strength-duration curves for LBBP and LVSP provide insights for optimal programming of LBBAP devices with regard to pulse duration, voltage amplitude, battery longevity and selective capture.

Left bundle branch pacing lead for sensing ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A pilot study (LBBP-ICD study)

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative modality for biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-eligible patients. As it provides stable R-wave sensing, LBBP has been recently used to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term safety and efficacy of the LBBP lead for appropriate detection of ventricular arrhythmia and delivery of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients requiring defibrillator therapy with CRT.

METHODS

CRT-eligible patients who underwent successful LBBP-optimized ICD and LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator were enrolled. The LBBP lead was connected to the right ventricular-P/S port after capping the IS-1 connector plug of the DF-1-ICD lead. LBBP-optimized ICD or LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator was decided on the basis of correction of conduction system disease. Documented arrhythmic episodes and therapy delivered were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled. The mean age was 59.7 ± 10.5 years. LBBP resulted in an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction from 29.9% ± 4.6% to 43.9% ± 11.2% (P < .0001). During a mean follow-up of 22.9 ± 12.5 months, 254 ventricular arrhythmic events were documented. Appropriate events (n = 225 [89%]) included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 212 episodes [94%]), VT (n = 8 [3.5%]), and ventricular fibrillation (n = 5 [2.5%]). ATP efficacy in terminating VT was 75%. Eleven percent of episodes (n = 29) were inappropriately detected because of T-wave oversensing. Inappropriate therapy (ATP) was delivered for 14 episodes (5.5%). Three patients (10%) had worsening of tricuspid regurgitation.

CONCLUSION

Sensing from the LBBP lead for arrhythmia detection is safe as ∼90% of the episodes were detected appropriately. Future studies with a dedicated LBBP-defibrillator lead along with algorithms to avoid oversensing can help in combining defibrillation with conduction system pacing.

An individualized criterion for left bundle branch capture in patients with a narrow QRS complex

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing; however, the accuracy of current electrocardiographic criteria for LBBP remains inadequate.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to establish a novel individualized criterion to improve the accuracy of LBBP determination in patients with a narrow QRS complex.

METHODS

Patients in whom both LBBP and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were acquired during operation were enrolled. LBB conduction time (LBBCT) was measured from LBB potential (LBBpo) to intrinsic QRS onset. LBBpo-V6RWPT, Native-V6RWPT, and Paced-V6RWPT were respectively measured from LBBpo, intrinsic QRS onset, and stimulus to R-wave peak in V6. ΔV6RWPT was the difference value between Paced-V6RWPT and Native-V6RWPT. The accuracy of ΔV6RWPT criterion for determining LBBP was evaluated.

RESULTS

In all 71 enrolled patients, ΔV6RWPT was <30 ms during LBBP (21.3 ± 4.6 ms; range 9.3-28.3 ms) but was >30 ms during LVSP (38.5 ± 4.6 ms; range 31.1-47.0 ms). The probability distribution of ΔV6RWPT was well separated between LBBP and LVSP. Sensitivity and specificity of the novel criterion of "ΔV6RWPT <30 ms" for determining LBBP both were 100%. However, the optimal cutoff value of Paced-V6RWPT for validation of LBBP was 64.2 ms, and sensitivity and specificity were 84.5% and 97.2%, respectively. Paced-V6RWPT during LBBP was equivalent to LBBpo-V6RWPT in all patients. There was a strong linear correlation between Native-V6RWPT and LBBpo-V6RWPT (r = 0.796; P <.001).

CONCLUSION

ΔV6RWPT could be an accurate individualized criterion for determining LBB capture with high sensitivity and specificity and was superior over the fixed Paced-V6RWPT criterion.

Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing

Cardiac pacing to treat bradyarrhythmias has evolved in recent decades. Recognition that a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients can develop heart failure due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from traditional right ventricular apical pacing has led to development of more physiologic pacing methods that better mimic normal cardiac conduction and provide synchronized ventricular contraction. Conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease but can be limited by scarring and fibrosis. His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing are novel techniques that can provide more physiologic ventricular activation as an alternative to conventional or biventricular pacing. Leadless pacing has emerged as another alternative pacing technique to overcome limitations in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Our objective is to review the evolution of cardiac pacing and explore these new advances in pacing strategies.

Right sided approach for left bundle branch pacing using lumen-less lead: Technical considerations and follow-up outcome

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch pacing has gained significant momentum in the last few years. The procedure involves deploying the lead deep inside the interventricular septum through left subclavian vein. We aimed at analyzing the feasibility, efficacy and long-term outcome of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) using lumen-less lead through the right subclavian vein.

METHODS

This was a retrospective-institutional, single center observational study done in consecutive patients who underwent LBBP using 3830 selectsecuretm lead. Left subclavian venous access was the primary strategy for lead implantation. Patients requiring right sided approach due to venous obstruction or persistent left superior-vena-cava (PLSVC) for LBBP were included in the study.

RESULTS

Right sided approach was successful in 16 out of 19 (84%) attempted patients. C315-His catheter was used in all patients without modifying its curvature. PLSVC (n = 7), left venous obstruction (n = 7), right sided device upgradation (n = 1) and left pocket infection (n = 1) were the reasons for right sided approach. Mean follow-up duration was 17 ± 12 months. LBBP resulted in reduction in QRS duration from 137.3 ± 37.8 ms to 122.3 ± 9.5 ms (p -.13) and increase in LV ejection fraction from 46.2 ± 16.3% to 54.4 ± 11.6% (p -.11). The mean fluoroscopy duration and radiation dose were significantly high in right sided approach (n = 16) as compared to left sided approach (n = 293). In patients requiring cardiac-resynchronization therapy (CRT), right sided LBBP resulted in reduction in QRS duration from 171.8 ± 18.5 to 125.5 ± 11.9 ms (p -.0001) and increase in LVEF from 29.1 ± 3.8 to 45.1 ± 11.9% (p -.005).

CONCLUSION

Right sided LBBP is feasible, safe and effective in patients requiring pacing for symptomatic bradyarrhythmia and CRT. Further development in dedicated tools for right-sided approach would help in reducing the fluoroscopy-duration and radiation-dose.

His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy vs Biventricular Pacing: HOT-CRT Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) using His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to compare the feasibility and clinical efficacy of HOT-CRT (His-Purkinje conduction system pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) with BVP in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and indication for CRT.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of HOT-CRT and BVP in patients with LVEF <50% and indications for CRT. If HPCSP resulted in incomplete electrical resynchronization, a coronary sinus (CS) lead was added. The primary outcome was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major complications.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients (female 31%, aged 70 ± 12 years, LVEF 31.5% ± 9.0%) were randomized. HOT-CRT was successful in 48 of 50 (96%) and BVP-CRT in 41 of 50 (82%) patients (P = 0.03). QRS duration significantly decreased from 164 ± 26 ms to 137 ± 20 ms with HOT-CRT and 166 ± 28 ms to 141 ± 19 ms with BVP. Fluoroscopy results (18.8 ± 12.4 min vs 23.8 ± 12.4 min, P = 0.05) and procedure duration (119 ± 42 min vs 114 ± 36 min, P = 0.5) were similar. The primary outcome of change in LVEF at 6 months was greater in HOT-CRT than in BVP (12.4% ± 7.3% vs 8.0% ± 10.1%, P = 0.02). The primary safety endpoint was similar (98% vs 94%, P = 0.62). Echocardiographic response of improvement in LVEF >5% occurred in 80% vs 61% (P = 0.06). Complications occurred in 3 (6%) in HOT-CRT vs 10 (20%) in BVP (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

HPCSP-guided CRT resulted in greater change in LVEF compared with BVP. Randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are necessary. (His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [HOT-CRT]; NCT04561778).

Observations of interventricular septal behavior during left bundle branch pacing

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) involves the deployment of the lead deep inside the septum. Penetration of the septum by the lead depends on the texture of the septum, rapidity of rotations, operator experience, and implantation tools.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to assess the behavior of the lumenless lead during rapid rotations and the physiological property of the interventricular septum(IVS) during LBBP.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LBBP between January 2021 and December 2022 were retrospectively included in the study.

RESULTS

Among 255 attempted patients, 20 (7.9%) had procedural failure(no LBB capture-four, inability to penetrate septum-seven, and dislodgements after sheath removal-nine). Septal penetration achieved in 248/255 patients (97.2%). Lead movement inside the IVS was assessed by lead traverse time. Based on the behavior of the IVS (n = 255), three different responses were noted. Type-I response(normal/firm septum) in 93.7% (n = 239) characterized by constant and progressive movement of lead. Neither perforation nor further change in premature-ventricular-complex morphology beyond M-beat were observed despite additional few unintentional rotations indicating the protective mechanism of LV-endocardium. Type-II response(soft/cheesy septum) in 3.5% (n = 9) characterized by hyper-movement of lead without resistance due to altered texture of septum and poor LV subendocardial barrier resulting in perforation. No patients in this group had LV dysfunction or associated coronary artery disease. In type-III response, seen in 2.8% (n = 7), lead could not be penetrated due to scar in IVS.

CONCLUSION

Three different patterns of responses were observed during LBBP. The most distinct type-ll response was associated with soft/cheesy septum with hyper-movement of the lead predisposing for future dislodgments in patients without structural heart disease.

Implant, assessment, and management of conduction system pacing

His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing, together referred to as conduction system pacing, have (re)gained considerable interest over the past years as it has the potential to preserve and/or restore a more physiological ventricular activation when compared with right ventricular pacing and may serve as an alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy. This review manuscript dives deeper into the implantation techniques and the relevant anatomy of the conduction system for both pacing strategies. Furthermore, the manuscript elaborates on better understanding of conduction system capture with its various capture patterns, its potential complications as well as appropriate follow-up care. Finally, the limitations and its impact on clinical care for both His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing are being discussed.

Cardiac Conduction System Pacing: A Comprehensive Update

The field of cardiac pacing has changed rapidly in the last several years. Since the initial description of His bundle pacing targeting the conduction system, recent advances in pacing the left bundle branch and its fascicles have evolved. The field and investigators' knowledge of conduction system pacing including relevant anatomy and physiology has advanced significantly. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on recent advances in conduction system pacing.

Cardiac Resynchronisation with Conduction System Pacing

To date, biventricular pacing (BiVP) has been the standard pacing modality for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. However, it is non-physiological, with the activation spreading between the left ventricular epicardium and right ventricular endocardium. Up to one-third of patients with heart failure who are eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy do not derive benefit from BiVP. Conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, has emerged as an alternative to BiVP for cardiac resynchronisation. There is mounting evidence supporting the benefits of CSP in achieving synchronous ventricular activation and repolarisation. The aim of this review is to summarise the current options and outcomes of CSP when used for cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure.

Pacing of Specialized Conduction System

Right ventricular pacing for bradycardia remains the mainstay of pacing therapy. Chronic right ventricular pacing may lead to pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. We focus on the anatomy of the conduction system and the clinical feasibility of pacing the His bundle and/or left bundle conduction system. We review the hemodynamics of conduction system pacing, the techniques to capture the conduction system and the electrocardiogram and pacing definitions of conduction system capture. Clinical studies of conduction system pacing in the setting of atrioventricular block and after AV junction ablation are reviewed and the evolving role of conduction system pacing is compared with biventricular pacing.

Redefining QRS transition to confirm left bundle branch capture during left bundle branch area pacing

Background

QRS transition criteria during dynamic manoeuvers are the gold-standard for non-invasive confirmation of left bundle branch (LBB) capture, but they are seen in <50% of LBB area pacing (LBBAP) procedures.

Objective

We hypothesized that transition from left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) to LBB pacing (LBBP), when observed during lead penetration into the deep interventricular septum (IVS) with interrupted pacemapping, can suggest LBB capture.

Methods

QRS transition during lead screwing-in was defined as shortening of paced V6-R wave peak time (RWPT) by ≥10 ms from LVSP to non-selective LBBP (ns-LBBP) obtained during mid to deep septal lead progression at the same target area, between two consecutive pacing manoeuvres. ECG-based criteria were used to compared LVSP and ns-LBBP morphologies obtained by interrupted pacemapping.

Results

Sixty patients with demonstrated transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP during dynamic manoeuvers were compared to 44 patients with the same transition during lead screwing-in. Average shortening in paced V6-RWPT was similar among study groups (17.3 ± 6.8 ms vs. 18.8 ± 4.9 ms for transition during dynamic manoeuvres and lead screwing-in, respectively; p = 0.719). Paced V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, V6-V1 interpeak interval and the recently described LBBP score, were also similar for ns-LBBP morphologies in both groups. LVSP morphologies showed longer V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, shorter V6-V1 interpeak interval and lower LBBP score punctuation, without differences among the two QRS transition groups. V6-RWPT < 75 ms or V6-V1 interpeak interval > 44 ms criterion was more frequently achieved in ns-LBBP morphologies obtained during lead screwing-in compared to those obtained during dynamic manoeuvres (70.5% vs. 50%, respectively p = 0.036).

Conclusions

During LBBAP procedure, QRS transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP can be observed as the lead penetrates deep into the IVS with interrupted pacemapping. Shortening of at least 10 ms in paced V6-RWPT may serve as marker of LBB capture.

Pacing of the specialized His-Purkinje conduction system: 'back to the future'

The conduction system of the human heart is composed of specialized cardiomyocytes that initiate and propagate the electric impulse with consequent rhythmic and synchronized contraction of the atria and ventricles, resulting in the normal cardiac cycle. Although the His-Purkinje system (HPS) was already described more than a century ago, there has been a recent resurgence of conduction system pacing (CSP), where pacing leads are positioned in the His bundle region and left bundle branch area to provide physiological cardiac activation as alternatives to the unnatural myocardial stimulation obtained with conventional right ventricular and biventricular pacing. In this review, we describe the fundamental anatomical and pathophysiological aspects of the specialized HPS along with the CSP technique's nuts and bolts to highlight its potential benefits in everyday clinical practice.

Left bundle branch pacing as an alternative to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for the delivery of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). This study assessed the feasibility and outcomes of LBBP in comparison to BVP.

METHODS

LBBP was attempted in 40 consecutive patients as the first-line method for delivering CRT. To evaluate LBBP versus BVP, 40 patients with identical inclusion criteria who received BVP were compared with the LBBP group. Acute success rate, complications, functional and echocardiographic outcomes as well as hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality 6 months after implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP was successfully performed in 31 (78%) patients and resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 166 ± 16 to 123 ± 18 ms, p < 0.001), improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; from 28 ± 8 to 43 ± 12%, p < 0.001) and New York Heart Association functional class (from 2.8 ± 0.5 to 1.6 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) at 6 months. No LBBP-related complications occurred. Compared to BVP, LBBP resulted in a greater reduction in QRS duration (44 ± 17 vs 15 ± 26 ms, p < 0.001) with comparable absolute improvement in LVEF (15.2 ± 11.7 vs 9.6 ± 12.1%, p = 0.088). Hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP is feasible and was safe in 78% of patients with favourable electrical resynchronisation and functional improvement and may serve as an alternative to BVP.

Editorial: Developments in cardiac implantable electronic device therapy: how can we improve clinical implementation?

CIED, cardiac implantable electronic devices; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator; EA, electroanatomical; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LBB, left bundle branch; LBBAP, left bundle branch area pacing; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide; MRI, cardiac magnetic resonance imaging; S-ICD, subcutaneous defibrillator.

Left bundle area pacing: Guiding implant depth by ring measurements

BACKGROUND

Criteria for successful left bundle area pacing (LBAP) are in flux and currently guided by lead tip measurements. Lead ring measurements during LBAP have not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate dynamics in pacing parameters during successful and unsuccessful lead implant attempts.

METHODS

SelectSecure 3830 pacing leads (Medtronic, Inc) guided by C315 sheaths for LBAP were placed for standard pacing indications in 73 patients. Retrospective review of procedural, echocardiographic, and standard pacing data were performed. Depth and lead-septal angle of implanted electrodes were determined from fluoroscopy with septal contrast delineation. Depth was graded in 4 categories according to the degree of ring penetration into the septum. Successful implant was defined by the ability to advance the lead deep into the septum and achieve LBAP criteria (ventricular activation time, QRS width/shape).

RESULTS

Ring impedance increased stepwise during successful attempts as opposed to unsuccessful attempts (P = .039). A wider lead-septal angle at implant position correlated with higher ring impedance (P = .036), whereas no association was found with tip impedance. Unipolar ring threshold correlated with depth of lead implant (P = .029). Tip impedance measurements at implant position were less predictive of lead depth and did not correlate with septal thickness.

CONCLUSION

Ring pacing parameters are more predictive of lead progress than tip measurements. Lead depth and lead-septal angle can be determined from ring impedance measurements. These measurements may provide determination of lead depth and could obviate the need for contrast injection.

A Continuous Pacing and Recording Technique for Differentiating Left Bundle Branch Pacing From Left Ventricular Septal Pacing: Electrophysiologic Evidence From an Intrapatient-Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a promising approach for achieving near-physiologic pacing. However, differentiating LBBP from left ventricular septal endocardial pacing (LVS(e)P) remains a challenge. This study aimed to establish a simple and effective method for differentiating LBBP from LVS(e)P and to evaluate their electrophysiologic characteristics.

METHODS

LBBP, using continuous uninterrupted pacing and real-time monitoring of electrocardiograms along with intracardiac electrograms, was performed in 97 consecutive patients. We evaluated the electrophysiologic characteristics observed during LBBP using 6 modalities: right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), intraventricular septal pacing (IVSP 1 and 2), LVS(e)P, nonselective LBBP (NSLBBP), and selective LBBP (SLBBP).

RESULTS

Of the 97 patients, 87 (89.7%) met the criteria (abrupt change in paced QRS morphology with a transition from Qr to QR/qR in lead V1 and shortening of stimulus to V6 R-wave peak time [Stim-V6RWPT] of ≥ 10 ms with constant output while rather than after lead screwing) for nonselective left bundle branch (LBB) capture. Selective LBB capture was observed in 82 patients (84.5%). The Stim-V6RWPT of NSLBBP and SLBBP were significantly shorter than LVS(e)P (respectively, 67.1 ± 8.7 ms, 67.0 ± 9.3 ms, and 82.1 ± 10.9 ms). Stim-QRSend was the narrowest in IVSP2 (136.6 ± 15.2 ms) instead of NSLBBP (140.0 ± 17.1 ms).

CONCLUSIONS

The uninterrupted pacing technique for differentiating LBBP from LVS(e)P in the same group of patients is feasible. Electrophysiologic evidence from our intrapatient-controlled study shows that LBBP and LVS(e)P differ in ventricular electrical synchronization.

Advances of Implantation Techniques for Conduction System Pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle and left bundle branch pacing are physiological pacing modalities, but lead deployment is often difficult mainly due to a lack of anatomical landmark for lead tip location. Several implantation techniques for CSP implantation have been developed including 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping, placing a second lead as a reference (dual-lead method technique), and using fluoroscopic imaging (9-partition and visualization techniques). In this review, the authors summarize the implantation techniques for CSP and compare the different methods.

Left bundle branch area pacing: A promising modality for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recognized as the first-line management for patients with heart failure (HF) and conduction disorders. As a conventional mode for delivering CRT, biventricular pacing (BVP) improves cardiac function and reduces HF hospitalizations and mortality, but there are still limitations given the high incidence of a lack of response rates. Alternative pacing methods are needed either for primary or rescue therapy. In recent years, conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological pacing modality for simultaneous stimulation of the ventricles, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). CSP activates the His-Purkinje system, allowing normal ventricular stimulation. However, HBP is technically challenging with a relatively low success rate, high pacing threshold, and failure to correct distal conduction abnormalities. Therefore, LBBP stands out as a novel ideal physiological pacing modality for CRT. Several non-randomized studies compared the feasibility and safety of LBBP with BVP and concluded that LBBP is superior to BVP for delivering CRT with a narrower QRS and greater improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Concurrently, some studies showed lower and stable pacing thresholds and greater improvement of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, as well as better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. LBBP ensures better ventricular electromechanical resynchronization than BVP. In this review, we discuss current knowledge of LBBP, compare LBBP with BVP, and explore the potential of LBBP to serve as an alternative primary therapy to realize cardiac resynchronization.

Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study

Aims

Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated.

Methods and results

This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%).

Conclusions

LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.

Rescue left bundle branch area pacing in coronary venous lead failure or nonresponse to biventricular pacing: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is effective in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and reduced left ventricular function. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been reported as an alternative option for CRT.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LBBAP in patients who failed conventional BVP because of coronary venous (CV) lead complications or who were nonresponders to BVP.

METHODS

At 16 international centers, LBBAP was attempted in patients with conventional CRT indication who failed BVP because of CV lead complications or lack of therapeutic response to BVP. Heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and death, echocardiographic outcomes, procedural data, pacing parameters, and lead complications including CV lead failure are reported.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successfully performed in 200 patients (CV lead failures 156; nonresponders 44) (age 68 ± 11 years; female 35%; LBBB 55%; right ventricular pacing 23%; ischemic cardiomyopathy 28%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy 63%; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35% in 80%). Procedural duration was 119.5 ± 59.6 minutes, and fluoroscopy duration was 25.7 ± 18.5 minutes. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.68 ± 0.35 V @ 0.45 ms and 10.4 ± 5 mV at implant, respectively, and remained stable during mean follow-up of 12 ± 10.1 months. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing from 170 ± 28 ms to 139 ± 25 ms (P <.001) with V₆ R-wave peak times of 85 ± 17 ms. LVEF improved from 29% ± 10% at baseline to 40% ± 12% (P <.001) during follow-up. The risk of death or HFH was lower in those with CV lead failure than in nonresponders (hazard ratio 0.357; 95% confidence interval 0.168-0.756; P = .007) CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a viable alternative to CRT in patients who failed conventional BVP due to CV lead failure or who were nonresponders.

M-beat-A novel marker for selective left bundle branch capture

INTRODUCTION

Premature-ventricular-complexes (template/fixation beat) guided left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) was recently described as a novel method of successful lead deployment by rapid rotations.

METHODS

We aimed at analyzing the incidence of a unique morphology template beat, which we labelled as 'M-beat' in patients undergoing PVC-guided LBBP, its ability to predict selective LBB-capture and clinical significance.

RESULTS

Overall 210 out of 217 attempted-patients (96.7%) underwent successful LBBP. Template beat was noted in 90.4% patients (n = 190) and M-beat in 32.8%(n = 69). Non-selective to selective capture transition demonstrated in 55.2%(n = 116). The QRS duration of the M-beat was 129.3 ± 13.1ms. Patients were divided into two groups: Group-I with M-beat (n = 69;32.8%) and Group-II without M-beat (n = 141; 67.2%). The mean fluoroscopy-time was significantly less in group-I as compared to group-II (13.1 ± 11.1 vs 16.8 ± 12.04 minutes; p-0.03). Patients in group-II required more attempts as compared to group-I for successful lead deployment (2.8 ± 1.09 vs 2.2 ± 1.04; p - 0.01). Six patients showed loss of R-wave in lead-V1 and 2 showed rise in LBB capture threshold by >1V during follow-up in group-II. M-beat had a specificity of 96.77% and sensitivity of 58.62% (positive-predictive-value-98.55%) to predict selective-LBB capture. Myocardial excitability would not modify the occurrence of M-beat as opposed to capture transition response since it could be demonstrated without pacing protocols. When confirmation of LBB-capture itself would be difficult in patients with baseline LBBB-morphology, M-beat with 42.8% incidence predicted selective capture with 96.7% specificity and 66.04% sensitivity(positive-predictive-value-97.22%).

CONCLUSION

M-beat is a marker of transient-selective LBB-capture, independent of the local myocardial excitability with high specificity and positive predictive value irrespective of the baseline QRS morphology.

Physiologic Pacing Targeting the His Bundle and Left Bundle Branch: a Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a means to preserve or restore physiological ventricular activation via pacing at the His bundle or at more distal targets in the conduction system, including the left bundle branch area. This review examines strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of CSP performed via these approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

His bundle pacing (HBP) has been successfully utilized for standard bradyarrhythmia indications and for QRS correction among patients receiving devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Limitations of HBP pacing have included implant complexity and rising pacing thresholds over time. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) appears to deliver similar physiological benefits with shorter implant times and more stable thresholds. More recently, hybrid systems utilizing HBP or LBBAP in combination with left ventricular leads have been used to treat heart failure (HF) patients, and may be useful in multilevel or mixed conduction blocks. There is growing interest in CSP for bradycardia and HF indications, although high quality data with randomized controlled trials are needed to help guide future treatment paradigms.

Physiology of Left Ventricular Septal Pacing and Left Bundle Branch Pacing

Following the recognition of the adverse effects of right ventricular pacing, alternative permanent pacing strategies aiming to maintain a synchronous ventricular contraction have been sought. The quest for the optimal pacing site has recently led to several promising and rapidly emerging new pacing strategies, such as left ventricular septal pacing and left bundle branch pacing. In both animal and human studies, these pacing strategies seem to maintain electrical and mechanical activation of the left ventricle to a (near)physiologic level. However, more studies on the long-term effects of both strategies are needed.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: How I Do It?

Search for the combined use of LV lead with HBP yielded 2 clinical outcome case studies and one mechanistic study in peer-reviewed journals. One case series reported implantation and follow-up of outcomes in patients who had an inadequate response to HBP with subsequent additional LV lead. Search for the combined use of LV lead with LBBAP yielded two case series studies in non-peer reviewed publications were found. The His-Optimized CRT (HOT-CRT) is a term introduced describing combining HBP with LV pacing. The LB-Optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) is a term recently used to describe combining LBBAP with LV pacing.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Although conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease, there are limitations to its therapeutic success, resulting in widely variable clinical response. Limitations of conventional biventricular pacing evolve around myocardial scar, fibrosis, and inability to effectively stimulate diseased tissue. Several observational and acute hemodynamic studies have demonstrated improved electrical resynchronization and echocardiographic response with conduction system pacing. This article provides a systematic review of conduction system pacing as a physiologic alternative to conventional CRT, which is currently undergoing rigorous investigation.

Evaluation of Criteria for Left Bundle Branch Capture

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provides electrical and mechanical synchrony at low and stable pacing output and effectively corrects distal conduction system disease. The criteria for differentiating LBBP from LV septal pacing has not been validated in large trials. There are several electrocardiography-based and intracardiac electrogram-based criteria to confirm LBB capture. In this section, the authors review these criteria and their overall accuracy.

Feasibility, safety and outcomes of upgrading to left bundle branch pacing in patients with right ventricular pacing induced cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular pacing (RVP) induces abnormal electrical activation and asynchronous ventricular contraction and leads to pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in 10-20% of patients. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) utilizing biventricular pacing (BVP) is the recommended treatment. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to CRT. This study assessed feasibility and outcomes of LBBP delivered CRT in patients with PICM.

METHODS

Twenty consecutive patients with PICM who received an upgrade of their pacemaker to LBBP were prospectively studied. Acute success rate, complications, functional and echocardiographic response and hospitalization for heart failure within six months from implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP was successfully delivered in all patients. Median duration of RVP before upgrade to LBBP was 3.8 years and the RVP percentage was 99. LBBP resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 193 ± 18 to 130 ± 17 ms (p<0.001)), improvement in LVEF (from 32 ± 6 percent to 47 ± 8 percent (p<0.001)) and NYHA class (from 2.8 ± 0.4 to 1.4 ± 0.5 (p<0.001)) at 6 months. No LBBP-related complications occurred. No patients were hospitalized for heart failure or died.

CONCLUSION

LBBP is feasible and safe in delivering CRT in PICM. Preliminary analyses demonstrated significant electrical resynchronization and favourable improvement in LV function and NYHA functional class at short term follow-up. Data need to be validated in large randomized controlled trials. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A single-centre prospective evaluation of left bundle branch area pacemaker implantation characteristics

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been introduced as a physiological pacing technique with synchronous left ventricular activation. It was our aim to evaluate the feasibility and learning curve of the technique, as well as the electrical characteristics of LBBAP.

Methods and results

LBBAP was attempted in 80 consecutive patients and electrocardiographic characteristics were evaluated during intrinsic rhythm, right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) and LBBAP. Permanent lead implantation was successful in 77 of 80 patients (96%). LBBAP lead implantation time and fluoroscopy time shortened significantly from 33 ± 16 and 21 ± 13 min to 17 ± 5 and 12 ± 7 min, respectively, from the first 20 to the last 20 patients. Left bundle branch (LBB) capture was achieved in 54 of 80 patients (68%). In 36 of 45 patients (80%) with intact atrioventricular conduction and narrow QRS, an LBB potential (LBB_pot) was present with an LBB_pot to onset of QRS interval of 22 ± 6 ms. QRS duration increased significantly more during RVSP (141 ± 20 ms) than during LBBAP (125 ± 19 ms), compared to 130 ± 30 ms without pacing. An even clearer difference was observed for QRS area, which increased significantly more during RVSP (from 32 ± 16 µVs to 73 ± 20 µVs) than during LBBAP (41 ± 15 µVs). QRS area was significantly smaller in patients with LBB capture compared to patients without LBB capture (43 ± 18 µVs vs 54 ± 21 µVs, respectively). In patients with LBB capture (n = 54), the interval from the pacing stimulus to R‑wave peak time in lead V6 was significantly shorter than in patients without LBB capture (75 ± 14 vs 88 ± 9 ms, respectively).

Conclusion

LBBAP is a safe and feasible technique, with a clear learning curve that seems to flatten after 40–60 implantations. LBB capture is achieved in two-thirds of patients. Compared to RVSP, LBBAP largely maintains ventricular electrical synchrony at a level close to intrinsic (narrow QRS) rhythm.

Supplementary Information

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12471-022-01679-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Premature beat of selective left bundle branch: a novel marker for reaching and capturing the left bundle branch

BACKGROUND

It was recently shown that template beats and fixation beats of the premature ventricular contractions (PVCs) were generated during lead deployment. These could be exploited to guide the left bundle branch (LBB) pacing (LBBP) procedure. However, lack of a revolving connector that can continuously record and pace during lead rotations has been a limitation when using the traditional implant technique. Here, we report ten cases in which a revolving connector was used and showed that the premature beats of selective left bundle branch (SLBB-PBs) were generated as the lead was reached and the electrical stimulus selectively captured the LBB.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Ten patients who underwent the transseptal placement of the pacing lead using a revolving connector were included in the study. We aimed to examine whether the SLBB-PB was a marker of LBB capture during LBBP and the clinical significance of SLBB-PB. LBBP was performed and data of these cases were analyzed to show the characteristics of the electrocardiogram and the intracardiac electrogram of SLBB-PBs.

CONCLUSIONS

This is the first case series on SLBB-PBs in LBBP. The presence of SLBB-PBs suggested that the LBB was reached and selectively captured and possibly increased the safety of lead implantation.

Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Comparison with Right Ventricular Septal Pacing in Patients with High Ventricular Pacing Ratio ≥40%

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Evaluation of clinical safety and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing in comparison with right ventricular septal pacing

ABSTRACT

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has recently emerged as a new physiological pacing strategy. The purpose of this study is to compare LBBaP with right ventricular sepal pacing (RVSP) in terms of their clinical safety and efficacy.From February 2019 to May 2020, consecutive pacing-indicated patients were prospectively enrolled and divided into 2 groups. Ventricular synchrony indexes such as QRS duration (QRSd), interventricular mechanical delay and septal-posterior wall motion delay, left ventricular function such as left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pacing parameters, and complications were evaluated in the perioperative period and during follow-up.LBBaP was successful in 45 patients (88.2%), and finally 46 patients underwent RVSP. With LBBaP, ventricular electricalmechanical synchrony were similar to those of native-conduction system (P = .78). However, the ventricular electrical synchrony (QRSd, 108.47±7.64 vs 130.63±13.63ms, P < .001) and mechanical synchrony (interventricular mechanical delay, 27.68±4.33 vs 39.88±5.83, P < .001; septal-posterior wall motion delay, 40.39±23.21 vs 96.36±11.55, P < .001) in the LBBaP group were significantly better than those in the RVSP group. No significant differences in LVEDD (46 [44-48.5] vs 47 [44-52] mm, P = .49) and LVEF% (66 [62.5-70] vs 64 [61-68], P = .76) was observed between 2 groups at last follow-up. But, in the subgroup analysis, LVEDD was shorter (46 [44-49] vs 50 [47-58] mm, P = .03) and the LVEF% was higher (65 [62-68] vs 63 [58-65], P = .02) in the LBBaP-H (high ventricular pacing ratio >40%) group compared with RVSP-H group at last follow-up. There were lower capture thresholds (0.59±0.18V vs 0.71 ± 0.26 V, P = 0.01) at implantation in the LBBaP group than those in the RVSP group, with R-wave amplitudes and pacing impedances showing no significant difference between 2 groups. No serious complications were found in both 2 groups at implantation and follow-ups.This study confirms the clinical safety and efficacy of LBBaP, and it produces better ventricular electrical-mechanical synchrony than RVSP. The event of pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction is lower in the LBBaP-H group than RVSP-H group.

Left bundle branch area pacing lead implantation using an uninterrupted monitoring of endocardial signals

An 82-year old woman with third degree atrioventricular block underwent left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) lead implantation - as is the routine pacing strategy for such indication in our institution This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Left bundle branch pacing: An evolving site for physiological pacing

For patients with symptomatic bradyarrhythmia, cardiac pacing is the only appropriate treatment option. Electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony caused by traditional right ventricular apical pacing leads to left ventricular dysfunction and atrial arrhythmias. Physiological pacing stimulates natural cardiac conduction, resulting in synchronized ventricular contraction. Even if His bundle pacing (HBP) is an ideal physiological pacing modality, it is technically not always feasible because of high capture thresholds, disease in the distal His bundle, and follow-up troubleshooting issues. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been proposed as a viable alternative to HBP since it provides lead stability, a low and stable pacing threshold, and correction of distal conduction system disease.

Left bundle branch area pacing guided by continuous uninterrupted monitoring of unipolar pacing characteristics

INTRODUCTION

During left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) lead implantation, intermittent monitoring of unipolar pacing characteristics confirms LBB capture and can detect septal perforation. We aimed to demonstrate that continuous uninterrupted unipolar pacing from an inserted lead stylet (LS) is feasible and facilitates LBBAP implantation.

METHODS

Thirty patients (mean age 76 ± 14 years) were implanted with a stylet-driven pacing lead (Biotronik Solia S60). In 10 patients (comparison-group) conventional implantation with interrupted unipolar pacing was performed, with comparison of unipolar pacing characteristics between LS and connector-pin (CP)-pacing after each rotation step. In 20 patients (uninterrupted-group) performance and safety of uninterrupted implantation during continuous pacing from the LS were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the comparison group, LS and CP-pacing impedances were highly correlated (R²  = 0.95, p < .0001, bias 12 ± 37 Ω) with comparable sensed electrograms and paced QRS morphologies. In the uninterrupted group, continuous LS-pacing allowed beat-to-beat monitoring of impedance and QRS morphology to guide implantation. This resulted in successful LBBAP in all patients, after a mean of 1 ± 0 attempts, with mean threshold 0.81 ± 0.4 V, median sensing 6.5 mV [IQR 4.4-9.5], and mean impedance 624 ± 101 Ω. Positive LBBAP-criteria were seen in all patients with median paced QRS duration of 120 ms [IQR 112-152 ms] and median pLVAT 73 ms [IQR 68-80.5 ms]. No septal perforation occurred.

CONCLUSION

Unipolar pacing from the LS allows accurate determination of pacing impedance and generates similar paced QRS morphologies and sensed electrograms to CP pacing. Continuous LS pacing allows real-time monitoring of impedance and paced QRS morphology, which facilitates safe and successful LBBAP lead implantation.

Physiology and Practicality of Left Ventricular Septal Pacing

Left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) have been introduced to maintain or correct interventricular and intraventricular (dys)synchrony. LVSP is hypothesised to produce a fairly physiological sequence of activation, since in the left ventricle (LV) the working myocardium is activated first at the LV endocardium in the low septal and anterior free-wall regions. Animal studies as well as patient studies have demonstrated that LV function is maintained during LVSP at levels comparable to sinus rhythm with normal conduction. Left ventricular activation is more synchronous during LBBP than LVSP, but LBBP produces a higher level of intraventricular dyssynchrony compared to LVSP. While LVSP is fairly straightforward to perform, targeting the left bundle branch area may be more challenging. Long-term effects of LVSP and LBBP are yet to be determined. This review focuses on the physiology and practicality of LVSP and provides a guide for permanent LVSP implantation.

Pacing of Specialized Conduction System

Right ventricular pacing for bradycardia remains the mainstay of pacing therapy. Chronic right ventricular pacing may lead to pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. We focus on the anatomy of the conduction system and the clinical feasibility of pacing the His bundle and/or left bundle conduction system. We review the hemodynamics of conduction system pacing, the techniques to capture the conduction system and the electrocardiogram and pacing definitions of conduction system capture. Clinical studies of conduction system pacing in the setting of atrioventricular block and after AV junction ablation are reviewed and the evolving role of conduction system pacing is compared with biventricular pacing.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Implant Technique, Definitions, Outcomes, and Complications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged during the last few years as the cornerstone of physiological pacing. Two different CSP modalities have been described so far: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). This review will be focused on the description of LBBAP technique, definitions, outcomes, and complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Large observational studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LBBAP in different scenarios. LBBAP has been associated with excellent pacing electrical parameters (pacing threshold and R wave sensing) and low complication rates including lead revision < 1%. In patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indication, LBBAP has shown significant improvement of functional class and left ventricular ejection fraction during short-term follow-up. LBBAP is a relatively new CSP modality showing excellent results for patients with conventional bradycardia pacing indications and promising expectations about its potential role for CRT.

Left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT): Results from an international LBBAP collaborative study group

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) based on the conventional biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) technique sometimes results in broad QRS complex and suboptimal response.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of CRT based on left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP, in lieu of the right ventricular lead) combined with coronary venous left ventricular pacing in an international multicenter study.

METHODS

LBBAP-optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) was attempted in nonconsecutive patients with CRT indications. Addition of the LBBA (or coronary venous) lead was at the discretion of the implanting physician, who was guided by suboptimal paced QRS complex, and/or on clinical grounds.

RESULTS

LOT-CRT was successful in 91 of 112 patients (81%). The baseline characteristics were as follows: mean age 70 ± 11 years, female 22 (20%), left ventricular ejection fraction 28.7% ± 9.8%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter 62 ± 9 mm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level 5821 ± 8193 pg/mL, left bundle branch block 47 (42%), nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay 25 (22%), right ventricular pacing 26 (23%), and right bundle branch block 14 (12%). The procedure characteristics were as follows: mean fluoroscopy time 27.3 ± 22 minutes, LBBAP capture threshold 0.8 ± 0.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and R-wave amplitude 10 mV. LOT-CRT resulted in significantly greater narrowing of QRS complex from 182 ± 25 ms at baseline to 144 ± 22 ms (P < .0001) than did BiV-CRT (170 ± 30 ms; P < .0001) and LBBAP (162 ± 23 ms; P < .0001). At follow-up of ≥3 months, the ejection fraction improved to 37% ± 12%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter decreased to 59 ± 9 mm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level decreased to 2514 ± 3537 pg/mL, pacing parameters were stable, and clinical improvement was noted in 76% of patients (New York Heart Association class 2.9 vs 1.9).

CONCLUSION

LOT-CRT is feasible and safe and provides greater electrical resynchronization as compared with BiV-CRT and could be an alternative, especially when only suboptimal electrical resynchronization is obtained with BiV-CRT. Randomized controlled trials comparing LOT-CRT and BiV-CRT are needed.

Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch pacing in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been widely accepted as a traditional pacing strategy, but long-term RVP has detrimental impact on ventricular synchrony. However, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) that evolved from His-bundle pacing could maintain ventricular synchrony and overcome its clinical deficiencies such as difficulty of lead implantation, His bundle damage, and high and unstable thresholds. This analysis aimed to appraise the clinical safety and efficacy of LBBP.

METHODS

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 2020 were searched for studies comparing LBBP and RVP.

RESULTS

Seven trials with 451 patients (221 patients underwent LBBP and 230 patients underwent RVP) were included in the analysis. Pooled analyses verified that the paced QRS duration (QRSd) and left ventricular mechanical synchronization parameters of the LBBP capture were similar with the native-conduction mode (P > .7),but LBBP showed shorter QRS duration (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -33.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -40.44 to -26.19, P < .001), better left ventricular mechanical synchrony (standard mean differences: -1.5; 95% CI: -1.85 to -1.14, P < .001) compared with RVP. No significant differences in Pacing threshold (WMD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.09, P < .001), R wave amplitude (WMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -1.12 to 1.19, P = .95) were noted between LBBP and RVP. Ventricular impedance of LBBP was higher than that of RVP originally (WMD: 19.34; 95% CI: 3.13-35.56, P = .02), and there was no difference between the 2 groups after follow-up (WMD: 11.78; 95% CI: -24.48 to 48.04, P = .52). And follow-up pacing threshold of LBBP kept stability (WMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.25, P = .36). However, no statistical difference existed in ejection fraction between the 2 groups (WMD: 1.41; 95% CI: -1.72 to 4.54, P = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of LBBP was firstly verified by meta-analysis to date. LBBP markedly preserve ventricular electrical and mechanical synchrony compared with RVP. Meanwhile, LBBP had stable and excellent pacing parameters. However, LBBP could not be significant difference in ejection fraction between RVP during short- term follow-up.