What is the mechanism of narrow paced QRS duration during left bundle branch area pacing? A case report

Quantitative analysis reveals influencing factors to facilitate successful anodal-ring capture in left bundle branch pacing

AIMS

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) maintains left ventricular synchrony but induces right ventricular conduction delay (RVCD). Although anodal-ring capture (ARC) during bipolar LBBP improves RVCD, it is not achieved in all patients receiving LBBP. This study aimed to analyze the factors influencing ARC implementation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients receiving LBBP with intraoperative ARC testing were enrolled. Electrocardiographic parameters were measured, including stimulus-to-QRS duration (stim-QRSd), stimulus-to-left/right ventricular activation time (stim-LVAT/RVAT), and V6-V1 interpeak interval. The distribution of lead-tip sites was described as the corrected longitudinal and lateral distance (longit-/lat-dist). Relative angles of the LBBP lead were measured. Echocardiography in short-axis view was used to measure the intraseptal lead length. Intergroup comparisons, correlation analysis, and stepwise logistic regression were performed. In total, 105 patients were included, among which 65 (62%) patients achieved ARC at a pacing output ≤ 5.0 V/0.5 ms (average 3.1 V/0.5 ms). Anodal-ring capture further shortened the stim-QRSd by 13.1 ± 7.5 ms. Better unipolar-ring (cathodal) threshold and R-wave sensing in LBBP-ARC group indicated the critical role of ring-septum contact in ARC. Longer corrected longit-dist and shorter corrected lat-dist of lead-tip sites were positively correlated with higher success likelihood of ARC, likely due to the greater relative angle in which the lead enters the septum and consequently the longer intraseptal lead length and better ring-septum contact.

CONCLUSION

This study elucidated the factors affecting the success likelihood of LBBP-ARC. These findings improve the understanding of LBBP-ARC, providing references for future research and clinical practice.

Clinical impact of left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and mid-range ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Recently, conduction system pacing, including His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as an alternative pacing procedure for right ventricular (RV) pacing. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP and conventional RV mid-septal pacing (RVMSP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with mid-range ejection (HFmrEF) requiring frequency RV pacing due to atrioventricular block (AVB).

METHODS

A total of 89 patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB were enrolled between September 2018 and April 2021, among whom 43 and 46 underwent LBBAP and RVMSP, respectively.

RESULTS

No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The LBBAP group had a significantly shorter paced-QRS duration and paced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) compared to the RVMSP group (123.4 ± 10.4 ms vs. 152.3 ± 12.3 ms, p < 0.001 and 68.3 ± 10.0 ms vs. 95.2 ± 12.3 ms, p < 0.001, respectively). The LBBAP group had significantly lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at the 6-month follow-up compared to the RVMSP group [459.6 pg/mL (240.4-678.7) vs. 972.7 pg/mL (629.5-1315.9), p = 0.01]. More patients in the LBBAP group exhibited a significant improvement in NT-proBNP, defined as a >50% decreased from baseline levels.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP maintains physiological ventricular activation and contributes to greater improvement in NT-proBNP value 6 months after implantation in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF compared to RVMSP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Left bundle branch pacing in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) has been demonstrated. However, a non-response rate of CRT nearly 1/3. Recent studies have reported left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has achieved remarkable effect in CRT. This study aim to explore the efficacy and safety of LBBP in heart failure patients with LBBB.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of science and CNKI databases for studies about LBBP in heart failure patients with LBBB. QRS duration (QRSd), New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing threshold and other related data were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies were included, and the success rate of LBBP was 93.2%. Compared with baseline, LBBP could shorten QRSd (MD = 61.23, 95%CI: 58.21 ∼ 64.25, P < 0.01). Echocardiographic parameters including LVEF and LVEDD significantly improved (both with P < 0.01). Clinical outcomes including NYHA classification and BNP dramatically reduced (both with P < 0.01). Compared with biventricular pacing (BVP), LBBP could further improve QRSd, LVEF, LVEDD, and NYHA classification (all with P < 0.01). However, the pacing threshold at follow-up was 0.06V higher than that at baseline (P < 0.01), and the incidence of complications was 2.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP is effective and safe in heart failure patients with LBBB, whether it is better than BVP needs to be verified by randomized controlled trials. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Quantitative distance and electrocardiographic parameters for lead-implanted site selection to enhance the success likelihood of left bundle branch pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel near-physiological pacing method that still lacks quantitative criteria to guide the selection of lead-implanted sites to enhance the success likelihood of lead deployments. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the relationships of LBBP success likelihood to the distribution of lead-implanted sites and the lead-localization-pacing electrocardiographic (ECG) features.

METHODS

All the lead-implanted sites in patients with finally successful LBBP were enrolled for analysis, including successful and failed sites. A novel coordinate system was invented to describe the sites' distribution as longitudinal distance (longit-dist) and lateral distance (lat-dist). Corrected distance parameters were generated to eliminate the cardiac dimension variations. The lead-localization-pacing ECG parameters were also collected, such as paced QRS duration (locat-QRSd), left ventricular activation time (locat-LVAT), LVAT/QRSd ratio (locat-LVAT/QRSd), and QRS directions.

RESULTS

A total of 94 patients with 105 successful sites and 93 failed sites were enrolled. Longit-dist and corrected longit-dist of successful sites were significantly longer, while locat-QRSd and locat-LVAT were shorter and locat-LVAT/QRSd was lower than failed sites. There was a positive dose-response relationship between LBBP success likelihood and corrected longit-dist with a cut-off of 26.95 mm, whereas there were negative dose-response relationships of LBBP success likelihood to locat-QRSd, locat-LVAT, and locat-LVAT/QRSd with the cut-offs of 142 ms, 92 ms, and 64.7%, respectively. Downward QRS direction in II/III ECG leads was also associated with successful LBBP.

CONCLUSION

Longit-dist, locat-QRSd, locat-LVAT, and locat-LVAT/QRSd were quantitative parameters to guide the selection of lead-implanted sites during LBBP implantation. Quantitative distance and electrocardiographic parameters for lead-implanted site selection to enhance the success likelihood of left bundle branch pacing. LBBP, left bundle branch pacing; Longit-dist, longitudinal distance; CL-apex-dist, distance from contraction line to apex; LBBB, left bundle branch block; IVCD, intraventricular conduction delay; Locat-QRSd, lead-localization-pacing QRS duration; Locat-LVAT, lead-localization-pacing left ventricular activation time; Locat-LVAT/QRSd, lead-localization-pacing LVAT/QRSd ratio.