EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: executive summary. Endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS) and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

[Treatment with cardiac electronic implantable devices]

Cardiac device therapy provides not only treatment options for bradyarrhythmia but also advanced treatment for heart failure and preventive measures against sudden cardiac death. In heart failure treatment it enables synergistic reverse remodelling and reduces pharmacological side effects. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has revolutionized the treatment of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left bundle branch block by decreasing the mortality and morbidity with improvement of the quality of life and resilience. Conduction system pacing (CSP) as an alternative method of physiological stimulation can improve heart function and reduce the risk of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy. Leadless pacers and subcutaneous/extravascular defibrillators offer less invasive options with lower complication rates. The prevention of infections through preoperative and postoperative strategies enhances the safety of these therapies.

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 set to outshine biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy?

The deleterious effects of long-term right ventricular pacing necessitated the search for alternative pacing sites which could prevent or alleviate pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Until recently, biventricular pacing (BiVP) was the only modality which could mitigate or prevent pacing induced dysfunction. Further, BiVP could resynchronize the baseline electromechanical dssynchrony in heart failure and improve outcomes. However, the high non-response rate of around 20%-30% remains a major limitation. This non-response has been largely attributable to the direct non-physiological stimulation of the left ventricular myocardium bypassing the conduction system. To overcome this limitation, the concept of conduction system pacing (CSP) came up. Despite initial success of the first CSP via His bundle pacing (HBP), certain drawbacks including lead instability and dislodgements, steep learning curve and rapid battery depletion on many occasions prevented its widespread use for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Subsequently, CSP via left bundle branch-area pacing (LBBP) was developed in 2018, which over the last few years has shown efficacy comparable to BiVP-CRT in small observational studies. Further, its safety has also been well established and is largely free of the pitfalls of the HBP-CRT. In the recent metanalysis by Yasmin et al, comprising of 6 studies with 389 participants, LBBP-CRT was superior to BiVP-CRT in terms of QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac chamber dimensions, lead thresholds, and functional status amongst heart failure patients with left bundle branch block. However, there are important limitations of the study including the small overall numbers, inclusion of only a single small randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a small follow-up duration. Further, the entire study population analyzed was from China which makes generalizability a concern. Despite the concerns, the meta-analysis adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of LBBP-CRT. At this stage, one must acknowledge that the fact that still our opinions on this technique are largely based on observational data and there is a dire need for larger RCTs to ascertain the position of LBBP-CRT in management of heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.

Novel Medical Treatments and Devices for the Management of Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction

Heart failure (HF) is a growing issue in developed countries; it is often the result of underlying processes such as ischemia, hypertension, infiltrative diseases or even genetic abnormalities. The great majority of the affected patients present a reduced ejection fraction (≤40%), thereby falling under the name of "heart failure with reduced ejection fraction" (HFrEF). This condition represents a major threat for patients: it significantly affects life quality and carries an enormous burden on the whole healthcare system due to its high management costs. In the last decade, new medical treatments and devices have been developed in order to reduce HF hospitalizations and improve prognosis while reducing the overall mortality rate. Pharmacological therapy has significantly changed our perspective of this disease thanks to its ability of restoring ventricular function and reducing symptom severity, even in some dramatic contexts with an extensively diseased myocardium. Notably, medical therapy can sometimes be ineffective, and a tailored integration with device technologies is of pivotal importance. Not by chance, in recent years, cardiac implantable devices witnessed a significant improvement, thereby providing an irreplaceable resource for the management of HF. Some devices have the ability of assessing (CardioMEMS) or treating (ultrafiltration) fluid retention, while others recognize and treat life-threatening arrhythmias, even for a limited time frame (wearable cardioverter defibrillator). The present review article gives a comprehensive overview of the most recent and important findings that need to be considered in patients affected by HFrEF. Both novel medical treatments and devices are presented and discussed.

Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in Japanese patients with bradycardia

Background

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) emerge as better alternatives to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP, HBP, and RVAP in Japanese patients with bradycardia.

Methods

A total of 424 patients who underwent successful pacemaker implantation (HBP, n = 53; LBBAP, n = 75; and RVAP, n = 296) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The primary study endpoint was the cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) during the follow-up.

Results

The success rate for implantation was higher in the LBBAP group than in the HBP group (94.9% and 81.5%, respectively). Capture threshold increase >1V during the follow-up occurred in the HBP and RVAP groups (9.4% and 5.1%, respectively), while it did not in the LBBAP group. The cumulative incidence of HFH was significantly lower in the LBBAP group than the RVAP (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.12 [95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.86]; p = .034); it did not differ between the HBP and RVAP groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.17-1.34]; p = .16). Advanced age, mean percent right ventricular pacing (per 10% increase), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, and RVAP were associated with HFH.

Conclusions

Compared to RVAP and HBP, LBBAP appeared more feasible and effective in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Prognostic benefits of His-Purkinje capture in physiological pacemakers for bradycardia

INTRODUCTION

Clinical outcomes of long-term ventricular septal pacing (VSP) without His-Purkinje capture remain unknown. This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes between conduction system pacing (CSP), VSP, and right ventricular pacing (RVP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with bradycardia indicated for pacing from 2016 to 2022 were prospectively followed for the clinical endpoints of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations and all-cause mortality at 2 years. VSP was defined as septal pacing due to unsuccessful CSP implant or successful CSP followed by loss of His-Purkinje capture within 90 days.

RESULTS

Among 1016 patients (age 73.9 ± 11.2 years, 47% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 612 received RVP, 335 received CSP and 69 received VSP. Paced QRS duration was similar between VSP and RVP, but both significantly longer than CSP (p < .05). HF-hospitalizations occurred in 130 (13%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 16% vs. VSP 13%, p = .001), and all-cause mortality in 143 (14%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 19% vs. VSP 9%, p < .001). The association of pacing modality with clinical events was limited to those with ventricular pacing (Vp) > 20% (pinteraction < .05). Adjusting for clinical risk factors among patients with Vp > 20%, VSP (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 4.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-14.36) and RVP (AHR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.44-6.60) were associated with increased hazard of HF-hospitalizations, and RVP (2.52, 95% CI: 1.19-5.35) with increased mortality, compared to CSP. Clinical endpoints did not differ between VSP and RVP with Vp > 20%, or amongst groups with Vp < 20%.

CONCLUSION

Conduction system capture is associated with improved clinical outcomes. CSP should be preferred over VSP or RVP during pacing for bradycardia.

The clinical anatomy of the atrioventricular conduction axis

It is axiomatic that the chances of achieving accurate capture of the conduction axis and its fascicles will be optimized by equally accurate knowledge of the relationship of the components to the recognizable cardiac landmarks, and we find it surprising that acknowledged experts should continue to use drawings that fall short in terms of anatomical accuracy. The accuracy achieved by Sunao Tawara (1906) in showing the location of the atrioventricular conduction axis is little short of astounding. Our purpose in bringing this to current attention is to question the need of the experts to have produced such inaccurate representations, since the findings of Tawara have been extensively endorsed in very recent years. The recent studies do no more than point to the amazing accuracy of the initial account of Tawara. At the same time, we draw attention to the findings described in the middle of the 20th century by Ivan Mahaim (1947). These observations have tended to be ignored in recent accounts. They are, perhaps, of equal significance to those seeking specifically to pace the left fascicles of the branching atrioventricular bundle.

A case of exaggerated exuberance: Iatrogenic atrioventricular block/intra-Hisian Wenckebach during conduction system pacing

Isolated sinus node dysfunction with its pursuant long-term risk for atrioventricular (AV) conduction disease poses a unique dilemma for proponents of CSP due to paucity of imprimatur guidelines. In such scenarios, the risk and prognosis of iatrogenic AV block is not well elucidated but is a valid concern. We report a case where CSP was complicated by iatrogenic AV block and peculiarly the rare phenomenon of intra-Hisian Wenckebach.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with conduction system pacing in a long-term heart transplant recipient: A case report

We performed cardiac resynchronization therapy by means of conduction system pacing in a heart transplant patient suffering from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation with conduction disturbance (bifascicular block and QRS >160 ms). ECG monitoring showed paroxysmal atrioventricular block. Biventricular pacing was not feasible due to the absence of a suitable coronary sinus branch for pacing. His bundle pacing was performed, and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was implanted due to severe left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy was excluded. During follow-up, the patient's left ventricular function improved, and symptoms alleviated with a high percentage of ventricular stimulation.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing: Prognosis and specific applications

Cardiac pacing has become a widely accepted treatment strategy for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure. However, conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with electrical dyssynchrony, which may result in atrial fibrillation and heart failure. To achieve physiological pacing, Deshmukh et al. reported the first case of His bundle pacing (HBP) in 2000. This strategy was reported to have preserved ventricular synchronization by activating the conventional conduction system. Nonetheless, due to the anatomical location of the His bundle (HB), several issues such as high pacing thresholds, lead fixation, and early battery depletion may pose a challenge. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy to achieve conduction system pacing by capturing the left bundle branch through the deep septum. Additionally, several studies have investigated the clinical outcomes of LBBAP. In this paper, we describe the pacing parameters, QRS duration (QRSd), cardiac function, complications, and specific applications of LBBAP in recent years.

Autothreshold algorithm feasibility and safety in left bundle branch pacing

AIMS

Autothreshold algorithms enable remote monitoring of patients with conventional pacing, but there is limited information on their performance in left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Our objective was to analyse the behaviour of the autothreshold algorithm in LBBP and compare it with conventional pacing and manual thresholds during initial device programming (acute phase), after 1-7 days (subacute), and 1-3 months later (chronic).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective, non-randomized, single-centre comparative study was conducted. Consecutive patients with indication for cardiac pacing were enrolled. Implants were performed in the left bundle branch area or the right ventricle endocardium at the discretion of the operator. Left bundle branch pacing was determined according to published criteria. Autothreshold algorithm was activated in both groups whenever allowed by the device. Seventy-five patients were included, with 50 undergoing LBBP and 25 receiving conventional pacing. Activation of the autothreshold algorithm was more feasible in later phases, showing a favourable trend towards bipolar pacing. Failures in algorithm activation were primarily due to insufficient safety margins (82.8% in LBBP and 90% in conventional pacing). The remainder was attributed to atrial tachyarrhythmias (10.3% and 10%, respectively) and electrical noise (the remaining 6.9% in the LBBP group). In the LBBP group, there were not statistically significant differences between manual and automatic thresholds, and both remained stable during follow-up (mean increase of 0.50 V).

CONCLUSION

The autothreshold algorithm is feasible in LBBP, with a favourable trend towards bipolar pacing. Automatic thresholds are similar to manual in patients with LBBP, and they remain stable during follow-up.

Conventional biventricular pacing is still preferred to conduction system pacing for atrioventricular block in patients with reduced ejection fraction and narrow QRS

It is well established that right ventricular pacing is detrimental in patients with reduced cardiac function who require ventricular pacing (VP), and alternatives nowadays are comprised of biventricular pacing (BiVP) and conduction system pacing (CSP). The latter modality is of particular interest in patients with a narrow baseline QRS as it completely avoids, or minimizes, ventricular desynchronization associated with VP. In this article, experts debate whether BiVP or CSP should be used to treat these patients.

Imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: part 2-imaging after device implantation. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) improve quality of life and prolong survival, but there are additional considerations for cardiovascular imaging after implantation-both for standard indications and for diagnosing and guiding management of device-related complications. This clinical consensus statement (part 2) from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, provides comprehensive, up-to-date, and evidence-based guidance to cardiologists, cardiac imagers, and pacing specialists regarding the use of imaging in patients after implantation of conventional pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) devices. The document summarizes the existing evidence regarding the role and optimal use of various cardiac imaging modalities in patients with suspected CIED-related complications and also discusses CRT optimization, the safety of magnetic resonance imaging in CIED carriers, and describes the role of chest radiography in assessing CIED type, position, and complications. The role of imaging before and during CIED implantation is discussed in a companion document (part 1).

Loss of capture of conduction system pacemaker caused by fibrosis surrounding the lead: a case report

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a novel technique that involves pacing the His-Purkinje system instead of the traditional right ventricular (RV) apex. This technique aims to avoid the adverse effects of RV apical pacing, which can lead to ventricular dyssynchrony and heart failure over time. CSP is gaining popularity but its long-term efficacy and challenges remain uncertain. This report discusses a case where CSP was initially successful but faced complications due to an increasing pacing threshold.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 65-year-old female with total atrioventricular block was referred for brady-pacing. Due to the potential for chronic RV pacing, CSP was chosen. The CSP implantation involved subcutaneous device placement, with a CSP lead in the left bundle branch area (LBBA) and an RV backup lead. A year after successful implantation, the LBBA pacing threshold progressively increased. Subsequent efforts to correct it led to anodal capture and battery depletion. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) revealed mid-septal fibrosis at the area of LBBA lead placement and suggested cardiac sarcoidosis as a possible cause.

CONCLUSION

CSP is a promising technique for treating bradyarrhythmias, but this case underscores the need for vigilance in monitoring pacing thresholds. Increasing thresholds can render CSP ineffective, necessitating alternative pacing methods. The CMR findings of mid-septal fibrosis and the potential diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis emphasize the importance of pre-implantation assessment, as CSP may be compromised by underlying structural abnormalities. This report highlights the complexities of pacing strategy selection and the significance of comprehensive evaluation before adopting CSP.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

The Wireless Stimulation Endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) system is a novel technology used to treat patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (HF) by providing leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Observational studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy profile, however, the treatment cost-effectiveness has not previously been examined.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of the WiSE-CRT System was performed using a cohort-based economic model adopting a "proportion in state" structure. In addition to the primary analysis, scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to test for uncertainty in input parameters. Outcomes were quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) differences.

RESULTS

The primary analysis demonstrated that treatment with the WiSE-CRT system is likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon at a QALY reimbursement threshold of £20 000, with a net monetary benefit (NMB) of £3781 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness declines at time horizons shorter than 10 years. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that average system battery life had the largest impact on potential cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Within the model limitations, these findings support the use of WiSE-CRT in indicated patients from an economic standpoint. However, improving battery technology should be prioritized to maximize cost-effectiveness in times when health services are under significant financial pressures.

A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is the common final pathway of several conditions and is characterized by hyperactivation of numerous neurohumoral pathways. Cardiorenal interaction plays an essential role in the progression of the disease, and the use of diuretics is a cornerstone in the treatment of hypervolemic patients, especially in acute decompensated HF (ADHF). The management of congestion is complex and, to avoid misinterpretations and errors, one must understand the interface between the heart and the kidneys in ADHF. Congestion itself may impair renal function and must be treated aggressively. Transitory elevations in serum creatinine during decongestion is not associated with worse outcomes and diuretics should be maintained in patients with clear hypervolemia. Monitoring urinary sodium after diuretic administration seems to improve the response to diuretics as it allows for adjustments in doses and a personalized approach. Adequate assessment of volemia and the introduction and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy are mandatory before discharge. An early visit after discharge is highly recommended, to assess for residual congestion and thus avoid readmissions.

Feasibility and Safety Study of Concomitant Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Atrioventricular Node Ablation with Same-Day Hospital Dismissal

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has rapidly emerged as a promising modality of physiologic pacing and has demonstrated excellent lead stability. In this retrospective study, we evaluate whether this pacing modality can allow concomitant atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation and same-day dismissal.

METHODS

Twenty-four consecutive patients (female 63%, male 37%) with an average age of 78 ± 5 years were admitted for pacemaker (75%)/defibrillator (25%) implantations and concomitant AVN ablation. Device implantation with LBBAP was performed first, followed by concomitant AVN ablation through left axillary vein access to allow for quicker post-procedure ambulation. The patients were discharged on the same day after satisfactory post-ambulation device checks.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successful in 22 patients (92% in total, 20 patients had an LBBP and two patients had a likely LBBP), followed by AVN ablation from left axillary vein access (21/24, 88%). All patients had successful post-op chest x-rays, post-ambulation device checks, and were discharged on the same day. After a mean follow up of three months, no major complications occurred, such as LBBA lead dislodgement requiring a lead revision. The LBBA lead pacing parameters immediately after implantation vs. three-month follow up were a capture threshold of 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms vs. 0.6 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms, sensing 9.9 ± 3.9 mV vs. 10.4 ± 4.1 mV, and impedance of 710 ± 216 ohm vs. 544 ± 110 ohm. The QRS duration before and after AVN ablation was 117 ± 32 ms vs. 123 ± 14 ms. Mean LVEF before and three months after the implantation was 44 ± 14% vs. 46 ± 12%.

CONCLUSION

LBBA pacing not only offers physiologic pacing, but also allows for a concomitant AVN ablation approach from the left axillary vein and safe same-day hospital dismissal.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one-third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiple strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged in recent years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP, appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations, and future directions.

Procedural outcome and follow-up of stylet-driven leads compared with lumenless leads for left bundle branch area pacing

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is most often delivered using lumenless leads (LLLs), but may also be performed using stylet-driven leads (SDLs). There are limited reports on the comparison of these tools, mainly limited to reports describing initial operator experience or without detailed procedural data. Our aim was to perform an in-depth comparison of SDLs and LLLs for LBBAP at implantation and follow-up in a larger cohort of patients with experience that extends beyond that of the initial learning curve.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 306 consecutive patients (age 77 ± 11 years, 183 males) undergoing LBBAP implantation at a single centre were prospectively included. The population was split into two groups of 153 patients based on the initial use of an SDL (from 4 manufacturers) or an LLL. After having discounted the initial learning curve of 50 patients, there was no difference in the success rate between the initial use of lead type (96.0% with SDL vs. 94.3% with LLL, P = 0.56). There were no significant differences in success between lead models. Electrocardiogram and electrical parameters were comparable between the groups. Post-operative macro-dislodgement occurred in 4.3% of patients (essentially within the first day following implantation) and presumed micro-dislodgement with loss of conduction system capture or rise in threshold (occurring mostly during the first month) was observed in 4.7% of patients, without differences between groups.

CONCLUSION

Left bundle branch area pacing may be safely and effectively performed using either LLLs or SDLs, which provides implanters with alternatives for delivering this therapy.

Predictors of implantation failure in left bundle branch area pacing using a lumenless lead in patients with bradycardia

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel conduction system pacing technique. In this multicenter study, we aimed to evaluate the procedural success, safety, and preoperative predictors of procedural failure of LBBAP.

Methods

LBBAP was attempted in 285 patients with pacemaker indications for bradyarrhythmia, which were mainly atrioventricular block (AVB) (68.1%) and sick sinus syndrome (26.7%). Procedural success and electrophysiological and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated.

Results

LBBAP was successful in 247 (86.7%) patients. Left bundle branch (LBB) capture was confirmed in 54.7% of the population. The primary reasons for procedural failure were the inability of the pacemaker lead to penetrate deep into the septum (76.3%) and failure to achieve shortening of stimulus to left ventricular (LV) activation time in lead V6 (18.4%). Thickened interventricular septum (odds ratio [OR], 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-5.35), severe tricuspid regurgitation (OR, 8.84; 95% CI, 1.22-64.06), and intraventricular conduction delay (OR, 8.16; 95% CI, 2.32-28.75) were preoperative predictors of procedural failure. The capture threshold and ventricular amplitude remained stable, and no major complications occurred throughout the 2-year follow-up. In patients with ventricular pacing burden >40%, the LV ejection fraction remained high regardless of LBB capture.

Conclusions

Successful LBBAP was affected by abnormal cardiac anatomy and intraventricular conduction. LBBAP is feasible and safe as a primary strategy for patients with AVB, depending on ventricular pacing.

Left ventricular septal pacing - can we trust the ECG?

In contrast to left bundle branch pacing, the criteria for left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were never validated. LVSP is usually defined as deep septal deployment of the pacing lead with a pseudo-right bundle branch morphology in V1. The case report describes an implant procedure during which this definition of LVSP was fulfilled in four of five pacing locations within the septum, with the shallowest of them present in less than 50% of the septal thickness. The case highlights the need for a more precise definition of LVSP.

Diverse QRS morphology reflecting variations in lead placement for left bundle branch area pacing

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a potential alternative to His bundle pacing. This study aimed to investigate the impact of different septal locations of pacing leads on the diversity of QRS morphology during non-selective LBBAP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Non-selective LBBAP and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were achieved in 50 and 21 patients with atrioventricular block, respectively. The electrophysiological properties of LBBAP and their relationship with the lead location were investigated. QRS morphology and axis showed broad variations during LBBAP. Echocardiography demonstrated a widespread distribution of LBBAP leads in the septum. During non-selective LBBAP, the qR-wave in lead V1 indicated that the primary location for pacing lead was the inferior septum (93%). The non-selective LBBAP lead was deployed deeper than the LVSP lead in the inferior septum. The Qr-wave in lead V1 with the inferior axis in aVF suggested pacing lead placement in the anterior septum. The penetration depth of the non-selective LBBAP lead in the anterior septum was significantly shallower than that in the inferior septum (72 ± 11 and 87 ± 8%, respectively). In lead V6, the deep S-wave indicated the time lag between the R-wave peak and the latest ventricular activation in the coronary sinus trunk, with pacemaker leads deployed closer to the left ventricular apex.

CONCLUSION

Different QRS morphologies and axes were linked to the location of the non-selective LBBAP lead in the septum. Various lead deployments are feasible for LBBAP, allowing diversity in the conduction system capture in patients with atrioventricular block.