Is the left bundle branch pacing a choice to conquer the right bundle branch block?-A case report

Early assessment of ventricular synchronization and function after left bundle-branch-area pacing with right bundle-branch block

Aim

To evaluate ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block after left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) by echocardiography.

Methods

Forty patients who successfully received LBBAP were selected and divided into the right bundle-branch block group (RBBB group) and the non-RBBB group by pre-operation ECG. Echocardiography and follow-up were performed 1 month after operation. Interventricular synchronization was evaluated by tissue Doppler (TDI), tissue mitral annular displacement (TMAD), and interventricular mechanical delay. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricular fractional area change (RVFAC), tricuspid annulus sidewall systolic velocity (TV-s’), left ventricular global ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (LS-RV), standard deviation of left ventricular 18 segments peak time difference (SDt-L) and standard deviation of right ventricular free wall 3 segments peak time difference (SDt-R) were applied to evaluate intraventricular synchronization and ventricular function.

Results

The difference of displacement peak time of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔPT_TV-MV measured by TMAD, the difference of systolic time to peak of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔTs_TV-MV measured by TDI, were statistically different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the non-RBBB group, there were no statistically significant differences in the GLS, RVFAC, LS-RV, TAPSE, TV-s’, SDt-L, SDt-R (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

Echocardiography technology including two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI), TDI, and TMAD can effectively analyze interventricular synchronization, intraventricular synchronization, and ventricular function. Although the movement of the right ventricular myocardium in the RBBB group was slightly later than that of the left ventricular myocardium after LBBAP, LBBAP could still be applied in RBBB patients with pacing indication.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12872-022-02818-z.

Influence of Capture Selectivity and Left Intrahisian Block on QRS Characteristics During Left Bundle Branch Pacing

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine QRS and intracardiac characteristics during selective (S) and nonselective (NS) left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) from direct left septal recordings.

BACKGROUND

Criteria for S-LBBP and NS-LBBP have not been validated with intracardiac mapping.

METHODS

Pacing was performed from multielectrode Purkinje recordings below the left-sided His. S-LBBP and NS-LBBP were performed in patients with narrow QRS (n = 9), right bundle branch block (n = 3), intraventricular conduction delay (n = 5), and left bundle branch block (n = 10). QRS duration was measured from stimulus onset (QRS_st) and from the intrinsicoid deflection of the R-wave in V₁-V₂ (QRS_id) to QRS end. Retrograde left bundle branch conduction was assessed by stimulus-to-retrograde His intervals.

RESULTS

Among 27 patients analyzed, 20 demonstrated both NS- and S-LBBP and were studied in paired comparisons. NS-LBBP resulted in narrower QRS compared to S-LBBP (QRS_st: 163 ms [interquartile range (IQR): 144-179 ms] vs 181 ms [IQR: 173-203 ms]; P < 0.001; QRS_id: 125 ms [IQR: 117-142 ms] vs 150 ms [IQR: 135-157 ms]; P < 0.001). Left ventricular activation time was also significantly shorter for NS-LBBP compared to S-LBBP (88 ms [IQR: 75-111 ms] vs 97 ms [IQR: 82-123 ms]; P = 0.019). Left intrahisian block was bidirectional in 10 patients with long retrograde stimulus-to-His intervals. QRS_st duration was significantly longer in patients with complete conduction block compared to those with intact Purkinje activation during NS-LBBP (181 ms [IQR: 162-195 ms] vs 157 ms [IQR: 139-168 ms]; P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to His-bundle pacing, S-LBBP predominantly yields a wide QRS as a result of delayed RBB synchronization, whereas NS-LBBP results in shorter QRS duration because of recruitment of the basal right ventricular septum. A wider-paced morphology of LBBP was noted in patients with complete conduction block caused by bidirectional left intrahisian block. Achievement of narrow QRS during LBBP is predicated upon capture nonselectivity or programmed atrioventricular fusion, rather than intrinsic physiologic synchrony from left bundle branch stimulation.

The Physiologic Mechanisms of Paced QRS Narrowing During Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Right Bundle Branch Block Patients

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing technique that captures the left bundle branch (LBB) directly, causing the left ventricle (LV) to be excited earlier than the right ventricle (RV), resulting in a “iatrogenic” right bundle branch block (RBBB) pacing pattern. Several studies have recently shown that permanent LBBP can completely or partially narrow the wide QRS duration of the intrinsic RBBB in most patients with bradycardia, although the mechanisms by which this occurs has not been thoroughly investigated. This article presents a review of the LBBP in patients with intrinsic RBBB mentioned in current case reports and clinical studies, discussing the technique, possible mechanisms, future clinical explorations, and the feasibility of eliminating the interventricular dyssynchronization accompanied with LBBP.

Is the left bundle branch pacing a choice to conquer the right bundle branch block?-A case report

In patients with preserved ejection fraction or right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern requiring a high percentage of ventricular pacing, His‐bundle pacing (HBP) might be an alternative to biventricular pacing, although the high threshold occasionally occurs. We provided a case of the intrinsic RBBB correction by capturing intra‐Hisian left bundle branch (LBB) or distal His‐bundle with different output settings. LBB pacing had the advantage of a much lower threshold while remained most synchrony as HBP. LBB pacing might be a promisingly safe and effective procedure for patients with high‐grade atrioventricular (AV) block and RBBB pattern.