Characteristics and proposed mechanisms of QRS morphology observed during the left bundle branch pacing procedure

Six transition patterns and seven capture types in different left bundle branch bipolar pacing configurations

Aims

This study aims to explore the different transition patterns and capture types during two bipolar pacing tests based on the selective left bundle branch (LBB) capture determined by the continuous pacing and recording technique.

Methods

In total, 67 patients completed two unipolar and two bipolar pacing tests based on selective LBB capture during screwing-in for left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) using the continuous pacing and recording technique. The electrophysiological characteristics and potential mechanisms of different pacing configurations were further evaluated in this study.

Results

We found six transition patterns and derived seven capture types in two bipolar pacing tests according to the analysis of continuous electrocardiogram and electrogram changes. Compared with the conventional configuration of "Tip-Ring+" bipolar pacing, "Ring-Tip+" testing had a lower threshold for simultaneous capture of the LBB and the left and right ventricular septum myocardium (1.57 vs. 2.84 V at 0.5 ms) and was the only configuration to yield the peculiar "LBBP + right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP)" capture type.

Conclusions

In this study, we observed for the first time that "Ring-Tip+" bipolar pacing allows for a lower clinically applicable pacing threshold for simultaneous capture of the LBB and left and right ventricular septum myocardium, and the peculiar "LBBP + RVSP" capture type. This may be a more advantageous physiological pacing configuration, warranting further investigation and application in the future.

Lay summary

Based on the specific selective LBB capture, we first found six transition patterns and derived seven capture types in two bipolar pacing tests due to the different thresholds of the LBB, left ventricular septal myocardial, and right ventricular septal myocardial. Compared with the conventional configuration of "Tip-Ring+" bipolar pacing, "Ring-Tip+" testing had a lower threshold for simultaneous capture of the LBB and the left and right ventricular septum myocardium (1.57 vs. 2.84 V at 0.5 ms) and was the only configuration to yield the peculiar "LBBP + RVSP" capture type. More pacing strategies should be released and investigated to achieve the best physiological pacing according to the individualized electrophysiological characteristics of patients.

Left bundle branch area pacing using a lumenless lead: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for delivering physiological pacing, data are largely limited to single-center reports. The aim of this analysis was to systematically assess the safety and efficacy of LBBAP with the Model 3830 lead among primarily bradycardia patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP using the SelectSecure Model 3830 lumenless lead. Rates and means were estimated using random- and mixed-effects models. Of 3395 articles, 53 met inclusion criteria, representing 6061 patients undergoing an implant attempt. Average patient age was 68.1 years (95% CI: 66.6, 69.6) and 53.1% were male (95% CI: 50.5%, 55.7%). The average implant success rate among bradycardia-indicated patients was 92.7% (95% CI: 89.5%, 94.9%). The overall estimated procedural adverse event rate was 2.5% (95% CI: 1.1%, 5.4%). The estimated septal perforation rate at implant was 1.6% (95% CI: 1.0%, 2.6%) with no adverse clinical sequelae reported. Pacing thresholds were low at implant (0.67 V [95% CI: 0.64, 0.70]) and remained stable through 12 months (0.76 V [95% CI: 0.72, 0.80]). Among bradycardia-indicated patients, LVEF remained stable from baseline to post-implant (59.5% [95% CI: 57.9%, 61.1%] vs. 60.1% [95% CI: 58.5%, 61.7%]).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis including 6061 patients implanted with a Model 3830 lead for LBBAP found an average implant success rate of 92.7% and a procedural adverse event rate of 2.5% with stable electrical parameters and LVEF post-implant.

Retrograde Conduction in Left Bundle Branch Block: Insights From Left Bundle Branch Pacing

BACKGROUND

Biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess the retrograde conduction properties of the left bundle branch in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB during LBBP and its clinical implications.

METHODS

Patients undergoing successful LBBP for nonischemic cardiomyopathy with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and LBBB were included. Continuous recording of His potential was performed using a quadripolar catheter. Unidirectional block was defined as retrograde His bundle activation during LBBP with stimulus to His potential (SH) duration less than or equal to antegrade HV interval and bidirectional block as VH dissociation or SH duration greater than HV interval. HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were documented.

RESULTS

A total of 165 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 21.8 ± 13.1 months. Bidirectional block (group I) was observed in 82% (n = 136), and these patients were noted to have advanced HF stage and prolonged baseline QRS duration. Unidirectional block (group II) with intact retrograde conduction was observed in 18% (n = 29) and was associated with narrow paced QRS duration and higher LVEF during follow-up. Super-response (LVEF ≥50%) was observed in 54.4% (n = 74) in group I compared with 73.3% (n = 22) in group II (P = 0.03). The OR for LVEF normalization was 4.1 (95% CI: 1.26-13.97; P = 0.02), with unidirectional block compared with bidirectional block in patients with LBBB and LV dysfunction. Adverse clinical outcomes as measured by a composite of HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were significantly higher in group I compared with group II (12.5% vs 0%; P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Bidirectional block in LBBB was characterized by advanced HF symptoms, while unidirectional block was associated with better clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy by LBBP.

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.

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.

Guidance on left bundle branch pacing using continuous pacing technique and changes in lead V1 characteristics under real-time monitoring

Background

The changes in the morphology and characteristics of the V1 leads during left bundle branch capturing still need to be fully understood.

Objective

This study aims to provide some suggestions about the LBB capture process through the morphology and characteristics of the V1 lead.

Method

LBBP using the continuous pacing and morphology monitoring technique during screw-in using a revolving connector (John Jiang's connecting cable). The morphology and features of V1 leads are recorded by continuous monitoring technology.

Results

The most common morphology in the LVSP stage is QR, while in the NS-LBBP (low output) stage and the NS-LBBP (lower output) stage, it is rSR. In the S-LBBP stage, it is rsR. The predominant morphology is with r/R waves in S-LBBP, which includes variations like rSR, rsR, rSr, rsr, rR, rs, rS, and R type, making up 96.7% of the total. The r waves in lead V1 are associated with agitated myocardium conducted from the left bundle branch.

Conclusion

The initial r-wave in lead V1 may be a marker during the follow-up of patients with selective LBB capture.

Electrical Synchrony Optimization for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients With Bradycardia and Heart Failure

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising physiological pacing modality. This study was designed to investigate the acute impact of the atrioventricular delay (AVD) on cardiac electrical characteristics and identify an optimal range of AVDs for LBBAP to achieve electrical atrioventricular and interventricular synchrony. Patients indicated for ventricular or biventricular pacing were studied during routine follow-ups at least 3 months after LBBAP implantation. Patients were excluded if they had a complete AV block or persistent atrial fibrillation. AVD was programed from 40 to 240 ms or until intrinsic conduction occurred. Optimal AVD was determined by the electrocardiography criteria, including QRS duration, reduced R-wave in lead V1, reduced notching or slurring in lateral leads, and more desirable precordial QRS transition. A total of 38 patients (age 68.7 ± 10.3 years; 16 male (42%); 18 dual-chamber pacemakers and 20 cardiac resynchronization therapy devices; average follow-up period 15.1 ± 10.2 months) were included. The fusion of LBBAP and intrinsic right ventricular conduction occurred in 21 patients with corresponding optimal AVD determined. A great proportion (∼85%) of the optimal AVDs ranged from 50% to 80% of the observed atrium-to-left bundle branch-sensing (A-LBBS) intervals. The linear correlation between the optimal AVD and corresponding A-LBBS interval (optimal AVD = 0.84 × [A-LBSs interval] - 36 ms) produced R = 0.86 and p <0.0001. In conclusion, AVD selection during LBBAP greatly impacted the ventricular electrical characteristics and the optimal AVD was linearly correlated with the corresponding A-LBBS interval.

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.

Conduction system pacing: Current status and prospects

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), is the most physiological of all pacing modalities for ventricular capture and a potential alternative to right ventricular pacing. It induces electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony, resulting in left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure hospitalization, and atrial arrhythmia. CSP activates the normal conduction system and restores ventricular synchrony. In 2000, HBP was first performed as permanent ventricular pacing, which improved left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The feasibility of permanent HBP has already been demonstrated in patients with bradycardia, although a high capture threshold and limited efficacy for infra-Hisian conduction diseases remain critical issues. The LBBAP is an alternative pacing form that overcomes the limitations of the HBP. A lower capture threshold was obtained at implantation and preserved during the follow-up period in patients with LBBAP. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with HBP or LBBAP may provide better synchronization than the traditional biventricular pacing. Hybrid therapy utilizing HBP or LBBAP in combination with left ventricular pacing has been introduced to treat patients with heart failure. In this review, we have focused on the clinical implications, limitations, and a literature review on CSP.

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.

Electrophysiological characteristics and possible mechanism of bipolar pacing in left bundle branch pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing is a physiological pacing modality with a low and stable threshold. The electrophysiological characteristics and mechanisms of bipolar pacing remain unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to assess the electrophysiological characteristics of bipolar pacing of left bundle branch pacing and to infer the mechanisms underlying each electrocardiogram and electrogram waveform morphology.

METHODS

A total of 65 patients who strictly met the criteria for left bundle branch capture were enrolled. The changes in the morphology of the electrocardiogram and electrogram during the threshold testing with different outputs on unipolar and bipolar pacing were recorded. The electrophysiological characteristics were then analyzed.

RESULTS

Four distinct morphologies and 3 different types of transitions during bipolar pacing threshold testing were identified; we labeled the 4 types of morphologies as nonselective (NS)-bipolar-left bundle (LB), NS-cathodal-LB, selective (S)-cathodal-LB, and left ventricular septal-cathodal. Except left ventricular septal-cathodal, the other 3 types (NS-bipolar-LB, NS-cathodal-LB, and S-cathodal-L) had a short and constant V₆ R-wave peak time (RWPT) (64.8 ± 7.7 ms vs 65.7 ± 7.8 ms vs 65.7 ± 7.3 ms). The paced QRS (P-QRS) complex was the narrowest in NS-bipolar-LB rather than in NS-cathodal-LB (118.2 ± 14.2 ms vs 133.8 ± 15.8 ms; P < .001). NS-bipolar-LB had a higher threshold than did NS-cathodal-LB (2.5 ± 1.2 V vs 0.8 ± 0.4 V; P < .001).

CONCLUSION

With a higher output on bipolar pacing, NS-bipolar-LB capture had the shortest V₆ RWPT, V₁ RWPT, and P-QRS. S-cathodal-LB capture had the longest V₁ RWPT and P-QRS complex.

Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

As a novel physiological pacing technique, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can preserve the left ventricular (LV) electrical and mechanical synchronization by directly capturing left bundle branch (LBB). Approximately 60-90% of LBBP were confirmed to have captured LBB during implantation, implying that up to one-third of LBBP is actually left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). LBB capture is critical for distinguishing LBBP from LVSP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 15 articles were included in the analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database till August 2022. Comparisons of paced QRS duration between LVSP and LBBP have not been uniformly concluded, but the stimulus artifact to LV activation time in lead V5 or V6 (Stim-LVAT) was shorter in LBBP than LVSP in all studies. Stim-LVAT was used to determine LBB capture with a sensitivity of 76-95.2% and specificity of 78.8-100%, which varied across patient populations.

CONCLUSION

The output-dependent QRS transition from non-selective LBBP to selective LBBP or LVSP is direct evidence of LBB capture. LBB potential combined with short Stim-LVAT can predict LBB capture better. Personalized criteria rather than a fixed value of Stim-LVAT are necessary to confirm LBB capture in different populations, especially in patients with LBB block or heart failure.

Characteristics of intracardiac electrogram of the interventricular septum in the left bundle branch pacing

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has become a hot topic in the field of physiological pacing. However, only a few studies have described the characteristics of the intrinsic intracardiac electrogram (EGM) while placing the left bundle branch (LBB) lead.

Case presentation

Herein, we reported a case with atrial premature contractions to the ventricle during the LBBP procedure. Paced and intrinsic (supraventricular) EGMs were recorded and analyzed.

Conclusions

The myocardium of the interventricular septum could be divided into four regions based on electrophysiology: the right septal area, the left septal area, the endocardium of the left ventricular septum, and the LBB area. This might guide the electrophysiological localization of the LBB lead in the septum.

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.

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.