Feasibility and Acute Hemodynamic Effect of Left Ventricular Septal Pacing by Transvenous Approach Through the Interventricular Septum

Is left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) associated with better depolarization and repolarization kinetics than right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP)? - Comparison of frontal QRS -T angle in patients with LBBP, RVSP and normal ventricular conduction

AIMS

To assess the frontal QRS- T angle (f QRS- T angle) in patients with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) as compared to right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP) implanted for symptomatic high degree atrioventricular (AV) block and to compare with control subjects with normal ventricular conduction (CSNVC) METHODS: A total of one-fifty subjects were chosen (50 patients with LBBP, 50 patients with RVSP and 50 CSNVC). The indication for pacemaker implantation was symptomatic high degree AV block. Baseline clinical and electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters like QRS duration (QRSD), QRS axis and f QRS-T angle and Ejection Fraction (EF) were assessed. f QRS-T angle was measured as the difference between the computerised mean frontal QRS and T wave axes in the limb leads. If the difference between the QRS axis and T-wave axis exceeds 180°, then the resultant QRS-T angle would be calculated as 360° minus the absolute angle to obtain a value between 0° and 180°. Baseline, immediate post procedural and 6 month follow up (f/u) ECGs and EF were chosen for the analysis.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent LBBP had significantly shorter paced QRSD than patients who had undergone RVSP (112 ± 12 ms vs 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 43, -31; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the QRSD before and after LBBP. The QRSD before and after pacing in RVSP was 111 ± 27 ms and 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % CI: 43, -28; p < 0.001. The QRSD in control patients with NVC was 82.94 ± 9.59 ms. RVSP was associated with wider f QRS-T angle when compared with LBBP (103 ± 53° vs 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 39, -1.0; p = 0.037). The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in LBBP was 70 ± 48° and 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 31, 5.3; p = 0.2. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle was 61 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 8.5, 35; p=0.002. The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in RVSP was 67 ± 51° and 103 ± 53°; 95 % CI: 54, -17; p < 0.001. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle in RVSP group was 87 ± 58°; 95 % CI: 2.6, 29; p = 0.020. The f QRS T angle in control patients with NVC was 24 ± 16°. When subgroup analysis was done the difference in the f QRS-T angle was significant between RVSP and LBBP groups only in patients who had wide QRS escape. The mean LVEF at 6-month follow-up in LBBP vs RVSP was 61 ± 3.7 % vs 57.1 ± 7.8 %; 95 % CI:1.48, 6.32, p = 0.002. In the RVSP group, three patients developed pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PIC) whereas no patients in the LBBP group developed PIC at 6-month follow-up; p=0.021. One patient with PIC had deterioration of functional status with new onset HF symptoms. The patient symptoms improved with medical therapy and needed no hospitalisation. The patient declined further interventions including upgradation to CRT or LBB pacing. No deaths or ventricular arrhythmias were observed during the study period.

CONCLUSION

LBBP is associated with narrower f QRS-T angle as compared to RVSP both at post implant period and at 6 month f/u period. These findings might be due to the more physiological depolarization and repolarization kinetics associated with LBBP. RVSP was associated with 6 % incidence of PIC. Hence wide f QRS-T angle might be a predictor of PIC.

Left bundle branch pacing versus left ventricular septal pacing as a primary procedural endpoint during left bundle branch area pacing: Evaluation of two different implant strategies

INTRODUCTION

Implant procedure features and clinical implications of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) have not been yet fully described. We sought to compare two different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implant strategies: the first one accepting LVSP as a procedural endpoint and the second one aiming at achieving LBBP in every patient in spite of evidence of previous LVSP criteria.

METHODS

LVSP was accepted as a procedural endpoint in 162 consecutive patients (LVSP strategy group). In a second phase, LBBP was attempted in every patient in spite of achieving previous LVSP criteria (n = 161, LBBP strategy group). Baseline patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up data were compared.

RESULTS

The final capture pattern was LBBP in 71.4% and LVSP in 24.2% in the LBBP strategy group compared to 42.7% and 50%, respectively, in the LVSP strategy group. One hundred and eighty-four patients (57%) had proven LBB capture criteria with a significantly shorter paced QRS duration than the 120 patients (37%) with LVSP criteria (115 ± 9 vs. 121 ± 13 ms, p < .001). Implant parameters were comparable between the two strategies but the LBBP strategy resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p = .026) without any clinical sequelae. Patients with CRT indications significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow-up irrespective of the capture pattern (from 35 ± 11% to 45 ± 14% in proven LBBP, p = .024; and from 39 ± 13% to 47 ± 12% for LVSP, p = .003). The presence of structural heart disease and baseline LBBB independently predicted unsuccessful LBB capture.

CONCLUSION

The LBBP strategy was associated with comparable implant parameters than the LVSP strategy but resulted in higher rates of septal perforation. Proven LBB capture and LVSP showed comparable effects on LVEF during follow-up.

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.

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.

Conduction system pacing: overview, definitions, and nomenclature

Pacing from the right ventricle is associated with an increased risk of development of congestive heart failure, increases in total and cardiac mortality, and a worsened quality of life. Conduction system pacing has become increasingly realized as an alternative to right ventricular apical pacing. Conduction system pacing from the His bundle and left bundle branch area has been shown to provide physiologic activation of the ventricle and may be an alternative to coronary sinus pacing. Conduction system pacing has been studied as an alternative for both bradycardia pacing and for heart failure pacing. In this review, we summarize the clinical results of conduction system pacing under a variety of different clinical settings. The anatomic targets of conduction system pacing are illustrated, and electrocardiographic correlates of pacing from different sites in the conduction system are defined. Ultimately, clinical trials comparing conduction system pacing with standard right ventricular apical pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing will help define its benefit and risks compared with existing techniques.

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.

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.

The evolving state of cardiac resynchronization therapy and conduction system pacing: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was proposed in the 1990s as a new therapy for patients with heart failure and wide QRS with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction despite optimal medical treatment. This review is aimed first to describe the rationale and the physiologic effects of CRT. The journey of the landmark randomized trials leading to the adoption of CRT in the guidelines since 2005 is also reported showing the high level of evidence for CRT. Different alternative pacing modalities of CRT to conventional left ventricular pacing through the coronary sinus have been proposed to increase the response rate to CRT such as multisite pacing and endocardial pacing. A new emerging alternative technique to conventional biventricular pacing, conduction system pacing (CSP), is a promising therapy. The different modalities of CSP are described (Hirs pacing and left bundle branch area pacing). This new technique has to be evaluated in clinical randomized trials before implementation in the guidelines with a high level of evidence.

Left bundle branch area pacing results in more physiological ventricular activation than biventricular pacing in patients with left bundle branch block heart failure

Biventricular pacing (Biv) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are methods of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Currently, little is known about how they differ in terms of ventricular activation. This study compared ventricular activation patterns in left bundle branch block (LBBB) heart failure patients using an ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG). This was a retrospective analysis including 80 CRT patients from two centres. UHF-ECG data were obtained during LBBB, LBBAP, and Biv. Left bundle branch area pacing patients were divided into non-selective left bundle branch pacing (NSLBBP) or left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) and into groups with V6 R-wave peak times (V6RWPT) < 90 ms and ≥ 90 ms. Calculated parameters were: e-DYS (time difference between the first and last activation in V1-V8 leads) and Vdmean (average of V1-V8 local depolarization durations). In LBBB patients (n = 80) indicated for CRT, spontaneous rhythms were compared with Biv (39) and LBBAP rhythms (64). Although both Biv and LBBAP significantly reduced QRS duration (QRSd) compared with LBBB (from 172 to 148 and 152 ms, respectively, both P < 0.001), the difference between them was not significant (P = 0.2). Left bundle branch area pacing led to shorter e-DYS (24 ms) than Biv (33 ms; P = 0.008) and shorter Vdmean (53 vs. 59 ms; P = 0.003). No differences in QRSd, e-DYS, or Vdmean were found between NSLBBP, LVSP, and LBBAP with paced V6RWPTs < 90 and ≥ 90 ms. Both Biv CRT and LBBAP significantly reduce ventricular dyssynchrony in CRT patients with LBBB. Left bundle branch area pacing is associated with more physiological ventricular activation.

Conduction system pacing, a European survey: insights from clinical practice

AIMS

The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.

Left bundle branch area pacing prevents pacing induced cardiomyopathy in long-term observation

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is one of the methods to deliver conduction system pacing which potentially avoids the negative impact of conventional right ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

To assess echocardiographic outcomes in a long-term observation in patients with LBBAP implemented for bradyarrhythmia indications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 151 patients with symptomatic bradycardia and LBBAP pacemaker implanted, were prospectively included in the study. Subjects with left bundle branch block and CRT indications (n = 29), ventricular pacing burden <40% (n = 11), and loss of LBBAP (n = 10) were excluded from further analysis. At baseline and the last follow-up visit, echocardiography with global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment, 12-lead ECG, pacemaker interrogation, and blood level of NT-proBNP were performed. The median follow-up period was 23 months (15.5-28). None of the analyzed patients fulfilled the criteria for pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and GLS was observed in patients with LVEF <50% at baseline (n = 39): 41.4 ± 9.2% versus 45.6 ± 9.9%, and 12.9 ± 3.6% versus 15.5 ± 3.7%, respectively. In the subgroup with preserved EF (n = 62), LVEF and GLS remained stable at follow-up: 59.3 ± 5.5% versus 60 ± 5.5%, and 19 ± 3.9% versus 19.4 ± 3.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP prevents PICM in patients with preserved LVEF and improves left ventricle function in subjects with depressed LVEF. LBBAP might be the preferred pacing modality for bradyarrhythmia indications.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: present and future

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. Despite the long-standing clinical evidence, as well as the familiarity of cardiac electrophysiologists with the implantation technique, CRT via BVP cannot be achieved or may result ineffective in up to one-third of the patients. Therefore, new alternative techniques, such as conduction system pacing and left ventricular pacing, are emerging as potential alternatives to this technique, not only in case of BVP failure, but also as a stand-alone first choice due to several potential advantages over traditional CRT. Specifically, due to its procedural characteristics, left bundle branch area pacing appears to be the most convincing technique, showing comparable efficacy outcomes when compared with traditional CRT, not increasing short-term device-related complications, as well as improving procedural times. However, transvenous leads remain a major limitation of all these pacing modalities. To overcome this limit, a leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing has been developed as an additional tool to achieve a left endocardial activation, although being still associated with non-negligible pitfalls, limiting its current use in clinical practice. This article focuses on the current state and latest progresses in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

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.

Approach to Left Bundle Branch Pacing

Cardiac pacing refers to the implantation tool serving as a treatment modality for various indications, the most common of which is symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Left bundle branch pacing has been noted in the literature to be safer than biventricular pacing or His-bundle pacing in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure, thereby becoming the focus of further research on cardiac pacing. A review of the literature was conducted using a combination of keywords, including "Left Bundle Branch Block," "Procedural techniques," "Left Bundle Capture," and "Complications." The following factors have been investigated as key criteria for direct capture: paced QRS morphology, peak left ventricular activation time, left bundle potential, nonselective and selective left bundle capture, and programmed deep septal stimulation protocol. In addition, complications of LBBP, inclusive of septal perforation, thromboembolism, right bundle branch injury, septal artery injury, lead dislodgement, lead fracture, and lead extraction, have also been elaborated on. Despite clinical implications based on clinical research comparing the use of LBBP with other forms such as right ventricular apex pacing, His-bundle pacing, biventricular pacing, and left ventricular septal pacing, a paucity in the literature on long-term effects and efficacy has been noted. LBBP can thus be considered to have a promising future in patients requiring cardiac pacing, assuming that additional research on clinical outcomes and the limitation of significant complications such as thromboembolism can be established.

A novel approach for developing left bundle branch pacing and left bundle branch block in a canine model

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has shown the benefits in the treatment of dyssynchronous heart failure (HF). The purpose of this study was to develop a novel approach for LBBP and left bundle branch block (LBBB) in a canine model.

METHODS

A "triangle-center" method by tricuspid valve annulus angiography for LBBP implantation was performed in 6 canines. A catheter was then applied for retrograde His potential recording and left bundle branch (LBB) ablation simultaneously. The conduction system was stained to verify the "triangle-center" method for LBBP and assess the locations of the LBB ablation site in relation to the left septal fascicle (LSF).

RESULTS

The mean LBB potential to ventricular interval and stimulus-peak left ventricular activation time were 11.8 ± 1.2 and 35.7 ± 3.1 ms, respectively. The average intrinsic QRS duration was 44.7 ± 4.7 ms. LBB ablation significantly prolonged the QRS duration (106.3 ± 8.3 ms, p < .001) while LBBP significantly shortened the LBBB-QRS duration to 62.5 ± 5.3 ms (p < .001). After 6 weeks of follow-up, both paced QRS duration (63.0 ± 5.4 ms; p = .203) and LBBB-QRS duration (107.3 ± 7.4 ms; p = .144) were unchanged when comparing to the acute phase, respectively. Anatomical analysis of 6 canine hearts showed that the LBBP lead-tip was all placed in LSF area.

CONCLUSION

The new approach for LBBP and LBBB canine model was stable and feasible to simulate the clinical dyssynchrony and resynchronization. It provided a useful tool to investigate the basic mechanisms of underlying physiological pacing benefits.

Conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: State of the art, current controversies, and future perspectives

Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the established treatment to perform cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, BVP is an unnatural pacing modality still conditioned by the high percentage of non-responders and coronary sinus anatomy. Conduction system pacing (CSP)-His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)- upcomes as the physiological alternative to BVP in the quest for the optimal CRT. CSP showed promising results in terms of better electro-mechanical ventricular synchronization compared to BVP. However, only a few randomized control trials are currently available, and technical challenges, along with the lack of information on long-term clinical outcomes, limit the establishment of a primary role for CSP over conventional BVP in CRT candidates. This review provides a comprehensive literature revision of potential applications of CSP for CRT in diverse clinical scenarios, underlining the current controversies and prospects of this technique.

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.

Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with baseline narrow, left, or right bundle branch block QRS patterns: insights into electrocardiographic and echocardiographic features

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a recent technique aiming at preservation of physiological ventricular electrical activation. Our goal was to assess mechanical synchrony parameters in relation to electrocardiographic features during LBBAP performed in routine practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From June 2020 to August 2021, all patients of our institution with permanent pacemaker implantation indication were eligible for LBBAP. A 'qR' pattern in V1 and a delay from pacing spike to the peak of the R-wave in V6 < 80 ms defined a successful LBBAP. Electrocardiogram and echocardiography were performed during spontaneous rhythm and LBBAP: left ventricular mechanical synchrony (LVMS) parameters using 2D Speckle tracking and interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were collected. LBBAP was attempted with success in 134/163 patients (82.2%). During LBBAP, the mean QRS width was 104 ± 12 ms. In patients with left bundle branch block (n = 47), LBBAP provided a significant decrease of QRS width from 139 ± 16 to 105 ± 12 ms (P < 0.001) with reduction of LVMS (53 ± 21 vs. 90 ± 46 ms, P = 0.009), and IVMD (14 ± 13 vs. 49 ± 18 ms, P < 0.001). In patients with right bundle branch block (n = 38), LBBAP led to a significant decrease of QRS width from 134 ± 14 to 106 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001) with no effect on LVMS and a reduction of IVMD (17 ± 14 vs. 50 ± 16 ms, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP in routine practice preserved intra-ventricular mechanical synchrony in patients with narrow and RBBB QRS and improved asynchrony parameters in patients with LBBB.

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.

Speckle tracking imaging evaluation of left ventricular myocardial work comparing right ventricular septal pacing with His-Purkinje system area pacing

Aims

We sought to objectively assess left ventricular myocardial work (MW) parameters after right ventricular septal pacing (VSP) and His-Purkinje system area pacing (HPSAP) procedures.

Materials and methods

Patients undergoing double-chamber pacemaker implantation for III-degree atrioventricular block (III° AVB) were assessed 1 year after implantation. VSP and HPSAP groups (20 and 23 patients, respectively) were compared against 40 healthy age-matched volunteers. Two-dimensional ultrasound speckle tracking imaging was used to obtain the global myocardial work index (GWI), global myocardial work efficiency (GWE), global myocardial constructive work (GCW), global myocardial wasted work (GWW), left ventricular stratified strain, and peak strain dispersion (PSD).

Results

GWI, GWE, and GCW parameters were improved in HPSAP compared to VSP, while GWW was significantly larger in the VSP group compared to the HPSAP group (all p < 0.05). HPSAP outperformed the VSP group in comparisons of global left ventricular longitudinal strain and stratified strain. Compared to controls, the GCW of all segmental myocardium (17/17 segments) in the VSP group was significantly reduced, while 70.59% (12/17 segments) in the HPSAP group was lower than the control group. GCW in the left ventricular segment of the HPSAP group was bigger than the VSP group (29.41%; 5/17 segments) and mainly concentrated in the ventricular septum and inferior wall.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that HPSAP performance outcomes are improved over VSP after 1 year, especially in left ventricular contractile synchrony, and HPSAP is beneficial to the effective myocardial work of the left ventricle.

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.

Comparisons of electrophysiological characteristics, pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects in right ventricular septal pacing, right ventricular apical pacing and left bundle branch area pacing

Background

As a near-physiological pacing innovation, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has drawn much attention recently. This study was aimed to investigate the electrophysiological characteristics, unipolar/bipolar pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects and safety of three different pacing methods and identify possible predictors of adverse left ventricular remodeling.

Methods

Ninety-two patients were divided into the LBBAP group, right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) group and right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) group. Baseline information, electrophysiological, pacing and echocardiographic parameters were collected.

Results

The three pacing methods were performed with a similar high success rate. The paced QRSd was significantly different among the LBBAP, RVSP and RVAP groups (105.93 ± 15.85 ms vs. 143.63 ± 14.71 ms vs. 155.39 ± 14.17 ms, p < 0.01). The stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) was the shortest in the LBBAP group, followed by the RVSP and RVAP groups (72.80 ± 12.07 ms vs. 86.29 ± 8.71 ms vs. 94.14 ± 10.14 ms, p < 0.001). LBBAP had a significantly lower tip impedance during the procedure and 3-month follow up as compared to RVSP and RVAP (p < 0.001). Higher bipolar captured thresholds were observed in LBBAP during the procedure (p < 0.001). Compared to the baseline values, there was a greater reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) in the LBBAP group (p = 0.046) and a significant enlargement in LVEDD in the RVAP group (p = 0.008). Multiple regression analysis revealed that the Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of LVEDD at 12 months post-procedure. At the 24-h post-procedure, significant elevations were observed in the cTnI levels in LBBAP (p < 0.001) and RVSP (p < 0.05). More transient RBB injury was observed in LBBAP. But no significant difference was found in cardiac composite endpoints among three groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

LBBAP demonstrated a stable captured threshold, a low tip impedance and a high R-wave amplitude during the 12-month follow-up. Left ventricular remodeling was improved at 12 months post-procedure through LBBAP. The Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of left ventricular remodeling. LBBAP demonstrated its feasibility, effectiveness, safety and some beneficial electrophysiological characteristics during this mid- to long-term follow-up, which should be confirmed by further studies.

Occurrence of ventricular septal perforation in patients with permanent left bundle branch pacing followed up using echocardiographic and computed tomography images

OBJECTIVE

To explore short-term changes after left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) using echocardiography and computed tomography (CT), especially for postoperative ventricular septal perforation.

METHODS

Between January and September 2019, 33 patients with atrioventricular block underwent LBBP at Beijing Anzhen Hospital. All the patients were evaluated using electrocardiography, pacing, parameters and echocardiographic measurements, including for major complications, during the 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24-month follow-up. Interval perforations were examined during a 1-month follow-up echocardiogram and CT.

RESULTS

Left bundle branch pacing was successfully performed in 100% (33/33) of patients. The mean seizure threshold was stable and unchanged postoperatively at the 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24-month follow-up. The paced QRS duration of the LBBP was 119.72 ± 2.53 ms and <130 ms in all patients. Unipolar impedance during the procedure was higher than 500 Ω (662.00 ± 181.50 Ω). No ventricular septal perforation occurred at the end of the procedure. At the 1-month follow-up, two patients reported transthoracic echocardiography, with CT revealing septal lead perforation. Through CT, two other patients were found to have septal lead perforation, and echocardiography indicated that the pacing lead had penetrated the interventricular septum and entered the left subendocardium. At the 1, 3, 6, 12 and 24-month follow-up, these four patients exhibited no significant increase in pacing threshold or impedance (p > .05). No ventricular thrombus or stroke was detected.

CONCLUSION

Permanent LBBP is safe and feasible in patients with bradycardia. Echocardiography and/or CT can more accurately evaluate changes in cardiac structure and function after LBBP.

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.

Effects of adaptive left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy: a single centre experience

BACKGROUND

Adaptive cardiac resynchronization therapy (aCRT) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has shown encouraging results as an alternative option for aCRT. A technique that can be accomplished effectively using LBBAP combined with coronary venous pacing (LOT-aCRT). We aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LOT-aCRT.

METHODS

LOT-aCRT, capable of providing two pacing modes, LBBAP alone or LBBAP combined with LV pacing, was attempted in patients with CRT indications. Patients were divided into two groups: those with LBBAP and LV pacing (LOT-aCRT) and those with conventional biventricular pacing (BVP-aCRT).

RESULTS

A total of 21 patients were enrolled in the study (10 in the LOT-aCRT group, 11 in the BVP-aCRT group). In the LOT-aCRT group, the QRS duration (QRSd) via BVP was narrowed from 158.0 ± 13.0 ms at baseline to 132.0 ± 4.5 ms (P = 0.019) during the procedure, and further narrowed to 123.0 ± 5.7 ms (P < 0.01) via LBBAP. After the procedure, when LOT-aCRT implanted and worked, QRSd was further changed to 121.0 ± 3.8 ms, but the change was not significant (P > 0.05). In the BVP-aCRT group, BVP resulted in a significant reduction in the QRSd from 176.7 ± 19.7 ms at baseline to 133.3 ± 8.2 ms (P = 0.011). However, compared with LOT-aCRT, BVP has no advantage in reducing QRSd and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.01). During 9 months of follow-up, patients in both groups showed improvements in the LVEF and NT-proBNP levels (all P < 0.01). However, compared with BVP-aCRT, LOT-aCRT showed more significant changes in these parameters (P < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

The study demonstrates that LOT-aCRT is clinically feasible in patients with systolic heart failure and LBBB. LOT-aCRT was associated with significant narrowing of the QRSd and improvement in LV function.

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.

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 electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony: An intrapatient-controlled study during His-Purkinje conduction system pacing versus right ventricular pacing

Objectives to Background

To compare electromechanical ventricular synchrony when pacing from different sites, including right ventricular apex pacing (RVAP), right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP), His bundle pacing (HBP), left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and RVSP during unipolar pacing from the ring electrode of LBBP lead (RVSP_ring) in each patient and evaluate the correlations between electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony.

Methods

Twenty patients with complete atrioventricular block indicated for dual‐chamber pacemaker implantation were included in the study. Unipolar pacing at different sites, including RVAP, RVSP, HBP, LBBP, and RVSP_ring, was successively performed in each patient. The pacing characteristics and echocardiogram parameters were collected and compared among intrinsic rhythm and pacing at different sites.

Results

Similar to HBP (114.84 ± 18.67 ms), narrower paced QRSd was found in LBBP (116.15 ± 11.60 ms) as compared to RVSP_ring (135.11 ± 13.68 ms), RVSP (141.65 ± 14.26 ms), and RVAP (160.15 ± 19.35 ms) (p < .001). LBBP showed comparable pacing parameters to RVAP or RVSP and was significantly better than HBP, with maintained cardiac function. TS‐12‐SD was significantly improved in LBBP (41.80 ± 20.97 ms) than RVAP (69.70 ± 32.42 ms, p = .003) and RVSP (63.30.56 ± 32.53 ms, p = .018) but similar to HBP (51.50 ± 25.67 ms, p = .283) or RVSP_ring (57.80 ± 25.65 ms, p = .198). Among these pacing strategies, negative values of interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were only identified in LBBP (−19.25 ± 18.43 ms), significantly different from RVAP (35.00 ± 30.72 ms), RVSP (22.85 ± 22.05 ms), HBP (5.20 ± 18.64 ms), and RVSP_ring (16.00 ± 26.76 ms (all p < .05). Using Pearson's analysis, Sti‐LVAT was positively correlated with QRS duration, IVMD, TS‐12‐SD, LVEDV, and LVESV, while a negative relationship could be observed for left ventricular ejection fraction.

Conclusions

His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) achieved better electrical and mechanical synchrony than conventional RV pacing. For interventricular synchrony, only LBBP initiated earlier LV activation than RV, in accordance with the right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern of paced QRS during LBBP. Sti‐LVAT might be a good parameter correlating with LV systolic function and mechanical synchrony.

Left ventricular septal pacing versus left bundle branch pacing in the treatment of atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and clinical response of LVSP as an alternative to LBBP.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of pacemaker implantation, and 46 consecutive patients with pacemaker implantation were enrolled in the study. The patients were divided into the LBBP and LVSP groups. Electrocardiogram characteristics, pacing parameters, cardiac function, and safety events were assessed during implantation and 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The procedure time was significantly increased in the LBBP group compared with the LVSP group (53.52 ± 14.39 min vs. 38.13 ± 11.52 min, respectively, p = .000). The pacing QRS duration (PQRSD) decreased by 14.09 ± 41.80 ms in the LBBP group and increased by 9.70 ± 29.60 ms in the LVSP group (p = .031). Furthermore, the left ventricle activation time (LVAT) was shorter in the LBBP group than in the LVSP group (48.70 ± 13.67 ms vs. 58.70 ± 13.67 ms, p =  .032). During the 12-month follow-up, pacing thresholds remained low and stable, and there was no significant decrease in cardiac function. No adverse event was observed during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LBBP and LVSP are safe and feasible methods. LVSP is a good option when multichannel electrophysiological instruments are not available and when the time available for the procedure is limited.

Computed tomography imaging-identified location and electrocardiographic characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing in bradycardia patients

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing modality. The relationship between the pacing lead tip location and paced electrocardiographic (ECG) characteristics remains unclear. The objectives are to determine the lead tip location within the interventricular septum (IVS) and assess the location-based ECG QRS duration (QRSd) and left ventricular activation time (LVAT).

METHODS

This multi-center study enrolled 50 consecutive bradycardia patients who met pacemaker therapy guidelines and received LBBAP implantation via the trans-ventricular septal approach. After at least 3 months post implant, 12-lead ECGs and pacing parameters were obtained. Cardiac computed tomography (CT) imaging was performed to assess the LBBAP lead tip distance from the LV blood pool.

RESULTS

Among the 50 patients, analyzable CT images were obtained in 42. In 23 of the 42 patients, the lead tips were within 2 mm to the LV blood pool (the LV subendocardial (LVSE) group), 13 between 2 mm and 4 mm (the Near-LVSE group), and the remaining 6 beyond 4 mm (the mid-LV septal (Mid-LVS) group). No significant differences in paced QRSd were found among the 3 groups (LVSE, 107±15 ms; Near-LVSE, 106±13 ms; Mid-LVS, 104±15 ms; P=0.87). LVAT in the LVSE (64±7 ms) was significantly shorter than in the Mid-LVS (72±8 ms; P<0.05), but not significantly different from that in the Near-LVSE (69±8 ms; P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

In routine LBBAP practice, paced narrow QRSd and fast LVAT, indicative of physiological pacing, was consistently achieved for lead tip location in the LV subendocardial or near LV subendocardial region. 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.

Physiological pacing with conduction system capture: How to confirm bundle capture in clinical practice

As the main components of physiological pacing, conduction system pacing has been demonstrated its feasibility, safety and favorable clinical outcomes This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

A Guide to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Using Stylet-Driven Pacing Leads

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel pacing modality which aims to capture the left bundle branch area and avoids the detrimental effects of right ventricular pacing. Current approaches for LBBAP have been developed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLL). Expanding the tools and leads for LBBAP might contribute to a wider adoption of this technique. Standard stylet-driven pacing leads (SDL) differ from current LLL as they are characterized by a wider lead body diameter, are stylet-supported and often have a non-isodiametric extendable helix design. Although LBBAP can be performed safely with SDL, the implant technique of LBBAP differs compared to LLL. In the current overview we describe in detail how different types of SDL can be used to target a deep septal position and provide a practical guide on how to achieve LBBAP using SDL.

Comparison of the Acute Effects of Different Pacing Sites on Cardiac Synchrony and Contraction Using Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography

Background: Cardiac pacing in patients with bradyarrhythmia may employ variable pacing sites, which may have different effects on cardiac function. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a new physiological pacing modality, and the acute outcomes on cardiac mechanical synchrony during LBBP remain uncertain. We evaluated the acute effects of four pacing sites on cardiac synchrony and contraction using speckle-tracking echocardiography, and comparisons among four different pacing sites were rare.

Methods: We enrolled 21 patients with atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome who each sequentially underwent acute pacing protocols, including right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP), right ventricular outflow tract pacing (RVOP), His bundle pacing (HBP), and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Electrocardiograms and echocardiograms were recorded at baseline and during pacing. The interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD), the standard deviation of the times to longitudinal peak strain during 17 segments (PSD), and the Yu index were used to evaluate ventricular mechanical synchrony. Layer-specific strain was computed using two-dimensional speckle tracking technique to provide in-depth details about ventricular synchrony and function.

Results: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) were significantly decreased during RVAP and RVOP but were not significantly different during HBP and LBBP compared with baseline. RVAP and RVOP significantly prolonged QRS duration, whereas HBP and LBBP showed non-significant effects. IVMD and PSD were significantly increased during RVAP but were not significantly different during RVOP, HBP, or LBBP. LBBP resulted in a significant improvement in the IVMD and Yu index compared with RVAP. No significant differences in mechanical synchrony were found between HBP and LBBP.

Conclusion: Among these pacing modalities, RVAP has a negative acute impact on cardiac synchrony and contraction. HBP and LBBP best preserve physiological cardiac synchrony and function.

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.

Cardiac resynchronization performed by LBBaP-CRT in patients with cardiac insufficiency and left bundle branch block

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB), and to compare the clinical effects with traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

Thirty-two patients with dilated cardiomyopathy complicated by cardiac insufficiency and left bundle branch block were divided into CRT group and LBBaP group. Parameters including pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, pacing impedance and operation time, and X-ray exposure time were recorded. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVESD) were examined by echocardiography. The changes of QRS complex before and after operation were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with CRT group, the LBBaP group spent less time on total operation time and X-ray exposure time and had stable electrode parameters including pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude, and lead impedance after 12-month follow-up. In addition, LBBaP can achieve narrow QRS complex (117.15 ± 9.91) ms immediately than that in CRT group (130.32 ± 12.41) ms. The change of QRS between LBBaP is (50.30 ± 23.79) ms and CRT group is (33.15 ± 20.22) ms. After 6 months' follow-up in LBBaP group, EF was higher than that before operation. Followed up for 12 months after operation, EF and LVEDD in LBBaP group were significantly improved compared with those before operation.

CONCLUSION

Left bundle branch area pacing is a safe and effective resynchronization method for patients with cardiac insufficiency and asynchronization, which can achieve same clinical effects to CRT.