Physiological Left Bundle Branch Pacing Validated by Ultra-High Density Ventricular Mapping in a Swine Model

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.

New criterion to determine left bundle branch capture on the basis of individualized His bundle or right ventricular septal pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. How to differentiate LBBP from left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) remains challenging.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to develop a new personalized intraoperative criterion to confirm left bundle branch (LBB) capture in patients with or without heart failure (HF).

METHODS

Patients were enrolled if 12-lead surface electrocardiograms of LBBP, LVSP, temporary His bundle pacing (HBP), and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) were recorded during the procedure, with the leads placed in the basal midseptal region. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was measured during different pacing modalities. ΔLVAT1 was defined as the difference in LVAT between HBP and LBBP/LVSP. ΔLVAT2 was estimated by the difference in LVAT between RVSP and LBBP/LVSP. ΔLVAT1% and ΔLVAT2% were calculated as the percent reduction of ΔLVAT1 and ΔLVAT2, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 105 consecutive patients were included, of whom 80 (76.2%) had normal cardiac function (65 LBBP and 15 LVSP) and 25 had HF. Patients with LBBP showed significantly shorter LVAT than did those with LVSP. In patients with normal cardiac function, a cutoff value of ΔLVAT1 > 12.5 ms showed 73.9% sensitivity and 93.3% specificity to confirm LBB capture. In patients with HF, a cutoff value of ΔLVAT1% > 9.8% exhibited great accuracy for LBB capture (sensitivity 92.0%; specificity 92.3%). The optimal value of ΔLVAT2% for differentiating LBBP from LVSP was 21.2%.

CONCLUSION

Temporary HBP and RVSP can serve as references to confirm LBB capture in an individualized fashion in patients with or without HF.

Differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: An algorithm based on intracardiac electrophysiology

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a new near-physiological pacing modality. Distinguishing left ventricular septal only pacing (LVSP) from nonselective LBBP still needs clarification. This prospective study sought to establish a differentiation algorithm to confirm LBBP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

LBBP was attempted in consecutive patients. If direct LBB capture (LBBP) could not be confirmed, LVSP was considered to have been achieved. Intracardiac left ventricular (LV) activation sequence and activation time were analyzed using coronary sinus (CS) electrogram mapping. Electrophysiological parameters including S-CSmax, S-CSmin, LV lateral wall activation time, ΔLV, and LBB potential were compared between LBBP and LVSP. Stimulated LV activation time (S-LVAT) and stimulated QRS duration (S-QRSd) were also compared between the two groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to develop a prediction algorithm for LBBP. Of the 43 prospectively enrolled patients, 27 underwent LBBP and 16 underwent LVSP. All LBBP patients showed identical LV activation sequences to their intrinsic rhythm while no LVSP patients maintained their intrinsic sequence. S-CSmax, ΔLV, LV lateral wall activation time, and S-LVAT during LBBP were significantly shorter than those during LVSP. Combining LBB potential with S-LVAT had the largest area under the curve (AUC) of 0.985 for confirming LBBP with a sensitivity of 95.2% and a specificity of 93.7%.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with LVSP, LBBP preserves a normal LV activation sequence and better electrical synchrony. A combination of LBB potential with S-LVAT can be an effective and practical model to distinguish LBBP from LVSP during implantation in patients with normal LBB activation.

Efficacy of upgrading to left bundle branch pacing in patients with heart failure after right ventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing is associated with an increased incidence of heart failure and mortality. Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing could produce near-physiological electrical activation and mechanical synchrony. We aimed to report the effects of upgrading to LBB pacing in heart failure patients after chronic RV pacing.

METHODS

The indications included pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in Group 1 and heart failure after RV pacing with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50% in Group 2. LBB pacing was achieved by penetrating the pacing lead to the subendocardium of left-sided interventricular septum through the venous access. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was measured from the pacing stimulus to the ascending peak of lead V5 or V6. All patients underwent clinical and echocardiographic evaluations before and after upgrading.

RESULTS

Totally 27 patients (13 in Group 1 and 14 in Group 2) were consecutively enrolled. The mean follow-up time after upgrade was 10.4 ± 6.1 months. Paced QRS duration was significantly shortened from 174.1 ± 15.8 milliseconds to 116.6 ± 11.7 milliseconds (p < .0001). The mean LVAT was 83.2 ± 11.7 milliseconds. LVEF increased from 40.3 ± 5.2% before upgrading to 48.1 ± 9.5% at follow-up in patients with PICM. Serum N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide levels decreased and New York Heart Association classification improved in both groups. No upgrade-related complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading to LBB pacing was feasible and effective with improved cardiac function in heart failure patients with both reduced and preserved LVEF after RV pacing.