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

An in silico guide for ventriculo-ventricular delay programming for left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP)-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) can improve left ventricular (LV) activation when LBBP alone or conventional biventricular pacing are ineffective. However, the optimal programming settings for ventriculo-ventricular delay (VVD) for LOT-CRT are unknown. We aim to investigate how to optimally program VVD for LOT-CRT in the presence of various LV conduction substrates using computational modelling.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We simulated ventricular activation on 24 anatomies and validated the model against clinical data. Diffuse LV conduction system and intra-myocardial delay were simulated by slowing the conduction velocity of the LV His-Purkinje system and myocardium, respectively, alone or in combination with proximal left bundle branch block (LBBB). We simulated LOT-CRT with selective or myocardial capture (LV septal pacing, LVSP) with VVD ranging between -100 ms (LBBP/LVSP ahead) and +100 ms [LV epicardial lead (LVepiP), ahead]. Response was quantified with 95% LV activation times (LVAT95). In the presence of diffuse LV conduction system delay, the optimal VVD for LOT-CRT was always negative (LBBB: -42.5 ± 6.6 ms; no LBBB: -36.2 ± 5.6 ms), as delivering LBBP ahead of LVepiP compensates for the slow LV His-Purkinje. In the presence of LV intra-myocardial disease, the shortest LVAT95 with LOT-CRT was achieved by pacing the coronary sinus LV first (optimal VVD for LBBB: 23.3 ± 8.5 ms; no LBBB: 79.2 ± 18.0 ms). The type of capture for LOT-CRT affected the optimal VVD, with myocardial capture favouring negative VVDs (LVSP ahead).

CONCLUSION

The optimal VVD for LOT-CRT depends on the mechanism of delayed LV activation and type of capture achieved, highlighting the importance of VVD optimization.

Current Advance, Challenges and Future Perspectives of Conduction System Pacing

Existing techniques for pacing the right ventricle and providing cardiac resynchronization therapy through biventricular pacing are not effective in restoring damage to the conduction system. Therefore, the need for new pacing modalities and techniques with more sensible designs and algorithms is justified. Although the benefits of conduction system pacing (CSP), which mainly include His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), are evident in patients who require conduction system recuperation, the critical criteria for left CSP remain unclear, and the roles of different pacing modalities of CSP for cardiac resynchronization are not definite. In this review, we aimed to highlight the advantages of different CSP options, current advancement in the surgical devices, and future directions.

A shorter R wave peak time in left bundle branch pacing may not be a marker of more physiological ventricular activation: A case report

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBp) is a promising alternative to conventional biventricular pacing cardiac resynchronization therapy. The left anterior fascicle (LAF) is adjacent to the left ventricular outflow tract, while the left posterior fascicle (LPF) dominates a broader area of the left ventricle. Whether LAF or LPF dominates ventricular activation has not been determined. We present the case of a 76-year-old man who underwent LBBp implantation and propose the left ventricular activation domination in LPF pacing, an alternative when LBBp is unavailable.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Left Ventricular Septal Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are considered to be acceptable as LBBAP strategies. Differences in clinical outcomes between LBBP and LVSP are yet to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of LBBP vs LVSP vs BIVP for CRT.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter observational study, LBBP was compared with LVSP and BIVP in patients undergoing CRT. The primary composite outcome was freedom from heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, postprocedural NYHA functional class, and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 415 patients were included (LBBP: n = 141; LVSP: n = 31; BIVP: n = 243), with a median follow-up of 399 days (Q1-Q3: 249.5-554.8 days). Freedom from the primary composite outcomes was 76.6% in the LBBP group and 48.4% in the LVSP group (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.143-1.649; P = 0.001), driven by a 31.4% absolute increase in freedom from HF-related hospitalizations (83% vs 51.6%; HR: 3.55; 95% CI: 1.856-6.791; P < 0.001) without differences in all-cause mortality. LBBP was also associated with a higher freedom from the primary composite outcome compared with BIVP (HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.175-1.730; P < 0.001), with no difference between LVSP and BIVP.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing CRT, LBBP was associated with improved outcomes compared with LVSP and BIVP, while outcomes between BIVP and LVSP are similar.

The Emerging Role of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of heart failure-related hospitalisations and all-cause mortality, as well as improving quality of life and functional status in patients with persistent heart failure symptoms despite optimal medical treatment and left bundle branch block. CRT has traditionally been delivered by implanting a lead through the coronary sinus to capture the left ventricular epicardium; however, this approach is associated with significant drawbacks, including a high rate of procedural failure, phrenic nerve stimulation, high pacing thresholds and lead dislodgement. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients fail to derive any significant benefit. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a suitable alternative to traditional CRT. By stimulating the cardiac conduction system physiologically, LBBAP can result in a more homogeneous left ventricular contraction and relaxation, thus having the potential to improve outcomes compared with conventional CRT strategies. In this article, the evidence supporting the use of LBBAP in patients with heart failure is reviewed.

Comparison of Depolarization and Repolarization Parameters in Left vs. Right Ventricular Septal Pacing—An Intraprocedural Electrocardiographic Study

Compared with conventional right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), several studies have shown a net clinical benefit of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in terms of ejection fraction preservation and reduced hospitalizations for heart failure. The purpose of this study was to compare acute depolarization and repolarization electrocardiographic parameters between LBBAP and RVSP in the same patients during the LBBAP implant procedure. We prospectively included 74 consecutive patients subjected to LBBAP from 1 January to 31 December 2021 at our institution in the study. After the lead was placed deep into the ventricular septum, unipolar pacing was performed and 12-lead ECGs were recorded from the distal (LBBAP) and proximal (RVSP) electrodes. QRS duration (QRSd), left ventricular activation time (LVAT), right ventricular activation time (RVAT), QT and JT intervals, QT dispersion (QTd), T-wave peak-to-end interval (Tpe), and Tpe/QT were measured for both instances. The final LBBAP threshold was a 0.7 ± 0.31 V at 0.4 ms duration with a sensing threshold of 10.7 ± 4.1 mV. RVSP produced a significantly larger QRS complex than the baseline QRS (194.88 ± 17.29 ms vs. 141.89 ± 35.41 ms, p < 0.001), while LBBAP did not significantly change the mean QRSd (148.10 ± 11.52 ms vs. 141.89 ± 35.41 ms, p = 0.135). LVAT (67.63 ± 8.79 ms vs. 95.89 ± 12.02 ms, p < 0.001) and RVAT (80.54 ± 10.94 ms vs. 98.99 ± 13.80 ms, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with LBBAP than with RVSP. Moreover, all the repolarization parameters studied were significantly shorter in LBBAP than in RVSP (QT—425.95 ± 47.54 vs. 487.30 ± 52.32; JT—281.85 ± 53.66 vs. 297.69 ± 59.02; QTd—41.62 ± 20.07 vs. 58.38 ± 24.44; Tpe—67.03 ± 11.19 vs. 80.27 ± 10.72; and Tpe/QT—0.158 ± 0.028 vs. 0.165 ± 0.021, p < 0.05 for all), irrespective of the baseline QRS morphology. LBBAP was associated with significantly better acute depolarization and repolarization electrocardiographic parameters compared with RVSP.