Differences in Electrical Delay Between the Mid-septum and Apex with the Right Ventricular Lead: Novel Implications for Pacemaker Sensing

Ventricular sensing relies on the analysis of a local intracardiac electrogram in reference to the QRS on the surface electrocardiogram. If both signals do not coincide in time, there is a delay in sensing intrinsic ventricular activity. We evaluated possible differences in the electrical delay between the mid-septum and apex as determined by the right ventricular (RV) lead position using a pacing system analyzer (PSA) during conventional pacemaker implantation. Patients without significant heart disease and intrinsic atrioventricular conduction underwent their first Medtronic (Minneapolis, MN, USA) or Abbott (Chicago, IL, USA) dual-chamber pacemaker implantation with the RV lead first positioned at the apex and then subsequently at the mid-septum. Real-time ventricular sensing data were obtained through PSA to determine the electrical delay Q-VS value as the time difference between the QRS and the released RV-sensed event marker "VS." Among 212 patients, 139 had narrow QRS and 73 had complete right bundle branch block (RBBB). Overall, both narrow QRS and RBBB patients exhibited shorter Q-VS lengths at the mid-septum compared to the apex (50.4 ± 24.2 ms and 66.7 ± 32.3 ms vs. 63.9 ± 27.6 ms and 71.7 ± 32.2 ms; P < .0001 and P < .001, respectively). The Q-VS in patients with Abbott devices was significantly shorter compared to that in patients with Medtronic devices at both the mid-septum and the apex in both patient groups (P < .0001). In conclusion, RV lead positioning at the mid-septum is associated with a shorter electrical delay compared to positioning at the apex in both narrow QRS and RBBB patients.

Ventricular activation patterns during intrinsic conduction and right ventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) involves stimulation of both right ventricle (RV) and left ventricle (LV). LV pacing from the sites of delayed electrical activation improves CRT response. The RV-LV conduction is typically measured in intrinsic rhythm. The differences in RV-LV conduction patterns and timing between intrinsic rhythm and during paced RV activation, these differences are not fully understood.

METHODS

Enrolled patients were implanted with a de novo CRT device and quadripolar LV lead, with lead implant locations at the implanting physician's discretion. QRS duration and conduction delay between the RV lead and each of the four LV electrodes (D1, M2, M3, and P4) were measured during intrinsic conduction and RV pacing.

RESULTS

Conduction measurements were collected from 275 patients across 14 international centers (68 ± 13 years of age, 73% male, 45% ischemic, 158 ± 22 ms QRS duration). Mean RV-LV conduction time was shorter during intrinsic conduction versus RV pacing by 59.6 ms (106.5 ± 36.5 versus 166.1 ± 32.1 ms, p < 0.001). The intra-LV activation delay between the latest and earliest activating LV electrode was also shorter during intrinsic conduction versus RV pacing by 6.6 ms (20.6 ± 13.1 vs. 27.2 ± 21.2 ms, p < 0.001). Intrinsic conduction and RV pacing resulted in a different activation order in 72.7% of patients, and the same LV activation order in 27.3%.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in RV-LV conduction time, intra-LV conduction time, and activation pattern were observed between intrinsic conduction and RV pacing. These findings highlight the importance of evaluating intrinsic versus paced ventricular activation to guide LV pacing site selection in CRT patients.