Gradual development of left bundle branch current of injury during left bundle branch pacing lead implantation

A larger left bundle branch (LBB) potential or LBB current of injury (COI) indicates a low LBB capture threshold in LBB pacing. During LBB pacing in an 85-year-old woman, achieving a low LBB capture threshold did not initially present with a larger LBB potential or LBB COI, but rather with a new initial negative deflection in a ventricular electrogram. LBB COI gradually developed over 7 min thereafter, which suggested that the lead tip had reached the left ventricular subendocardium. Therefore, this negative deflection may be the first sign to avoid further lead rotation.

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

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fcvm.2022.1006966.].

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.

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.

Additional left ventricular septal lead facilitates R-wave sensing of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: a case report

Background

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is a key therapeutic option in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) to prevent sudden cardiac death due to ventricular tachycardia (VT) and fibrillation (VF). However, sub-optimized R-wave sensing due to myocardium loss interferes with VT/VF identification and appropriate therapy. We tried to implant a 3830 lead to the left ventricular septum (LVS) to facilitate ICD sensing in an ARVC patient.

Case summary

A 68-year-old woman diagnosed with ARVC was scheduled to undergo ICD implantation. Initially, no sites with suitable R-wave amplitudes were found in the right ventricle (RV) to deploy the defibrillation lead (<3.0 mV). It was likely due to severe RV involvement, but the LVS myocardium was more preserved based on cardiac magnetic resonance imaging. Therefore, we implanted a 3830 lead into the deep area of the septum to facilitate R-wave sensing. During the procedure from the right to left septum, the R-wave amplitude significantly increased (2.6 to 4.3-7.1 mV). Left ventricular septum pacing was finally achieved with favourable R-wave sensing (9.9 mV 24 h post-operation). The 3830 lead was plugged into the IS-1 port, while the defibrillation lead was plugged into the DF-1 port. After a 4-month follow-up, the R-wave amplitude of the 3830 lead was 11.1 mV.

Discussion

When the R-wave sensing is not acceptable for ICD implantation in ARVC patients, it is critical to assess myocardial conditions comprehensively. If the septal myocardium is preserved, implanting a 3830 lead to the deep or LVS is feasible to improve R-wave sensing.

Feasibility of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Combined with Atrioventricular Node Ablation in Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Heart Failure

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) could be a practical choice for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has been widely reported.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the safety and efficacy of LBBaP combined with AVNA in AF patients with HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Fifty-six AF patients with HF attempted LBBaP and AVNA from January 2019 to December 2020. Standard LBBaP was achieved in forty-six patients, and another ten received left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). The cardiac function indexes and pacemaker parameters were evaluated at baseline, and we conducted a 1-month and 1-year follow-up.

RESULT

At the time of implantation and 1-month and 1-year follow-up, QRS duration of LVSP group was longer than that of LBBaP group. The pacemaker parameters remained stable in both the LBBaP and LVSP groups. At 1-month and 1-year follow-up after LBBaP and AVNA, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, and NYHA classification continued to improve. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction and QRS duration change at implantation can predict the magnitude of improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction at 1-year after LBBaP. Baseline right atrial left-right diameter, the degree of tricuspid regurgitation, and interventricular septum thickness may be the factors affecting the success of LBBaP.

CONCLUSION

LBBaP combined with AVNA is safe and effective for patients with AF and HF. Baseline right atrial left-right diameter, the degree of tricuspid regurgitation, and interventricular septum thickness may be the factors affecting the success of LBBaP.

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.

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.

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

BACKGROUND

In performing left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), various QRS morphologies are observed as the lead penetrates the ventricular septum (VS). This study aimed to evaluate these characteristics and infer the mechanism underlying each QRS morphology.

METHODS

In 19 patients who met the strict criteria for LBB capture, we classified the QRS morphologies observed during the LBBP procedure into seven patterns, the first five of which were determined by the depth of penetration: right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), intraventricular septal pacing (IVSP1 and IVSP2), endocardial side of left ventricular septal pacing (LVSeP), nonselective LBBP (NS-LBBP), selective LBBP (S-LBBP), and NS-LBBP with anodal capture. The parameters of the QRS morphologies in these seven patterns were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among the first five patterns, stimulus-QRSend duration (s-QRSend) was the narrowest in IVSP1 rather than in NS-LBBP, and stimulus-to-peak of R wave in V6 (s-LVAT) was significantly shortened in two steps, from RVSP to IVSP1 (96 ± 11; 82 ± 8 ms, p < .01) and from LVSeP to NS-LBBP (76 ± 7; 60 ± 4 ms, p < .01). The late-R duration in V1 was significantly prolonged in the order of LVSeP, NS-LBBP, and S-LBBP (45 ± 7; 53 ± 10; 71 ± 15 ms, respectively, p < .01).

CONCLUSIONS

s-QRSend was the narrowest in IVSP1 rather than in NS-LBBP among the QRS morphologies observed during lead penetration through the VS. The prolonged late-R duration in V1 and abrupt shortening of the s-LVAT in V6 may help determine LBB capture during lead penetration.

Evaluation of the Criteria to Distinguish Left Bundle Branch Pacing From Left Ventricular Septal Pacing

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to assess the predictive value of the proposed electrocardiogram and intracardiac electrogram characteristics for confirmation of left bundle branch (LBB) capture.

BACKGROUND

Previously proposed criteria to distinguish left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septum (LVS) pacing (LVSP) have not been fully validated.

METHODS

A His bundle pacing lead, an LBBP lead, and a multielectrode catheter at the LVS were placed. Direct LBB capture was defined as demonstration of retrograde His potential on the His bundle pacing lead and/or anterograde left conduction system potentials on the multielectrode catheter during LBBP. The routinely used parameters-His, LBB potential, time from stimulus to left ventricular activation (Stim-LVAT), and paced QRS morphology during LVSP and LBBP at various depths and outputs were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients (21 non-left bundle branch block [LBBB], 9 LBBB) who demonstrated direct LBB capture using the defined criteria were included. The proportion of paced right bundle branch block was 100% during LBB capture in all patients compared to 23.4% in non-LBBB and 44.4% in LBBB during LVSP. LBB potential was recorded in all patients during intrinsic rhythm (non-LBBB group) or His corrective pacing in LBBB. Paced QRS duration was longer during selective LBBP compared to nonselective LBBP or LVSP only. All patients with characteristics of selective LBBP or abrupt decrease in Stim-LVAT of ≥10 ms demonstrated LBB capture.

CONCLUSIONS

Direct LBB capture can be confirmed by recording retrograde His potential and anterograde left conduction system potentials. Abrupt decrease in Stim-LVAT of ≥10 ms and demonstration of selective LBBP could be used as simple criteria to confirm LBB capture.