Bundle Pacing Research Articles

Extraction of His Bundle Pacing Lead: More Difficult than Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction: An Analysis of 3897 Lead Extraction Procedures Including 27 His and 253 Coronary Sinus Lead Removals.

Experience with the transvenous extraction of leads used for His bundle pacing (HBP) is limited. Analysis of 3897 extractions including 27 HBP and 253 LVP (left ventricular pacing) leads. The main reason for HBP lead extraction was lead failure (59.26%). The age of HBP and LVP leads (54.52 vs. 50.20 months) was comparable, whereas procedure difficulties were related to the LVP lead dwell time. The extraction of HBP leads > 40 months old was longer than the removal of younger leads (8.57 vs. 3.87 min), procedure difficulties occurred in 14.29%, and advanced tools were required in 28.57%. There were no major complications. The extraction time of dysfunctional or infected leads was similar in the HBP and LVP groups (log-rank p = 0.868) but shorter when compared to groups with other leads. Survival after the procedure did not differ between HBP and LVP groups but was shorter than in the remaining patients. 1. HBP is used in CRT-D systems for resynchronisation of the failing heart in 33.33%. 2. Extraction of HBP leads is most frequently performed for non-infectious indications (59.26%) and most often because of lead dysfunction (33.33%). 3. The extraction of "old" (>40 months) HBP leads is longer (8.57 vs. 3.87 min) and more difficult than the removal of "young" leads due to unexpected procedure difficulties (14.29%) and the use of second line/advanced tools (28.57%), but it does not entail the risk of major complications and procedure-related death and is comparable to those encountered in the extraction of LVP leads of a similar age. 4. Survival after lead extraction was comparable between HBP and LVP groups but shorter compared to patients who underwent the removal of other leads.

Transvenous extraction of conduction system pacing leads: An international multicenter (TECSPAM) study

BackgroundConduction system pacing (CSP) by His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is incorporated into Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for the management of bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Despite increasing adoption with both lumenless leads and stylet-driven leads, concerns regarding the feasibility and safety of the extraction of CSP leads remain. ObjectiveThe aim of the study was to report on the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of the extraction of CSP leads. MethodsPatients undergoing the extraction of CSP leads from 10 international centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data regarding indications, lead location, lead type, extraction tools, procedural success, complications, and reimplantation in the conduction system were collected. ResultsOverall, 341 patients (age 69 ± 15 years; female 117 (34%); cardiomyopathy 157 (46%); lead dwell time 22 ± 26 months) underwent the extraction of 224 His bundle pacing and 117 LBBAP leads (lumenless leads 321; stylet-driven leads 20). Complete procedural success was achieved in 338 (99%), while clinical success was 100% with retained distal fragments in 3 patients (1%). Among patients with a lead dwell time of >6 months (6–193 months; n = 226), manual extraction was successful in 198 (87%), mechanical tools in 22 (10%), and laser in 6 (3%). Femoral tools were necessary in 3 patients. Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (2.1%). Reimplantation in the conduction system was successful in 233 of 244 patients attempted (95%). ConclusionThe overall success rates of the extraction of CSP leads were very high (although the LBBAP lead dwell time was <3 years), with a low need for extraction tools and minimal complication. Reimplantation in the conduction system is feasible and safe.

Ablate and pace with conduction system pacing, Rovigo's experience

Abstract Background Several clinical data demonstrate that atrio ventricular junction (AVJ) ablation, followed by cardiac pacing, in atrial fibrillation (AF) with uncontrollable heart rate is beneficial. There are still limited data about conduction system pacing (CSP) in that setting. Aims To analyse if this “ablate and pace” strategy is feasible with good electrical results (ECG and parameters) and clinical outcomes (heart failure (HF) admission, ejection fraction (EF) and NYHA class). To analyse also differences between his bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting. Methods. This is an observational retrospective single center study involving 30 patients of which 11 had a HBP and 19 a LBBAP from March 2019 to June 2023 (medium follow up 33 ± 18 month). The implant procedure was performed with both stylet driven or lumenless lead. After 2 ± 2 weeks was performed the AVJ ablation. The electrical parameters were measured at the implant and every 6 – 12 months. The patients had an echocardiographic and clinical evaluation every 6 – 12 months. There was nobody with a NYHA class IV. Results The procedure was performed without complication in all patients. There were a rising in the EF (49,9 ± 14,6 vs 54,2 ± 10,4% p = 0.004). There weren’t HF admission and only 2 patients died (not for cardio–vascular causes) during follow up. There were also a decrease in NYHA class in every patient (at least one NYHA class less). 17 (57%) patients had normal ventricular conduction, only 4 (13%) had LBBB, 4 (13%) RBBB. There were not statistical difference between the QRS duration pre and after implant (129 ± 35 vs 125 ± 24 ms p = 0,06). The threshold measured at the implant were stable both in the HBP (0,75 ± 0,34 vs 1,3 ± 0,8 V @ 0,4 ms p = 0,14) and in the LBBAP (0,93 ± 0,3 vs 0,89 ± 0,3 V @ 0,4 ms p = 0,49). The LBBAP presented higher values of sensing compared with HBP (17,5 ± 7,4 vs 6,3 ± 3,3 mV p = 0,04) and less procedural (63 ± 32 vs 95 ± 41 min, p = 0,02) and fluoroscopic time (2,6 ± 2,4 vs 7,5 ± 4,1 min, p = 0,04) compared with HBP. Conclusion The CSP is feasible and safe in the setting of “ablate and pace” and results in a clear increasing in EF and clinical status of patients with good and stable ECG features and electrical parameters during follow up; the CSP indeed represent a valuable alternative to BVP in this setting. LBBAP performed better than HBP in terms of procedural and fluoroscopic time and of higher sensing values.

Short-term safety and feasibility of a practical approach to combined atrial and ventricular physiological pacing: An initial single-center experience

Traditional right atrial appendage (RAA) pacing accentuates conduction disturbances as opposed to Bachmann bundle pacing (BBP). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of routine anatomically guided high right atrial septal (HRAS) pacing with activation of Bachmann bundle combined with routine left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). This retrospective single-center study included 96 consecutive patients who underwent 1 of 2 strategies: physiological pacing (PP) (n = 32) with HRAS and LBBAP leads and conventional pacing (CP) (n = 64) with traditional RAA and right ventricular apical leads. Baseline characteristics, sensing, pacing thresholds, and impedances were recorded at implantation and follow-up. The PP and CP cohorts were of similar age (74.2 ± 13.8 years vs 73.9 ± 9.9 years) and sex (28.1% vs 40.6% female). There were no differences in procedural time (95.0 ± 31.4 minutes vs 86.5 ± 33.3 minutes; P = .19) or fluoroscopy time (12.1 ± 4.5 minutes vs 12.3 ± 13.5 minutes; P = .89) between cohorts. After excluding patients who received >2 leads, these parameters became significantly shorter in the CP cohort. The PP cohort exhibited higher atrial pacing thresholds (1.5 ± 1.1 mV vs 0.8 ± 0.3 mV; P <.001) and lower p waves (1.8 ± 0.8 mV vs 3.8 ± 2.3 mV; P <.001) at implantation and at follow-up. In the PP cohort, 72% of implants met criteria for BBP; of the ventricular leads, 94% demonstrated evidence of LBBAP. One lead-related complication occurred in each cohort. Routine placement of leads in the HRAS is a feasible and safe alternative to standard RAA pacing, allowing for BBP in 72% of patients. HRAS pacing can be combined with LBBAP as a routine strategy.

Is Conduction System Pacing a Valuable Alternative to Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) significantly improves clinical outcomes in patients with ventricular systolic dysfunction and dyssynchrony. Biventricular pacing (BVP) has a class IA recommendation for patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, approximately 30% of patients have a poor therapeutic response and do not achieve real clinical benefit. Pre-implant imaging, together with tailored programming and dedicated device algorithms, have been proposed as possible tools to improve success rate but have shown inconsistent results. Over the last few years, conduction system pacing (CSP) is becoming a real and attractive alternative to standard BVP as it can restore narrow QRS in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) by stimulating and recruiting the cardiac conduction system, thus ensuring true resynchronization. It includes His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Preliminary data coming from small single-center experiences are very promising and have laid the basis for currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP. The purpose of this review is to delve into the emerging role of CSP as an alternative method of achieving CRT. After framing CSP in a historical perspective, the pathophysiological rationale and available clinical evidence will be examined, and crucial technical aspects will be discussed. Finally, evidence gaps and future perspectives on CSP as a technique of choice to deliver CRT will be summarized.

A His bundle pacing protocol for suppressing ventricular arrhythmia maintenance and improving defibrillation efficacy

Background:The excitable gap (EG), defined as the excitable tissue between two subsequent wavefronts of depolarization, is critical for maintaining reentry that underlies deadly ventricular arrhythmias. EG in the His-Purkinje Network (HPN) plays an important role in the maintenance of electrical wave reentry that underlies these arrhythmias. Objective:To determine if rapid His bundle pacing (HBP) during reentry reduces the amount of EG in the HPN and ventricular myocardium to suppress reentry maintenance and/or improve defibrillation efficacy. Methods:In a virtual human biventricular model, reentry was initiated with rapid line pacing followed by HBP delivered for 3, 6, or 9 s at pacing cycle lengths (PCLs) ranging from 10 to 300 ms (n=30). EG was calculated independently for the HPN and myocardium over each PCL. Defibrillation efficacy was assessed for each PCL by stimulating myocardial surface EG with delays ranging from 0.25 to 9 s (increments of 0.25 s, n=36) after the start of HBP. Defibrillation was successful if reentry terminated within 1 s after EG stimulation. This defibrillation protocol was repeated without HBP. To test the approach under different pathological conditions, all protocols were repeated in the model with right (RBBB) or left (LBBB) bundle branch block. Results:Compared to without pacing, HBP for >3 seconds reduced average EG in the HPN and myocardium across a broad range of PCLs for the default, RBBB, and LBBB models. HBP >6 seconds terminated reentrant arrhythmia by converting HPN activation to a sinus rhythm behavior in the default (6/30 PCLs) and RBBB (7/30 PCLs) models. Myocardial EG stimulation during HBP increased the number of successful defibrillation attempts by 3%–19% for 30/30 PCLs in the default model, 3%–6% for 14/30 PCLs in the RBBB model, and 3%–11% for 27/30 PCLs in the LBBB model. Conclusion:HBP can reduce the amount of excitable gap and suppress reentry maintenance in the HPN and myocardium. HBP can also improve the efficacy of low-energy defibrillation approaches targeting excitable myocardium. HBP during reentrant arrhythmias is a promising anti-arrhythmic and defibrillation strategy.

Concepts of Cardiac Dyssynchrony and Dynamic Approach.

Cardiac conduction involves electrical activity from one myocyte to another, creating coordinated contractions in each. Disruptions in the conducting system, such as left bundle branch block (LBBB), can result in premature activation of specific regions of the heart, leading to heart failure and increased morbidity and mortality. Structural alterations in T-tubules and the sarcoplasmic reticulum can lead to dyssynchrony, a condition that can be treated by cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), which stands as a cornerstone in this pathology. The heterogeneity in patient responses underscored the necessity of improving the diagnostic approach. Vectocardiography, ultra-high-frequency ECG, 3D echocardiography, and electrocardiographic imaging seem to offer advanced precision in identifying optimal candidates for CRT in addition to the classic diagnostic methods. The advent of His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing further refined the approach in the treatment of dyssynchrony, offering more physiological pacing modalities that promise enhanced outcomes by maintaining or restoring the natural sequence of ventricular activation. HOT-CRT emerges as a pivotal innovation combining the benefits of CRT with the precision of His bundle or left bundle branch area pacing to optimize cardiac function in a subset of patients where traditional CRT might fall short.

Therapeutic potential of conduction system pacing as a method for improving cardiac output during ventricular tachycardia

BackgroundVentricular tachycardia (VT) reduces cardiac output through high heart rates, loss of atrioventricular synchrony, and loss of ventricular synchrony. We studied the contribution of each mechanism and explored the potential therapeutic utility of His bundle pacing to improve cardiac output during VT.MethodsStudy 1 aimed to improve the understanding of mechanisms of harm during VT (using pacing simulated VT). In 23 patients with left ventricular impairment, we recorded continuous ECG and beat-by-beat blood pressure measurements. We assessed the hemodynamic impact of heart rate and restoration of atrial and biventricular synchrony. Study 2 investigated novel pacing interventions during clinical VT by evaluating the hemodynamic effects of His bundle pacing at 5 bpm above the VT rate in 10 patients.ResultsIn Study 1, at progressively higher rates of simulated VT, systolic blood pressure declined:at rates of 125, 160, and 190 bpm, -22.2%, -42.0%, and -58.7%, respectively (ANOVA p < 0.0001). Restoring atrial synchrony alone had only a modest beneficial effect on systolic blood pressure (+ 3.6% at 160 bpm, p = 0.2117), restoring biventricular synchrony alone had a greater effect (+ 9.1% at 160 bpm, p = 0.242), and simultaneously restoring both significantly increased systolic blood pressure (+ 31.6% at 160 bpm, p = 0.0003). In Study 2, the mean rate of clinical VT was 143 ± 21 bpm. His bundle pacing increased systolic blood pressure by + 14.2% (p = 0.0023). In 6 of 10 patients, VT terminated with His bundle pacing.ConclusionsRestoring atrial and biventricular synchrony improved hemodynamic function in simulated and clinical VT. Conduction system pacing could improve VT tolerability and treatment.Graphical

Enhancing Cardiac Pacing Strategies: A Review of Conduction System Pacing Compared to Right and Biventricular Pacing and their influence on myocardial function.

Traditional right ventricular pacing has been linked to the deterioration of both left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. This worsening often culminates in elevated rates of hospitalization due to heart failure, an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, and increased morbidity. While biventricular pacing has demonstrated clinical and echocardiographic improvements in patients afflicted with heart failure and left bundle branch block, it has also encountered significant challenges, such as a notable portion of non-responders and procedural failures attributed to anatomical complexities. In recent time, the interest has shifted towards conduction system pacing, initially His bundle pacing and more recently left bundle branch area pacing, as promising alternatives to the established methods. In contrast to other approaches, conduction system pacing offers the advantage of fostering more physiological and harmonized ventricular activation by directly stimulating the His-Purkinje network. This direct pacing results in a more synchronized systolic and diastolic function of left ventricle compared to right ventricular pacing and biventricular pacing. Of particular note is conduction system pacing's capacity to yield shorter QRS, conserve left ventricular ejection fraction, and reduced rates of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation when compared to right ventricular pacing. The efficacy of conduction system pacing has also been found to have better clinical and echocardiographic improvement than biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization. This review will delve into myocardial function in conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing and biventricular pacing.

Bachmann bundle pacing

Bachmann bundle pacing

His Bundle Pacing: Predicting Mortality and Major Complications in Mid-Term Follow-Up.

Introduction: His bundle pacing (HBP) is suitable for 80% of patients with any indication for permanent pacemaker implantation, with a clinical benefit compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Although complications and mortality related to RVP are widely reported in the literature, data on HBP are limited. This study aimed to analyze HBP complications and outcomes in the short-term (up to 30 days) and long-term (up to the following 24 months) follow-up (F/U). Materials and Methods: The study includes 373 patients aged ≥ 18, enrolled from October 2015 to May 2019 in a single-center HBP prospective registry conducted in the Department of Electrocardiology, Upper Silesian Medical Centre of the Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland. Mortality and HBP complications were used as end-points: during hospitalization and up to 30 days (short-term F/U), and for each F/U point-six months, 12 months, and 24 months after the procedure (long-term F/U). Results: Successful HBP was achieved in 252 patients (68%), with an increasing success rate during consecutive years: 57% in 2015-2016 and 73% in 2017-2019. Complications were found in 8.4% of patients (21/252) in short-term F/U and 5.8% (13/224), 5.5% (11/201), and 6.9% (12/174) at six months, 12 months, and 24 months, respectively. There were no deaths during the first 30 days. However, 26 patients (10.3%) died within 24 months. A left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 34% was the only independent predictor of all-cause mortality or any major complication in the 24-month F/U. Conclusions: This single-center study reported a low risk of mortality and complications associated with HBP at the short-term F/U. However, during the long-term F/U, we observed a higher but acceptable risk of major complications, with a lower LVEF being an independent predictor of the composite end-point of all-cause mortality or any major complication.

Feasibility of His bundle pacing and atrioventricular junction ablation with left bundle branch area pacing as backup

Feasibility of His bundle pacing and atrioventricular junction ablation with left bundle branch area pacing as backup

An interesting dynamic retrograde His bundle potential during the transventricular-septal process for left bundle branch pacing in a patient with right bundle branch block: A case report.

A 67-year-old male presented with symptomatic bradycardia caused by atrial fibrillation and underwent His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Electrocardiography (ECG) revealed a complete right bundle branch block (RBBB). John Jiang's connecting cable was used during the transventricular septal process. An interesting dynamic retrograde His bundle potential (RHP) was recorded with uninterrupted lead screws.

Ultra-High-Frequency ECG in Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: From Technical Concept to Clinical Application.

Identifying electrical dyssynchrony is crucial for cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG) technique allows instantaneous dyssynchrony analyses with real-time visualization. This review explores the physiological background of higher frequencies in ventricular conduction and the translational evolution of UHF-ECG in cardiac pacing and CRT. Although high-frequency components were studied half a century ago, their exploration in the dyssynchrony context is rare. UHF-ECG records ECG signals from eight precordial leads over multiple beats in time. After initial conceptual studies, the implementation of an instant visualization of ventricular activation led to clinical implementation with minimal patient burden. UHF-ECG aids patient selection in biventricular CRT and evaluates ventricular activation during various forms of conduction system pacing (CSP). UHF-ECG ventricular electrical dyssynchrony has been associated with clinical outcomes in a large retrospective CRT cohort and has been used to study the electrophysiological differences between CSP methods, including His bundle pacing, left bundle branch (area) pacing, left ventricular septal pacing and conventional biventricular pacing. UHF-ECG can potentially be used to determine a tailored resynchronization approach (CRT through biventricular pacing or CSP) based on the electrical substrate (true LBBB vs. non-specified intraventricular conduction delay with more distal left ventricular conduction disease), for the optimization of CRT and holds promise beyond CRT for the risk stratification of ventricular arrhythmias.

Effect of His Bundle Pacing on Abnormal Myocardial Fatty Acid and Glucose Metabolism Induced by Right Ventricular Pacing.

Metabolic disorder is noted for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. The benefits of His bundle pacing over right ventricular (RV) pacing in preventing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy from a metabolic perspective are yet to be fully understood. Three pig groups were established for this study: sham control, RV pacing (RV pacing for 6 months), and His pacing (RV pacing for 6 months, followed by His bundle pacing for 3 months). Complete atrioventricular block was created in the last 2 groups. Left ventricular function and dyssynchrony were assessed via echocardiography, while proteins linked to metabolism, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and inflammation in left ventricular myocardium were examined. The RV pacing group had significantly more left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony compared with the other groups. The RV pacing group exhibited triglyceride and diacylglycerol accumulation in cardiomyocytes and higher expression of binding immunoglobulin protein and tumor necrosis factor-α than the other groups. Additionally, the expression of CD36 was activated, while the expression of hormone-sensitive lipase was downregulated in the RV pacing group compared with the His pacing and sham control groups. Furthermore, the expressions of GLUT4 and pyruvate dehydrogenase were higher in the RV pacing group than the sham control and His pacing groups. Notably, the abnormal fatty acid and glucose metabolic pathways in the left ventricular myocardium during RV pacing could be corrected by His bundle pacing. His bundle pacing can mitigate the abnormal metabolism disorders, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and inflammation induced during RV pacing and may contribute to the superiority of conduction system pacing over RV pacing in reducing heart failure hospitalization.

Conduction System Pacing in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease: A Case Report and Literature Review.

Conduction system pacing involving either His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a modality that has been introduced as a safe and effective alternative to right ventricular (RV) pacing to help prevent pacemaker-associated cardiomyopathy. While HBP has been employed in the pediatric and congenital populations, several small studies have shown LBBP to be safe and effective in the pediatric population. We present a patient with congenital atrioventricular block and postoperative ventricular septal defect repair cardiomyopathy with subsequent left ventricular function improvement following a transition from an RV epicardial pacemaker system to an LBBP system. This case report serves as a foundation for a review of the current state of LBBP in pediatrics and congenital heart disease.

Additional factors underlying pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients who underwent right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing. Author's reply.

Additional factors underlying pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients who underwent right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing. Author's reply.

Additional factors underlying pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients who underwent right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing.

Additional factors underlying pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients who underwent right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing.

Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in Japanese patients with bradycardia.

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) emerge as better alternatives to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP, HBP, and RVAP in Japanese patients with bradycardia. A total of 424 patients who underwent successful pacemaker implantation (HBP, n = 53; LBBAP, n = 75; and RVAP, n = 296) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The primary study endpoint was the cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) during the follow-up. The success rate for implantation was higher in the LBBAP group than in the HBP group (94.9% and 81.5%, respectively). Capture threshold increase >1V during the follow-up occurred in the HBP and RVAP groups (9.4% and 5.1%, respectively), while it did not in the LBBAP group. The cumulative incidence of HFH was significantly lower in the LBBAP group than the RVAP (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.12 [95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.86]; p = .034); it did not differ between the HBP and RVAP groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.17-1.34]; p = .16). Advanced age, mean percent right ventricular pacing (per 10% increase), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, and RVAP were associated with HFH. Compared to RVAP and HBP, LBBAP appeared more feasible and effective in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Feasibility of Conduction System Pacing in Patients with Baseline Bundle Branch Block-A Single-Center Mid-Term Follow-Up Study.

The primary prerequisite for a successful conduction system pacing (CSP) procedure is the integrity of the conduction system, which may be impaired if a baseline bundle branch block (BBB) is present. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and mid-term performance of permanent CSP in patients with baseline BBB and to compare the results between left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB) patterns. A total of 101 patients with typical BBB and an attempt at CSP were retrospectively reviewed. Procedural characteristics, pacing, sensing parameters, and complications at baseline and after a mid-term follow-up were analyzed. The global procedural success for CSP was 93%. His bundle pacing (HBP) had a significantly lower success rate than left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) (50.5% vs. 86%). The paced QRS duration was significantly narrower with HBP. The pacing and sensing thresholds were significantly better with LBBAP. Procedural complications occurred only in the LBBAP group (two acute perforations in the LV cavity and one acute chest pain during lead fixation) without long-term sequelae. The HBP and the LBBAP procedural success rates were higher in the RBBB versus the LBBB group (62.5% vs. 44.9% and 100% vs. 81.5%, respectively). Baseline QRS duration, atrial volumes, and right ventricular diameters were significantly associated with HBP procedural failure. The follow-up pacing and sensing thresholds were similar to the baseline values for all pacing methods and BBB morphology. Only one device-related complication leading to pacing interruption was recorded. In patients with bundle branch blocks, CSP is a feasible procedure associated with a high success rate, stable pacing and sensing parameters, and low complication rates over a mid-term follow-up.