Right Ventricular Septal Pacing Research Articles

Real-time assessment of LV synchrony in AV block population undergoing LBB pacing using ECG Imaging

Abstract Background Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) may prevent right ventricular (RV) pacing-induced dyssynchrony (DYS). Nowadays, real-time assessment of DYS correction is indirectly measured with QRS narrowing. Non-invasive ECG imaging (ECGI) technique may provide an evaluation of electrical resynchronization based on quantitative assessment of ventricular local activation time (LAT) maps. Purpose To assess whether real-time ECGI could evaluate LV synchrony achieved through LBBP, in a consecutive AV block (AVB) population. Methods A cohort of 12 patients with AVB were included. ECGI was performed during the implant procedure. ECGI signals were computed using an artificial intelligence derived cardiac geometry model. Ventricular LAT maps were obtained when pacing from septal RV and with LBBP (lead placed according to guidelines ECG criteria) for each of the patients. The following parameters were obtained from ECGI LAT maps to assess intra and interventricular DYS pacing at the RV septal and LBB locations: total activation time (TAT), left ventricular activation time (LVAT), left ventricular dyssynchrony index (LVDI), ventricular electrical uncoupling (VEU = mean LVAT – mean RV activation time) and histogram overlap between LV and RV activation times distribution. RESULTS: Nine of the 12 patients were men (75%), with a median age of 79[Q1 75-Q3 82]. QRS duration during RV septal pacing was 150 ms [138-172]. Median LVEF was 47% [26-59]. In Figure 1, it can be observed that dyssynchrony variables are corrected across all patients when reaching LBBP. Figure 2 shows activation maps during RV septal pacing and during LBBP, along with the QRS duration, and the RV and LV histogram of activation times. Conclusion ECGI is useful for assessing the LV synchrony correction during LBBP in an AV block population.Dyssynchrony variablesActivation maps with QRS and histograms

Left bundle branch area pacing versus conventional pacing in patients with advanced atrioventricular conduction abnormalities: a prospective cohort study

BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging pacing method that may prevent the deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of LBBAP with right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) in patients with advanced atrioventricular conduction abnormalities and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction. MethodsThe effect of pacing was evaluated by echocardiographic indices of dyssynchrony, including global myocardial work efficiency (GWE) and peak systolic dispersion (PSD). The primary endpoint was GWE postprocedural, at 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure. ResultsTwenty patients received LBBAP and 18 RVSP. Complete follow-up was accomplished in 37 patients (97.4%) due to the death of a patient (RVSP arm) from nonrelated cause. GWE was significantly increased in the group of LBBAP compared to RVSP at all time points (90.8% in LBBAP versus 85.8% in RVSP group at 12 months, p = 0.01). PSD was numerically lower in the LBBAP arm at all time points, yet not statistically significant (56.4 msec in LBBP versus 65.1 msec in RVSP arm at 12 months, p = 0.178). The implantation time was increased (median 93 min in LBBAP versus 45 min in RVSP group, p < 0.01), along with fluoroscopy time and dose area product (DAP), in the arm of LBBAP. There were no severe perioperative acute complications in either group. ConclusionsLBBAP is an emerging and safe technique for patients with a pacing indication. Despite the longer procedural and fluoroscopy time, as well as higher DAP, LBBAP seems to offer better left ventricular synchrony compared to RVSP, according to GWE measurements.

Impact of Right Ventricle Lead Position on Left Ventricular Function in Permanent Single and Dual Chamber Pacemakers

Abstract Aim and objectives To identify the short term effect of the pacemaker RV lead position related electric remodeling on LV systolic function Patients and Methods The study included 30 patients who presented with an indication of permanent pacing to the cardiology department of Ain Shams university hospitals and underwent permanent single or dual-chamber pacemaker insertion, 15 patients each with right ventricular (RV) apical pacing (RV apex), and 15 patients nonapical pacing (mid septal). 2D speckle tracking imaging technique was used for quantification of global longitudinal function of the left ventricle and dyssynchrony evaluation before pacemaker implantation and after a 3-month follow-up. Results 2D speckle tracking echocardiography 3 months follow up post pacing revealed impairment of global longitudinal strain in all patients and Intraventricular dyssynchrony was significantly more in apical location compared to a non-apical location (radial dyssynchrony: 108.67 ± 11.68 msec vs. 80.53 ± 8.17 msec, p-value &amp;lt; 0.001) with more difference (50.53 ± 13.30 msec) in apical location compared to non-apical location difference (29.87 ± 6.64 msec), p-value &amp;lt; 0.001. Conclusion By the analysis of 2D speckle tracking echocardiography, In the short-term follow-up, we found that radial dyssynchrony was more in apical location when compared to the non-apical location of RV lead. The RV septal pacing is a better alternative in terms of less dyssynchrony compared to RV apical pacing. Older age, the higher percentage of pacing, and device type are prognostic factors for the development of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy.

New-onset atrial high-rate episodes between his bundle pacing and conventional right ventricular septum pacing in patients with atrioventricular conduction disturbance.

The effect of His bundle pacing (HBP) on the incidence of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) after pacemaker implantation (PMI) for atrioventricular conduction disturbance (AVCD) remains unknown. We compared the incidence of new-onset atrial high-rate episode (AHRE) in conventional right ventricular (RV) septum pacing (RVSP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) after PMI for AVCD. One hundred and four consecutive patients who underwent dual chamber PMI for AVCD in our hospital were screened. Thirty-five patients with mitral or aortic valve disease, history of open-heart surgery, prior AF, subclinical AF, cumulative ventricular pacing percentage < 90%, and RV lead revision were excluded, and 69 patients were effectively enrolled in this study. The primary endpoint was new-onset AHRE within the follow-up period. New-onset AHRE was defined as an atrial high-rate episode that occurred 3months after PMI and lasted for > 6min at an atrial heart rate > 190bpm. RV leads were placed in the His bundle region and RV septum region in 22 and 47 patients, respectively. The mean follow-up period was 539 ± 218days. The follow-up period was 2years after PMI or until the new-onset AHRE occurred. The incidence of new-onset AHRE was lower in the HBP group than in the RVSP group (11% vs. 43%, p = 0.01). Multivariate analysis in the Cox regression hazard model showed that HBP had a significantly lower risk of new-onset AHRE compared with RVSP (HR = 0.21; 95% confidence interval 0.04-0.78, p = 0.02). The incidence of new-onset AHRE was significantly less in HBP compared to RVSP during the 2-year follow-up period after pacemaker implantation in AVCD patients with RV pacing dependence.

Dyssynchrony assessment by ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography: a single numerical parameter to identify the relationship between right and left ventricular depolarization

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): grant number NU21-02-00584, the CAS project RVO:68081731, the project National Institute for Research of Metabolic and Cardiovascular Diseases (Programme EXCELES, ID Project No. LX22NPO5104) - Funded by the European Union – Next Generation EU. Background The common criterion for assessing synchronous activation during single and biventricular pacing is QRS duration (QRSd). The novel conduction system pacing (CSP) techniques provide more physiological ventricular activation but less clear effects on QRSd. In these circumstances, a more detailed and visual assessment of ventricular synchrony than QRSd alone can be insightful. Purpose To investigate whether differences between various modes of CSP can be better differentiated by ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG) than by QRSd. Methods UHF-ECG recordings were acquired in 199 bradycardia patients with narrow QRS complex during intrinsic rhythm, selective (sHBP) and non-selective His bundle (nHBP), selective (sLBBP) and non-selective left bundle branch (nsLBBP) pacing, and left (LVSP) and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP). Lead positions were certified using X-ray and QRS morphology. Electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated from UHF-ECG activation times as the maximal time difference between the peaks of ECG leads V1-V6. Positive e-DYS indicates delayed left ventricular (LV) activation, whereas negative e-DYS means delayed right ventricular (RV) activation. Results The Figure shows the relationship between QRSd and e-DYS for individual types of stimulation on an intrinsic background (black). All pacing, except sHBP, modes significantly increased QRSd. QRSd was significantly larger during RVSP than all other pacing modes, but QRSd was not able to differentiate between nsHBP, sLBBP, nsLBBP and LVsp. In contrast to QRSd, e-DYS was positive during nsHBP and RVSP and negative during sLBBP, nsLBBP and LVSP (p&amp;lt;0.001). Conclusion e-DYS assessed with UHF-ECG provides more detailed information on the ventricular activation and is more superior in differentiating between CSP pacing modes, compared to standard QRSd. sHBP, nsHBP, nsLBBp, and LVSP create activation patterns closest to normal ventricular activation.

Bipolar anodal septal pacing with direct LBB capture preserves physiological ventricular activation better than unipolar left bundle branch pacing.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) produces delayed, unphysiological activation of the right ventricle. Using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG), we explored how bipolar anodal septal pacing with direct LBB capture (aLBBP) affects the resultant ventricular depolarization pattern. In patients with bradycardia, His bundle pacing (HBP), unipolar nonselective LBBP (nsLBBP), aLBBP, and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) were performed. Timing of local ventricular activation, in leads V1-V8, was displayed using UHF-ECG, and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated as the difference between the first and last activation. Durations of local depolarizations were determined as the width of the UHF-QRS complex at 50% of its amplitude. aLBBP was feasible in 63 of 75 consecutive patients with successful nsLBBP. aLBBP significantly improved ventricular dyssynchrony (mean -9 ms; 95% CI (-12;-6) vs. -24 ms (-27;-21), ), p < 0.001) and shortened local depolarization durations in V1-V4 (mean differences -7 ms to -5 ms (-11;-1), p < 0.05) compared to nsLBBP. aLBBP resulted in e-DYS -9 ms (-12; -6) vs. e-DYS 10 ms (7;14), p < 0.001 during HBP. Local depolarization durations in V1-V2 during aLBBP were longer than HBP (differences 5-9 ms (1;14), p < 0.05, with local depolarization duration in V1 during aLBBP being the same as during RVSP (difference 2 ms (-2;6), p = 0.52). Although aLBBP improved ventricular synchrony and depolarization duration of the septum and RV compared to unipolar nsLBBP, the resultant ventricular depolarization was still less physiological than during HBP.

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.

Ventricular Functional Analysis in Congenital Complete Heart Block Using Speckle Tracking: Left Ventricular Epicardial Compared to Right Ventricular Septal Pacing.

Chronic right ventricular (RV) apical pacing in patients with congenital complete atrioventricular block (CCAVB) is associated with left ventricle (LV) dyssynchrony and dysfunction. Hence, alternative pacing sites are advocated. The aim of this study was to compare LV function using STE in selected patients with LV epicardial pacing (LVEp) vs. RV transvenous pacing (RVSp). This was a single-center, retrospective study in patients with CCAVB who underwent permanent pacemaker implant at age ≤ 18years. Age- and gender-matched patients with a normal heart anatomy and function served as the control group. LV function was comprehensively assessed by conventional 2D Echocardiography and speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE). We included 24 patients in the pacemaker group [27.6% male, mean age of 17.1 at last follow-up, follow-up duration of 8.7years, RVSp (n = 9; 62.5%)] compared to 48 matched healthy controls. Shortening fraction (SF) and ejection fraction (EF) were normal and similar between cases and controls. However, STE detected abnormal LV function in the pacemaker group compared to controls. The former demonstrated lower/abnormal, Peak Longitudinal Strain myocardial (PLS Myo) [- 12.0 ± 3.3 vs. - 18.1 ± 1.9, p < 0.001] and Peak Longitudinal Strain endocardial (PLS endo) [- 16.1 ± 4.1 vs. 1.7 ± 1.7, p < 0.001]. STE parameters of LV function were significantly more abnormal in LVEp vs. RVSp subgroup as demonstrated by lower values for PLS Myo (- 10.1 ± 3.2 vs. - 13.1 ± 2.9, p = 0.03) and PLS Endo (- 13.8 ± 4.4 vs. - 17.5 ± 3.3, p = 0.03). STE was more sensitive in detecting subtle differences in LV function relative to standard conventional 2D echocardiography (SF and EF) in selected patients with CCAVB and a permanent pacemaker. Furthermore, STE demonstrated that transvenous RV septal pacing was associated with better LV systolic function preservation than LV epicardial pacing for comparable post-implant intervals.

A Continuous Pacing and Recording Technique for Differentiating Left Bundle Branch Pacing From Left Ventricular Septal Pacing: Electrophysiologic Evidence From an Intrapatient-Controlled Study.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a promising approach for achieving near-physiologic pacing. However, differentiating LBBP from left ventricular septal endocardial pacing (LVS(e)P) remains a challenge. This study aimed to establish a simple and effective method for differentiating LBBP from LVS(e)P and to evaluate their electrophysiologic characteristics. LBBP, using continuous uninterrupted pacing and real-time monitoring of electrocardiograms along with intracardiac electrograms, was performed in 97 consecutive patients. We evaluated the electrophysiologic characteristics observed during LBBP using 6 modalities: right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), intraventricular septal pacing (IVSP 1 and 2), LVS(e)P, nonselective LBBP (NSLBBP), and selective LBBP (SLBBP). Of the 97 patients, 87 (89.7%) met the criteria (abrupt change in paced QRS morphology with a transition from Qr to QR/qR in lead V1 and shortening of stimulus to V6 R-wave peak time [Stim-V6RWPT] of ≥ 10 ms with constant output while rather than after lead screwing) for nonselective left bundle branch (LBB) capture. Selective LBB capture was observed in 82 patients (84.5%). The Stim-V6RWPT of NSLBBP and SLBBP were significantly shorter than LVS(e)P (respectively, 67.1 ± 8.7 ms, 67.0 ± 9.3 ms, and 82.1 ± 10.9 ms). Stim-QRSend was the narrowest in IVSP2 (136.6 ± 15.2 ms) instead of NSLBBP (140.0 ± 17.1 ms). The uninterrupted pacing technique for differentiating LBBP from LVS(e)P in the same group of patients is feasible. Electrophysiologic evidence from our intrapatient-controlled study shows that LBBP and LVS(e)P differ in ventricular electrical synchronization.

Right Ventricular Septal Versus Apical Pacing: Long-Term Incidence of Heart Failure and Survival.

The clinical benefits of right ventricular septal (RVS) pacing compared to those of right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing are still in debate. We aimed to compare the incidence of heart failure (HF) and all-cause mortality in patients submitted to RVS and RVA pacing during a longer follow-up. This a single-center, retrospective study analysis of consecutive patients submitted to pacemaker implantation. The primary outcome was defined as the occurrence of HF during follow-up. The secondary outcome was all-cause death. A total of 251 patients were included, 47 (18.7%) with RVS pacing. RVS pacing was associated to younger age, male gender, lower body mass index, ischemic heart disease, and atrial fibrillation. During a follow-up period of 5.2 years, the primary outcome occurred in 89 (37.1%) patients. RVS pacing was independently associated with a 3-fold lower risk of HF, after adjustment. The secondary outcome occurred in 83 (34.2%) patients, and pacemaker lead position was not a predictor. Fluoroscopy time and rate of complications (rarely life-threatening) were similar in both groups. Our study points to a potential clinical benefit of RVS positioning, with a 3.3-fold lower risk of HF, without accompanying increase in procedure complexity nor complication rate.

Risk of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with High-Degree Atrioventricular Block-Impact of Right Ventricular Lead Position Confirmed by Computed Tomography.

Prospective studies applying fluoroscopy for assessment of right ventricular (RV) lead position have failed to show clear benefits from RV septal pacing. We investigated the impact of different RV lead positions verified by computed tomography (CT) on the risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). We retrospectively included 153 patients who underwent routine fluoroscopy-guided pacemaker implantation between March 2012 and May 2020. All patients had normal pre-implant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Patients attended a follow-up visit including contrast-enhanced cardiac CT and transthoracic echocardiography. Patients were classified as septal or non-septal based on CT analysis. The primary endpoint was PICM (LVEF < 50% with ≥10% decrease after implantation). Based on CT, 48 (31.4%) leads were septal and 105 (68.6%) were non-septal. Over a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 16 patients (33.3%) in the septal group developed PICM compared to 31 (29.5%) in the non-septal group (p = 0.6). Overall, 13.1% deteriorated to LVEF ≤ 40%, 5.9% were upgraded to cardiac resynchronization therapy device, and 14.4% developed new-onset atrial fibrillation, with no significant differences between the groups. This study demonstrated a high risk of PICM despite normal pre-implant left ventricular systolic function with no significant difference between CT-verified RV septal or non-septal lead position.

Assessment of Cardiac Function and Ventricular Mechanical Synchronization in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing by Speckle Tracking and Three-Dimensional Echocardiography

Real-time 3-dimensional echocardiography combined with speckle tracking was used in this study. A total of 90 patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction were divided into 3 groups according to the pacing site: left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) or right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP). Procedure duration (90 ± 18 vs 61 ± 6.6 vs 58 ± 5.6 minutes, p=0.015), Fluoroscopy duration (15.5 ± 5.4 vs 4.8 ± 2.2 vs 4 ± 1.9 minutes, p=0.004), and ventricular capture threshold at implantation (0.8 ± 0.3 vs 0.6 ± 0.2 vs 0.6 ± 0.1 V, p=0.002) were significantly increased in patients that received LBBAP compared with RVSP or RVAP. At 4 weeks of follow-up, brain natriuretic peptide levels were significantly lower (22 [12 to 59] vs 135 [86 to 231] vs 235 [147 to 428] pg/ml, p=0.04), paced QRS duration was significantly shorter (115 ± 26 vs 134 ± 28 vs 157 ± 29 ms, p=0.012), and global longitudinal strain (-19.4 ± 2.4 vs -19.3 ± 3.4 vs -17.3 ± 3.5%, p=0.026) and systolic dyssynchrony index (2.5 ± 0.3 vs 5.9 ± 0.9 vs 7.7 ± 1.2, p=0.001), longitudinal absolute maximum difference of time to peak strain (17 [6 to 68] vs 117 [71 to 173] vs 126 [79 to 178] ms, p <0.0001), and circumferential absolute maximum difference of time to peak strain (76 [32 to 129] vs 148 [117 to 208] vs 161 [118 to 266] ms, p=0.005) were significantly lower in patients that received LBBAP compared with RVSP or RVAP. In conclusion, LBBAP can provide a more physiological ventricular activation pattern than RVSP or RVAP and results in good left ventricular electrical and mechanical synchronization.

Correlations between myocardial injury current and lead performance in His bundle pacing compared with left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular septum pacing.

Conduction system pacing by implanting the lead in the His bundle (HBP) region or in the left bundle branch area (LBBAP) has gained popularity. Myocardial injury current (IC) is useful for predicting adequate lead fixation in right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP). We compared the correlations between IC and lead performance among patients receiving HBP (n = 41), LBBAP (n = 53), and historical RVSP (n = 88). LBBAP was an alternative if optimal HBP was not achieved. A positive IC (STpost-screw-in - STpre-screw-in) was defined as > 0.2mV or a > 25% ST elevation and prolongation of the ventricular electrograms > 10ms from baseline. HBP patients with a positive IC (48%, 0.84 ± 0.4V/0.4ms) exhibited a similar pacing threshold to their LBBAP counterparts (76%, 0.75 ± 0.3V/0.4ms, p = 0.329), but a higher pacing threshold than their RVSP counterparts (67%, 0.50 ± 0.1V/0.4ms, p < 0.001) at implantation. The R-wave (5.70 ± 3.4mV) and impedance (660.91 ± 140.8 Ω) were both lower than those of LBBAP (10.35 ± 6.0mV, p = 0.002; 822.36 ± 235.8 Ω, p = 0.005) and RVSP (11.24 ± 4.9mV, p < 0.001; 754.27 ± 126.4 Ω, p = 0.006) patients respectively at implantation. The trend of electrical parameter comparisons remained unchanged during follow-up (3.56 ± 1.4months). Notably, HBP patients without ICs had a higher pacing threshold (1.24 ± 0.6V/0.4ms) compared to their LBBAP (0.73 ± 0.3V/0.4ms, p = 0.009) and RVSP (0.53 ± 0.1V/0.4ms, p < 0.001) counterparts at implantation and during follow-up. The detection of positive changes of myocardial ICs during HBP was associated with a better capture threshold equivalent to the LBBAP counterpart both at implantation and during short-term follow-up. Further large-scale studies with longer follow-up are necessary to confirm these findings.

Global left ventricular myocardial work efficiency in left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septal pacing: preliminary results of a randomized trial

Abstract Background Recently, the concept of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged in clinical practice, in an attempt to prevent the deteriorating effects of right ventricular pacing (Vp). Purpose The aim of this study is to compare the effect of Vp on left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved ejection fraction (EF), subjected to either LBBP or right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP). Methods Patients with AVB are randomized 1:1 to LBBP or RVSP. The effect of Vp is evaluated by echocardiographic indices of dyssynchrony, such as global myocardial work efficiency (GWE) and peak systolic dispersion (PSD). GWE represents the ratio of constructive work divided by the sum of constructive and wasted work [1]. Successful LBBP is defined by the presence of right bundle branch block paced QRS morphology in lead V1 and stim to LV activation time &amp;lt;75 msec [2]. No back-up right Vp lead was used in LBBP group. Results We conducted a preliminary analysis of the first 20 patients. Enrollment is still ongoing and total follow-up period is one year. We sought to investigate the acute effect of Vp on LV dyssynchrony 24 hours post procedure. Patients' baseline characteristics were similar in both groups and are presented in Table 1. One crossover was noted from LBBP to RVSP group, due to high ventricular capture threshold during implant. Implantation time was increased in LBBP arm (130±17.4 min in LBBP versus 47.7±4.5 min in RVSP group, p=0.004). Left bundle branch potential was recorded in 3 out of 10 LBBP patients. No statistically significant difference was demonstrated in GWE between the two groups (91.3% in LBBP versus 87.4% in RVSP group, p=0.052). PSD was numerically shorter in LBBP (53.3 msec) versus in RVSP (63.6 msec), p=0.114. There were no complications during both the acute perioperative phase and the running period of the follow-up. Moreover, no acute ventricular threshold capture rise, or lead dislodgement has been observed in neither group. The increased implantation time may be attributed to the more demanding technique, or the learning curve period required in the arm of LBBP. In the present analysis, a remarkable difference regarding GWE in favor of the LBBP group was demonstrated, although statistically not significant. However, even in this initial phase of the study, there is a trend of better LV synchrony and less wasted myocardial work in the LBBP group. The final difference of these indices will be assessed at the end of the one-year follow-up, when comparative results will be available. Conclusion LBBP is a novel, safe pacing method. Despite the longer procedural time and the risk of crossover, LBBP seems to offer better – without however statistical significance – LV synchrony even in the acute postoperative phase compared to RVSP. Longer follow-up studies are required to test whether LBBP compared to RVSP confers substantial clinical benefit. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Impact of right ventricular lead position on left ventricular functions and early remodeling in permanent single- and dual-chamber pacemakers.

Right ventricular (RV) apical pacing can induce both interventricular dyssynchrony and intraventricular dyssynchrony. Mechanical dyssynchrony after long-term RV apical pacing is associated with reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function and deterioration in functional capacity. We aimed to identify the short-term effects of the pacemaker RV lead position on remodeling of LV systolic functions. The study included 30patients who presented with an indication of permanent pacing and who underwent permanent single- or dual-chamber pacemaker insertion: 15patients with RV apical pacing (RV apex), and 15patients with non-apical pacing (mid-septal). The two-dimensional (2D)speckle tracking imaging technique was used for quantification of global longitudinal function of the left ventricle and dyssynchrony evaluation before pacemaker implantation and after a3-month follow-up. At the 3‑month follow-up, post-pacing 2Dspeckle tracking echocardiography revealed impairment of global longitudinal strain in all patients and intraventricular dyssynchrony was significantly increased in the apical location compared with the non-apical location (radial dyssynchrony: 108.67 ± 11.68 ms vs. 80.53 ± 8.17 ms, p < 0.001) with a greater difference (50.53 ± 13.30 ms) in the apical location than in the non-apical location (29.87 ± 6.64 ms, p < 0.001). In the short-term follow-up, 2Dspeckle tracking echocardiography showed more radial dyssynchrony in the apical location than in the non-apical location of RV lead. The RV septal pacing is abetter alternative in terms of less dyssynchrony compared to RV apical pacing. Older age, higher percentage of pacing, and device type are prognostic factors for development of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy.

Comparisons of electrophysiological characteristics, pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects in right ventricular septal pacing, right ventricular apical pacing and left bundle branch area pacing

BackgroundAs a near-physiological pacing innovation, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has drawn much attention recently. This study was aimed to investigate the electrophysiological characteristics, unipolar/bipolar pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects and safety of three different pacing methods and identify possible predictors of adverse left ventricular remodeling.MethodsNinety-two patients were divided into the LBBAP group, right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) group and right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) group. Baseline information, electrophysiological, pacing and echocardiographic parameters were collected.ResultsThe three pacing methods were performed with a similar high success rate. The paced QRSd was significantly different among the LBBAP, RVSP and RVAP groups (105.93 ± 15.85 ms vs. 143.63 ± 14.71 ms vs. 155.39 ± 14.17 ms, p < 0.01). The stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) was the shortest in the LBBAP group, followed by the RVSP and RVAP groups (72.80 ± 12.07 ms vs. 86.29 ± 8.71 ms vs. 94.14 ± 10.14 ms, p < 0.001). LBBAP had a significantly lower tip impedance during the procedure and 3-month follow up as compared to RVSP and RVAP (p < 0.001). Higher bipolar captured thresholds were observed in LBBAP during the procedure (p < 0.001). Compared to the baseline values, there was a greater reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) in the LBBAP group (p = 0.046) and a significant enlargement in LVEDD in the RVAP group (p = 0.008). Multiple regression analysis revealed that the Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of LVEDD at 12 months post-procedure. At the 24-h post-procedure, significant elevations were observed in the cTnI levels in LBBAP (p < 0.001) and RVSP (p < 0.05). More transient RBB injury was observed in LBBAP. But no significant difference was found in cardiac composite endpoints among three groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionsLBBAP demonstrated a stable captured threshold, a low tip impedance and a high R-wave amplitude during the 12-month follow-up. Left ventricular remodeling was improved at 12 months post-procedure through LBBAP. The Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of left ventricular remodeling. LBBAP demonstrated its feasibility, effectiveness, safety and some beneficial electrophysiological characteristics during this mid- to long-term follow-up, which should be confirmed by further studies.

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

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. How to differentiate LBBP from left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) remains challenging. We aimed to develop a new personalized intraoperative criterion to confirm left bundle branch (LBB) capture in patients with or without heart failure (HF). 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. 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%. Temporary HBP and RVSP can serve as references to confirm LBB capture in an individualized fashion in patients with or without HF.

Assessing cardiac mechanical dyssynchrony in left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular septal pacing using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in the acute phase of pacemaker implantation.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new, clinically feasible and safe physiological pacing strategy. The present study aims to investigate the usefulness of LBBAP in reducing mechanical dyssynchrony compared with right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP). A total of 39 LBBAP patients, 42 RVSP patients, and 93 healthy control participants were retrospectively evaluated. We compared phase analysis- (bandwidth, phase standard deviation [PSD], entropy) and regional wall motion analysis parameters. Wall motion analysis parameters included the time to the end-systolic frame (TES) assessed using single-photon emission computed tomography analysis. The maximum differences between segmental TES (MDTES), the standard deviation of TES (SDTES), and the TES difference between the lateral and septal segments (DTES-LS) were obtained. All phase analysis parameters were significantly smaller in the LBBAP group than in the RVSP group (bandwidth: LBBAP, 74 ± 31° vs. RVSP, 102 ± 59°, p = .009; PSD: LBBAP, 19 ± 6.7° vs. RVSP, 26 ± 15°, p = .007; entropy: LBBAP, 0.57 ± 0.07 vs. RVSP, 0.62 ± 0.11 p = .009). The regional wall motion analysis parameters were also smaller in the LBBAP group than in the RVSP group (MDTES:LBBAP, 17 ± 7.1% vs. RVSP, 25 ± 14%, p = .004; SDTES:LBBAP, 4.5 ± 1.7% vs. RVSP, 6.0 ± 3.5%, p = .015; DTES-LS: LBBAP, 4.1 ± 3.4% vs. RVSP, 7.1 ± 5.4%, p = .004). All phase analysis and wall motion analysis parameters were same in the LBBAP and control groups. LBBAP may reduce mechanical dyssynchrony and achieve greater physiological ventricular activation than RVSP.

Tricuspid regurgitation outcomes in left bundle branch area pacing and comparison with right ventricular septal pacing.

Tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a known complication of cardiac implantable electrical devices. Theoretically, lead-related TR risk in patients with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) should be lower than in patients with right ventricular (RV) septal pacing because of the thinner pacing lead and physiological pacing effect. This study aimed to assess lead-related TR outcomes of LBBAP and compare LBBAP and RV septal pacing in patients with bradycardia.

Preliminary experience of permanent left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-directed pacing lead without delivery sheath.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) aims to capture the cardiac conduction system in area of the left bundle branch. Currently, LBBAP is mainly performed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with preshaped sheath. However, the data on LBBAP with stylet-driven leads (SDLs) without sheath is limited. This study presents the feasibility, safety, and pacing characteristics of LBBAP using SDLs without the support of sheath. A total of 25 patients with bradycardia indications who received LBBAP implantation with an attempt of SDL (FINELINE II 4471 lead, Boston Scientific, MA, US) between August 2020 and April 2021 at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital were included in this retrospective cohort study. Twenty of them finally were paced with SDL in priority (SDL-LBBAP group). Twenty propensity score matching patients who underwent LBBAP with LLL (Select Secure 3830 lead, Medtronic, MN, US) and 20 right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) with regular active fixation lead respectively in the same period (the LLL-LBBAP group and RVSP group) were compared using ECG characteristics, pacing parameters and complications during 6-month follow-up. LBBAP was successful with SDL in 23 of 25 patients (92%) and 20 of them were paced with SDL first. In the SDL-LBBAP group, the average age was 70.4 ± 8.2 years, and 55% of patients were male. Paced QRS duration and the stimulus to peak left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) in SDL-LBBAP group were similar with those in LLL-LBBAP group and significantly shorter than those in RVSP group (126.1±14.1ms vs. 124.8±10.9ms, p=1.00; 77.7±11.2ms vs. 73.5±9.3ms, P=.75; 126.1±14.1ms vs. 147.7±22.5ms, P<.001; 77.7±11.2ms vs. 97.0±13.2ms, P<.001). The pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude of SDL-LBBAP group were 0.53±0.18V and 11.53±3.63mV at baseline respectively, which were comparable with the other two groups. During the 6-month follow-up, the pacing parameters remained stable and no lead-related complications were recorded. It is feasible and safe to use stylet-directed pacing lead for permanent LBBAP without a delivery sheath. Similar to LLL, LBBAP using SDL showed stable parameters and narrower paced QRS duration compared with RVSP, which could be an alternative to LLL in LBBAP.