No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Aims We hypothesized that during left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, the various possible combinations of direct capture/non-capture of the septal myocardium and the LBB result in distinct patterns of right and left ventricular activation. This could translate into different combinations of R-wave peak time (RWPT) in V1 and V6. Consequently, the V6-V1 interpeak interval could differentiate the three types of LBB area capture: non-selective (ns-)LBB, selective (s-)LBB, and left ventricular septal (LVS). Methods and results Patients with unquestionable evidence of LBB capture were included. The V6-V1 interpeak interval, V6RWPT, and V1RWPT were compared between different types of LBB area capture. A total of 468 patients from two centres were screened, with 124 patients (239 electrocardiograms) included in the analysis. Loss of LVS capture resulted in an increase in V1RWPT by ≥15 ms but did not impact V6RWPT. Loss of LBB capture resulted in an increase in V6RWPT by ≥15 ms but only minimally influenced V1RWPT. Consequently, the V6-V1 interval was longest during s-LBB capture (62.3 ± 21.4 ms), intermediate during ns-LBB capture (41.3 ± 14.0 ms), and shortest during LVS capture (26.5 ± 8.6 ms). The optimal value of the V6-V1 interval value for the differentiation between ns-LBB and LVS capture was 33 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 84.7%). A specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of LBB capture was obtained with a cut-off value of >44 ms. Conclusion The V6-V1 interpeak interval is a promising novel criterion for the diagnosis of LBB area capture.

Introduction: Permanent deep septal stimulation with capture of the left bundle branch (LBB) enables maintenance/restoration of the physiological activation of the left ventricle. However, it is almost always accompanied by the simultaneous engagement of the local septal myocardium, resulting in a fused (nonselective) QRS complex, therefore, confirmation of LBB capture remains difficult. Methods: We hypothesized that programmed extrastimulus technique can differentiate nonselective LBB capture from myocardial-only capture as the effective refractory period (ERP) of the myocardium is different from the ERP of the LBB. Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation underwent programmed stimulation delivered from the lead implanted in a deep septal position. Responses to programmed stimulation were categorized on the basis of sudden change in the QRS morphology of the extrastimuli, observed when ERP of LBB or myocardium was encroached upon, as: "myocardial," "selective LBB," or nondiagnostic (unequivocal change of QRS morphology). Results: Programmed deep septal stimulation was performed 269 times in 143 patients; in every patient with the use of a basic drive train of 600 milliseconds and in 126 patients also during intrinsic rhythm. The average septal-myocardial refractory period was shorter than the LBB refractory period: 263.0 ± 34.4 vs 318.0 ± 37.4 milliseconds. Responses diagnostic for LBB capture ("myocardial" or "selective LBB") were observed in 114 (79.7%) of patients.Conclusions: A novel maneuver for the confirmation of LBB capture during deep septal stimulation was developed and found to enable definitive diagnosis by visualization of both components of the paced QRS complex: selective paced LBB QRS and myocardial-only paced QRS. K E Y W O R D S effective refractory period, electrocardiogram, left bundle branch pacing, nonselective capture, refractoriness

No abstract

Aims The recently introduced technique of direct transseptal pacing of the left bundle branch is poorly characterized with many questions with regard to the optimal implantation strategy and safety concerns largely left unanswered. We developed a cadaver model for deep septal lead deployment in order to investigate the depth of penetration in relation to lead behaviour, lead tip position, and the number of rotations. Methods and results Five fresh human hearts and five lumenless, 4.1-Fr pacing leads were used for deep septal deployment simulations. The leads were positioned with the use of a dedicated delivery sheath and screwed into the interventricular septum at several sites progressively more distal from the atrioventricular ring with a predetermined number of lead rotations. During each lead deployment, the depth of tip penetration was measured and the lead behaviour was noted. Four distinct lead behaviours were observed: (i) helix only penetration, no matter how many rotations were performed, due to the ‘endocardial entanglement effect’ (43.1% cases) or (ii) ‘endocardial barrier effect’ (19.6% cases), (iii) shallow/moderate penetration, with ensuing ‘drill effect’ when more rotations were added (9.8% cases), and (iv) deep progressive penetration with each additional rotation, occurring when the ‘screwdriver effect’ was present (27.4% cases, including three septal perforations). These different lead behaviours seemed to be determined by the lead position—mainly the strength of the initial endocardial layer—and the number of fully transmitted rotations. Conclusion New insights into deep septal lead deployment technique were gained with regard to safe and successful implantation.

No abstract