Aims Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated. Methods and results This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%). Conclusions LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.

T he prevalence of patients with resistant hypertension (RH) varies from 5% to 30%.1 Identification of true-RH, when secondary causes and medication noncompliance are excluded, is becoming more important with the implementation of novel, nondrug therapeutic approaches to RH, such as catheter-based renal-artery denervation (RDN) or baroreflex stimulation. Pilot studies using RDN described the method as feasible, effective, and safe for reducing blood pressure (BP) in the short term. 2-4The interpretation of the results from the majority of these studies was complicated by the lack of 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring (24-hour ABPM) data, lack of compliance confirmation, or small follow-up sample sizes.This study seeks to evaluate the efficacy of RDN in a prospective multicenter randomized trial with the acronym PRAGUE-15 in patients with true-RH, according to the recommendations for RDN.5 Twenty-four-hour ABPM, exclusion of secondary hypertension and evaluation of treatment compliance served as confirmation of true resistance. The efficacy of RDN was compared with intensified antihypertensive treatment including the use of spironolactone. To date, only 1 study has compared RDN with intensified pharmacological treatment.6 However, only 19Abstract-This prospective, randomized, open-label multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy of catheter-based renal denervation (Symplicity, Medtronic) versus intensified pharmacological treatment including spironolactone (if tolerated) in patients with true-resistant hypertension. This was confirmed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring after excluding secondary hypertension and confirmation of adherence to therapy by measurement of plasma antihypertensive drug levels before enrollment. One-hundred six patients were randomized to renal denervation (n=52), or intensified pharmacological treatment (n=54) with baseline systolic blood pressure of 159±17 and 155±17 mm Hg and average number of drugs 5.1 and 5.4, respectively. A significant reduction in 24-hour average systolic blood pressure after 6 months (−8. Betweengroup differences in change were not significant. The average number of antihypertensive drugs used after 6 months was significantly higher in the pharmacological group (+0.3 drugs; P<0.001). A significant increase in serum creatinine and a parallel decrease of creatinine clearance were observed in the pharmacological group; between-group difference were borderline significant. The 6-month results of this study confirmed the safety of renal denervation. In conclusion, renal denervation achieved reduction of blood pressure comparable with intensified pharmacotherapy.

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 &gt;44 ms. Conclusion The V6-V1 interpeak interval is a promising novel criterion for the diagnosis of LBB area capture.

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last five years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique.

The left bundle branch pacing compared to left ventricular septal myocardial pacing increases interventricular dyssynchrony but accelerates left ventricular lateral wall depolarization,

spine with angle between the horizontal plane and the lead between 0° and 60°. 7 The other is the characteristic ECG pattern (ie, especially negative QRS complexes in lead I; the presence of q wave in lead I). All studies (randomized or nonrandomized), which studied RV apical versus RV nonapical pacing, have used one of these criteria for assessment of the correct location of the lead in the septal part of the RV. However, the interventricular septum is not visible on fluoroscopy. The rotation of the heart and various shapes of the RV makes it difficult to assess the correct anchor point for the RV lead. Therefore, targeting the midseptum may be technically challenging because it is based mainly on fluoroscopy and the question remains, even if it fulfills fluoroscopic or ECG criteria, whether the lead is really anchored in the septum. Very recently, some reports have been published, which questioned the LAO criterion. Original ArticleBackground-The aim of the study was to verify the correct anchoring location for the tip of the right ventricular lead using cardiac computed tomography and to assess the best fluoroscopic and ECG criteria associated with the correct location of the electrode into the midseptum. Methods and Results-Patients indicated to pacemaker implantation were prospectively enrolled. The right ventricular lead was implanted into the midseptum according to standard criteria in left anterior oblique 40 view. The cardiac shadow on the right anterior oblique 30 was divided into 4 quadrants perpendicular to the lateral cardiac silhouette and the position of the lead tip was analyzed. The exact position of the lead tip was assessed using computed tomography. Of 51 patients, the right ventricular lead was anchored midseptum in 21 (41.2%; MS group). In 30 patients (58.8%; non-MS group), the lead was anchored in the adjacent anterior wall. The angle between the lead and horizontal axis on the left anterior oblique was similar in both groups. The non-MS group was associated with shorter distances between the tip and the cardiac contours in the right anterior oblique 30 (96.7% of leads in the non-MS group were in the outer quadrant versus 9.6% in the MS group; P<0.001). The presence of the lead in the middle or inferior quadrants was independently associated with correct midseptum placement with positive predictive value of 94.7%. Conclusions-Despite