Introduction: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has recently been reported to maintain left ventricular electrical synchrony with a low and stable threshold. However, the electrocardiogram (ECG) definitions of LBBP have not been well established. We report four cases to show the characteristics of the ECG and the intracardiac electrogram (EGM) in LBBP. Methods and Results: Four patients, two with an atrioventricular block (AVB) and two with left bundle branch block (LBBB), were included in the study. LBBP was performed and the ECGs and EGMs were collected and compared at different pacing outputs. Selective LBBP (S-LBBP) was defined as only capturing the LBB with a typical RBBB morphology and a discrete component between the pacing stimulus and ventricular activation in the EGMs. While nonselective LBBP (NS-LBBP) captured both the LBB and the local myocardium, resulting in a narrow right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology without the discrete component. The left bundle branch (LBB) potential was recorded in two cases during narrow QRS complex or LBBB correction by selective His bundle pacing and SLBBP (n = 3) was achieved. A constant and shortest stimulus to left ventricular activation time (LVAT) in LBBP was obtained at different pacing outputs. Conclusion: The ECG and EGM characteristics of LBBP can be summarized as: 1) RBBB pattern; 2) usually with the LBB potential; 3) SLBBP with specific ECG changes and a discrete component in EGM; and 4) with a constant and shortest stimulus to LVAT at different pacing outputs. Further studies are necessary to confirm these observations. K E Y W O R D S His bundle pacing, left bundle branch pacing, left bundle branch potential, selective left bundle branch pacing, stimulus to peak left ventricular activation time Xueying Chen and Shengjie Wu contributed as co-first authors. The characteristics of the electrocardiogram and the intracardiac electrogram in left bundle branch pacing.

Aims The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Methods and results One hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P < 0.001). Higher absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and △LVEF was also achieved in LBBP-CRT than BVP-aCRT at 6-month (47.58 ± 12.02% vs. 41.24 ± 10.56%, P = 0.008; 18.52 ± 13.19% vs. 12.89 ± 9.73%, P = 0.020) and 1-year follow-up (49.10 ± 10.43% vs. 43.62 ± 11.33%, P = 0.021; 20.90 ± 11.80% vs. 15.20 ± 9.98%, P = 0.015, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in response rate between two groups while higher super-response rate was observed in LBBP-CRT as compared to BVP-aCRT at 6 months (53.06% vs. 36.59%, P = 0.016) and 12 months (61.22% vs. 39.22%, P = 0.028) during follow-up. The pacing threshold was lower in LBBP-CRT at implant and during 1-year follow-up (both P < 0.001). Procedure-related complications and adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different in two groups. Conclusions The feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.

Aims The aim of this study is to prospectively assess the feasibility and safety of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) when compared with right ventricular pacing (RVP) during mid-long-term follow-up in a large cohort. Methods and results Patients (n = 554) indicated for pacemaker implantation were prospectively and consecutively enrolled and were non-randomized divided into LBBP group and RVP group. The levels of cTnT and N-terminal pro-B type natriuretic peptide were measured and compared within 2 days post-procedure between two groups. Implant characteristics, procedure-related complications, and clinical outcomes were also compared. Pacing thresholds, sensing, and impedance were assessed during procedure and follow-up. Left bundle branch pacing was feasible with a success rate of 94.8% with high incidence of LBB potential (89.9%), selective LBBP (57.8%), and left deviation of paced QRS axis (79.7%) with mean Sti-LVAT of 65.07 ± 8.58 ms. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower in LBBP when compared with RVP (132.02 ± 7.93 vs. 177.68 ± 15.58 ms, P < 0.0001) and the pacing parameters remained stable in two groups during 18 months follow-up. cTnT elevation was more significant in LBBP when compared with RVP within 2 days post-procedure (baseline: 0.03 ± 0.03 vs. 0.02 ± 0.03 ng/mL, P = 0.002; 1 day post-procedure: 0.13 ± 0.09 vs. 0.04 ± 0.03 ng/mL, P < 0.001; 2 days post-procedure: 0.10 ± 0.08 vs. 0.03 ± 0.08 ng/mL, P < 0.001). The complications and cardiac outcomes were not significantly different between two groups. Conclusion Left bundle branch pacing was feasible in bradycardia patients associated with stable pacing parameters during 18 months follow-up. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower than that of RVP. Though cTnT elevation was more significant in LBBP within 2 days post-procedure, the complications, and cardiac outcomes were not significantly different between two groups.

Background: Whether right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) pacing is superior to right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing in terms of ventricular synchrony, cardiac function, and remodeling in patients with normal cardiac function is still unknown. Hypothesis: Right ventricular outflow tract pacing is superior to RVA pacing in patients with normal cardiac function. Methods: A total of 96 consecutive patients with high or third-degree atrial ventricular block were enrolled and randomized into 2 groups: RVOT pacing group (n = 48) and RVA pacing group (n = 48). Tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) and 2D echocardiography were performed to study left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic synchrony, LV volumes, and function. Results: There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the 2 groups. Left ventricular systolic asynchrony is more severe in the RVA pacing group than in the RVOT pacing group (P < 0.05), while diastolic synchrony is not significantly (NS) different between the 2 groups after pacing. There were no significant differences with respect to the mean myocardial systolic (Sm) and early diastolic velocities (Em), LV ejection fraction, LV end-diastolic and systolic volume in the 2 groups at 12 months of follow-up (all NS). Conclusions: Although RVOT pacing caused more synchronous LV contraction compared with RVA pacing, it had no benefit over RVA pacing in aspect of preventing cardiac remodeling and preserving LV systolic function after 12 months of pacing in patients with normal cardiac function.

No abstract

Background: Although left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy with a low and stable threshold, its safety has not been well-documented. In the present study, we included all the patients with procedure-related complications at our centre to estimate these LBBP cases with unique complications.Methods: We enrolled 612 consecutive patients who received the procedure in Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, between January 2018 and July 2020. Regular follow-ups were conducted (at 1, 3, and 6 months in the first year and every 6–12 months from the second year), and the clinical data of the patients with complications were collected and analyzed.Results: With a mean follow-up period of 12.32 ± 5.21 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 10 patients (1.63%) that included two postoperative septum perforations (2/612, 0.33%), two postoperative lead dislodgements (2/612, 0.33%), four intraoperative septum injuries (4/612, 0.65%), and two intraoperative lead fractures (2/612, 0.33%). Pacing parameters were stable during follow-up, and no major complications were observed after lead repositioning in the cases of septum perforation and lead dislodgement.Conclusion: The incidence of procedure-related complications for LBBP, namely postoperative septum perforation, postoperative lead dislodgement, intraoperative septum injury, and intraoperative lead fracture, were low. No adverse clinical outcomes were demonstrated after successful repositioning of the lead and appropriate treatment.

His bundle pacing (HBP) can reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling in patients with right ventricular (RV) pacing-induced cardimyopathy (PICM) but may be unable to correct infranodal atrioventricular block (AVB). Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) results in rapid LV activation and may be able to reliably pace beyond the site of AVB. Our study was conducted to assess the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of permanent LBBP in infranodal AVB and PICM patients. Patients with infranodal AVB and PICM who underwent LBBP for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) were included. Clinical evaluation and echocardiographic and electrocardiographic assessments were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Permanent LBBP upgrade was successful in 19 of 20 patients with a median follow-up duration of 12 months. QRS duration (QRSd) increased from 139.3 ± 28.0 ms at baseline to 176.2 ± 21.4 ms (P &lt; 0.001) with right ventricular pacing (RVP) and was shortened to 120.9 ± 15.2 ms after LBBP (P &lt; 0.001). The mean LBBP threshold was 0.7 ± 0.3 V at 0.4 ms at implant and remained stable during follow-up. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 36.3% ± 6.5% to 51.9% ± 13.0% (P &lt; 0.001) with left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduced from 180.1 ± 43.5 to 136.8 ± 36.7 ml (P &lt; 0.001) during last follow-up. LBBP paced beyond the site of block, which results in a low pacing threshold with a high success rate in infranodal AVB patients. LBBP improved LV function with stable parameters over the 12 months, making it a reasonable alternative to cardiac resynchronization pacing via a coronary sinus lead in infranodal AVB and PICM patients.

Introduction: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new physiological pacing strategy with clinical feasibility and safety. The present study aims to investigate depolarization-repolarization measures including QT interval, QT dispersion (QTD), and T peak-end interval (T p T e ) in this novel LBBAP strategy. Methods and Results:A total of 131 pacing-indicated patients were prospectively enrolled and randomized to the LBBAP group (n = 66) and right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) group (n = 65). LBBAP was successfully achieved in 61 subjects with stable lead performance and comparable complications (ie, pocket hematoma, lead perforation, and dislodgement) compared with RVSP. Of the 61 patients with successful LBBAP, the mean LV peak activation time was 67.89 ± 6.80 ms, with the LBB potential mapped in 46 cases (75.4%). Electrocardiogram (ECG) indices were compared between these two groups before and after implantation. As a result, LBBAP yielded a narrower paced QRS duration (121.49 ± 9.87 ms vs 145.62 ± 8.89 ms; P < .001), shorter QT interval (434.16 ± 32.70 ms vs 462.66 ± 32.04 ms; P < .001), and QT c interval (472.44 ± 33.30 ms vs 499.65 ± 31.35 ms; P < .001), lower QTD (40.10 ± 8.68 ms vs 46.11 ± 10.85 ms; P = .001), and QT c D (43.57 ± 8.78 ms vs 49.86 ± 11.98 ms; P = .001), and shorter T p T e (96.59 ± 10.76 ms vs 103.77 ± 10.16 ms; P < .001) than RVSP. However, T p T e /QT ratio did not differ between these two groups (0.223 ± 0.026 vs 0.225 ± 0.022; P = .733). Furthermore, LBBAP displayed less increased QRS duration, QT c interval, QTD, QT c D, and a more shortened QT interval compared with RVSP (all P < .05).Conclusion: LBBAP proves to be a feasible and safe pacing procedure with better depolarization-repolarization reserve, which may predict lower risk of ventricular arrhythmia and sudden cardiac death. K E Y W O R D S depolarization-repolarization reserve, left bundle branch area pacing, pacemaker, physiological pacing, right ventricular septum pacing Jingfeng Wang and Yixiu Liang are co-first authors.