Is the pacing site closer to the left ventricular septal endocardium in left bundle branch pacing or in left ventricular septal pacing?

Peng, Xiujuan; Wang, Yanjiang; Sun, Lijun; Shi, Liang; Cheng, Chaodi; Huang, Lihong; Tian, Ying; Liu, Xingpeng

doi:10.1007/s10840-022-01143-x

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Considering the poor CRT response rate in patients who underwent DSP in our study, a lead tip reaching the LV endocardium seems to be critical for better CRT response to mitigate ventricular dyssynchrony. 23 The lead in DSP had much shallower penetration into the LV septal endocardium, which is consistent with previous reports using computed tomography imaging to compare lead depth. 24 As the left bundle runs very close to the LV endocardium, 25 , 26 an effort should be made to place the lead in the left-sided ventricular septum using electrical and imaging guidance (>10 mm).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Chen,

Ezzeddine,

Liu

et al. 2024

Heart Rhythm O2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Chen,

Ezzeddine,

Liu

et al. 2024

Heart Rhythm O2

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…9,24,25 Previous research have shown that the site of pacing lead can be accurately measured under TTE, while most pacing lead were ultimately located in IVS with a distance of 2-3 cm away from the tricuspid annulus. 15,26 This study employed TTE to identify the target area for lead implantation and to facilitate the precise placement of the lead tip within the IVS, and we derived two critical points about using TTE to guide LBBP from the study. On the one hand, the majority of patients in the TTE group had clear echocardiographic windows, which facilitated direct guidance for the advancement and screwing of the lead's tip.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous studies have indicated that the procedure and fluoroscopy time for LBBP can exceed those of traditional RVP, even after operators have undergone extensive clinical practice training 9,24,25 . Previous research have shown that the site of pacing lead can be accurately measured under TTE, while most pacing lead were ultimately located in IVS with a distance of 2–3 cm away from the tricuspid annulus 15,26 . This study employed TTE to identify the target area for lead implantation and to facilitate the precise placement of the lead tip within the IVS, and we derived two critical points about using TTE to guide LBBP from the study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the oblique apical four‐chamber or subxiphoid view, the target area for lead implantation was identified as being 2–3 cm from the septal leaflet of the tricuspid annulus within the IVS (Figure 1A). 15 Then the pacing lead commenced screwing into the target area (Figure 1B), during which the paced QRS morphology was closely monitored. When a “W” wave emerged at the base of the QRS morphology in lead V1, the lead was further screwed into the IVS under continuous monitoring in the oblique apical four‐chamber view, until successful LBBP was achieved (Figure 1C,D).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography‐ and X‐ray‐guided left bundle branch pacing for bradycardia: A randomized controlled trial

Yang,

Tao,

Fan

et al. 2024

Cardiovasc electrophysiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionLeft bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing modality. However, the long procedure and fluoroscopy time of LBBP is still a problem. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)‐ and X‐ray‐guided LBBP.MethodsThis is a single‐center, prospective, randomized controlled study. Consecutive patients who underwent LBBP in our team from June 2022 to November 2022 were enrolled. Procedure and fluoroscopy time, pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, as well as complications were recorded at implantation and during follow‐up.ResultsIn this study, 60 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups: 30 patients were allocated to the X‐ray group and the remaining 30 to the TTE group. There was no significant difference in the success rate between the two groups (86.7% vs. 76.7%, p = .317). The procedure time of TTE group was comparable to that of the X‐ray group (9.0 vs. 12.0 min, p = .063). However, the fluoroscopy time in the TTE group was significantly lower than that of the X‐ray group (2.5 vs. 5.0 min, p = .002). There were no statistically significant differences in pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, or complications between the two groups at implantation and during follow‐up.ConclusionTTE‐guided LBBP is a feasible and safe method. Compared with X‐ray, TTE showed a comparable success rate and procedure time, but it could significantly reduce the fluoroscopy time of LBBP.

show abstract

Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review

Zhu

Liu

et al. 2022

Front. Cardiovasc. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAs a novel physiological pacing technique, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can preserve the left ventricular (LV) electrical and mechanical synchronization by directly capturing left bundle branch (LBB). Approximately 60–90% of LBBP were confirmed to have captured LBB during implantation, implying that up to one-third of LBBP is actually left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). LBB capture is critical for distinguishing LBBP from LVSP.Methods and resultsA total of 15 articles were included in the analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database till August 2022. Comparisons of paced QRS duration between LVSP and LBBP have not been uniformly concluded, but the stimulus artifact to LV activation time in lead V5 or V6 (Stim-LVAT) was shorter in LBBP than LVSP in all studies. Stim-LVAT was used to determine LBB capture with a sensitivity of 76–95.2% and specificity of 78.8–100%, which varied across patient populations.ConclusionThe output-dependent QRS transition from non-selective LBBP to selective LBBP or LVSP is direct evidence of LBB capture. LBB potential combined with short Stim-LVAT can predict LBB capture better. Personalized criteria rather than a fixed value of Stim-LVAT are necessary to confirm LBB capture in different populations, especially in patients with LBB block or heart failure.

show abstract

Is the pacing site closer to the left ventricular septal endocardium in left bundle branch pacing or in left ventricular septal pacing?

Cited by 3 publications

References 22 publications

Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Comparison of clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography‐ and X‐ray‐guided left bundle branch pacing for bradycardia: A randomized controlled trial

Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About