Evaluation of the Criteria to Distinguish Left Bundle Branch Pacing From Left Ventricular Septal Pacing.

This study sought to assess the predictive value of the proposed electrocardiogram and intracardiac electrogram characteristics for confirmation of left bundle branch (LBB) capture. Previously proposed criteria to distinguish left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septum (LVS) pacing (LVSP) have not been fully validated. A His bundle pacing lead, an LBBP lead, and a multielectrode catheter at the LVS were placed. Direct LBB capture was defined as demonstration of retrograde His potential on the His bundle pacing lead and/or anterograde left conduction system potentials on the multielectrode catheter during LBBP. The routinely used parameters-His, LBB potential, time from stimulus to peak ventricular activation (Stim-LVAT), and paced QRS morphology during LVSP and LBBP at various depths and outputs were analyzed. Thirty patients (21 non-left bundle branch block [LBBB], 9 LBBB) who demonstrated direct LBB capture using the defined criteria were included. The proportion of paced right bundle branch block was 100% during LBB capture in all patients compared to 23.4% in non-LBBB and 44.4% in LBBB during LVSP. LBB potential was recorded in all patients during intrinsic rhythm (non-LBBB group) or His corrective pacing in LBBB. Paced QRS duration was longer during selective LBBP compared to nonselective LBBP or LVSP only. All patients with characteristics of selective LBBP or abrupt decrease in Stim-LVAT of ≥10 ms demonstrated LBB capture. Direct LBB capture can be confirmed by recording retrograde His potential and anterograde left conduction system potentials. Abrupt decrease in Stim-LVAT of ≥10 ms and demonstration of selective LBBP could be used as simple criteria to confirm LBB capture.

Wu S ，Chen X ，Wang S ，Xu L ，Xiao F ，Huang Z ，Zheng R ，Jiang L ，Vijayaraman P ，Sharma PS ，Su L ，Huang W ... -  《-》

The characteristics of the electrocardiogram and the intracardiac electrogram in left bundle branch pacing.

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. 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. 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.

Chen X ，Wu S ，Su L ，Su Y ，Huang W ... -  《-》

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.

Qian Z ，Xue S ，Zou F ，Qin C ，Wang Y ，Zhang X ，Qiu Y ，Wu H ，Hou X ，Zou J ... -  《-》

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

As 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. A 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. The 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.

Zhu K ，Li L ，Liu J ，Chang D ，Li Q ... -  《-》

Left bundle branch pacing versus left ventricular septal pacing as a primary procedural endpoint during left bundle branch area pacing: Evaluation of two different implant strategies.

Implant procedure features and clinical implications of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) have not been yet fully described. We sought to compare two different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implant strategies: the first one accepting LVSP as a procedural endpoint and the second one aiming at achieving LBBP in every patient in spite of evidence of previous LVSP criteria. LVSP was accepted as a procedural endpoint in 162 consecutive patients (LVSP strategy group). In a second phase, LBBP was attempted in every patient in spite of achieving previous LVSP criteria (n = 161, LBBP strategy group). Baseline patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up data were compared. The final capture pattern was LBBP in 71.4% and LVSP in 24.2% in the LBBP strategy group compared to 42.7% and 50%, respectively, in the LVSP strategy group. One hundred and eighty-four patients (57%) had proven LBB capture criteria with a significantly shorter paced QRS duration than the 120 patients (37%) with LVSP criteria (115 ± 9 vs. 121 ± 13 ms, p < .001). Implant parameters were comparable between the two strategies but the LBBP strategy resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p = .026) without any clinical sequelae. Patients with CRT indications significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow-up irrespective of the capture pattern (from 35 ± 11% to 45 ± 14% in proven LBBP, p = .024; and from 39 ± 13% to 47 ± 12% for LVSP, p = .003). The presence of structural heart disease and baseline LBBB independently predicted unsuccessful LBB capture. The LBBP strategy was associated with comparable implant parameters than the LVSP strategy but resulted in higher rates of septal perforation. Proven LBB capture and LVSP showed comparable effects on LVEF during follow-up.

Cano Ó ，Jover P ，Ayala HD ，Navarrete-Navarro J ，Osca J ，Izquierdo M ，Navarro J ，Martínez-Dolz L ... -  《-》