Left bundle branch area pacing prevents pacing induced cardiomyopathy in long-term observation.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is one of the methods to deliver conduction system pacing which potentially avoids the negative impact of conventional right ventricular pacing. OBJECTIVE: To assess echocardiographic outcomes in a long-term observation in patients with LBBAP implemented for bradyarrhythmia indications. METHODS AND RESULTS: A total of 151 patients with symptomatic bradycardia and LBBAP pacemaker implanted, were prospectively included in the study. Subjects with left bundle branch block and CRT indications (n = 29), ventricular pacing burden <40% (n = 11), and loss of LBBAP (n = 10) were excluded from further analysis. At baseline and the last follow-up visit, echocardiography with global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment, 12-lead ECG, pacemaker interrogation, and blood level of NT-proBNP were performed. The median follow-up period was 23 months (15.5-28). None of the analyzed patients fulfilled the criteria for pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and GLS was observed in patients with LVEF <50% at baseline (n = 39): 41.4 ± 9.2% versus 45.6 ± 9.9%, and 12.9 ± 3.6% versus 15.5 ± 3.7%, respectively. In the subgroup with preserved EF (n = 62), LVEF and GLS remained stable at follow-up: 59.3 ± 5.5% versus 60 ± 5.5%, and 19 ± 3.9% versus 19.4 ± 3.8%, respectively. CONCLUSION: LBBAP prevents PICM in patients with preserved LVEF and improves left ventricle function in subjects with depressed LVEF. LBBAP might be the preferred pacing modality for bradyarrhythmia indications.

Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study.

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.

The V6-V1 interpeak interval: a novel criterion for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture.

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.

Novel approach to diagnosis of His bundle capture using individualized left ventricular lateral wall activation time as reference.

BACKGROUND: During nonselective His bundle (HB) pacing, it is clinically important to confirm His bundle capture versus right ventricular septal (RVS) capture. The present study aimed to validate the hypothesis that during HB capture, left ventricular lateral wall activation time, approximated by the V6 R-wave peak time (V6 RWPT), will not be longer than the corresponding activation time during native conduction. METHODS: Consecutive patients with permanent HB pacing were recruited; cases with abnormal His-ventricle interval or left bundle branch block were excluded. Two corresponding intervals were compared: stimulus-V6 RWPT and native HB potential-V6 RWPT. The difference between these two intervals (delta V6 RWPT), which was diagnostic of lack of HB capture, was identified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: A total of 723 electrocardiograms (ECGs) (219 with native rhythm, 172 with selective HB, 215 with nonselective HB, and 117 with RVS capture) were obtained from 219 patients. The native HB-V6 RWPT, nonselective-, and selective-HB paced V6 RWPT were nearly equal, while RVS V6 RWPT was 32.0 (±9.5) ms longer. The ROC curve analysis indicated delta V6 RWPT > 12 ms as diagnostic of lack of HB capture (specificity of 99.1% and sensitivity of 100%). A blinded observer correctly diagnosed 96.7% (321/332) of ECGs using this criterion. CONCLUSIONS: We validated a novel criterion for HB capture that is based on the physiological left ventricular activation time as an individualized reference. HB capture can be diagnosed when paced V6 RWPT does not exceed the value obtained during native conduction by more than 12 ms, while longer paced V6 RWPT indicates RVS capture.

Nonselective versus selective His bundle pacing: An acute intrapatient speckle-tracking strain echocardiographic study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare the acute differences in left ventricular (LV) function and mechanical synchrony during nonselective His bundle pacing (ns-HBP) versus selective His bundle pacing (s-HBP) using strain echocardiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with permanent His bundle pacing, in whom it was possible to obtain both s-HBP and ns-HBP, were studied in two centers. In each patient, echocardiography was performed sequentially during s-HBP and ns-HBP. Speckle-tracking echocardiography parameters were analyzed: Global longitudinal strain (GLS), the time delay between peak systolic strain in the basal septal and basal lateral segments (BS-BL delay), peak strain dispersion (PSD) and strain delay index. Right ventricle function was assessed using tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and tissue Doppler velocity of the lateral tricuspid annulus (S'). A total of 69 patients (age: 75.6 ± 10.5 years; males: 75%) were enrolled. There were no differences in LV ejection fraction and GLS between s-HBP and ns-HBP modes: 59% versus 60%, and -15.6% versus -15.7%, respectively; as well as no difference in BS-BL delay and strain delay index. The PSD value was higher in the ns-HBP group than in the s-HBP group with the most pronounced difference in the basal LV segments. No differences in right ventricular function parameters (TAPSE and S') were found. CONCLUSION: The ns-HBP and s-HBP modes seem comparable regarding ventricular function. The dyssynchrony parameters were significantly higher during ns-HBP, however, the difference seems modest and clarification of its impact on LV function requires a larger long-term study.

Programmed deep septal stimulation: A novel maneuver for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture during permanent pacing.

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.

Deep septal deployment of a thin, lumenless pacing lead: a translational cadaver simulation study.

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.

Electrocardiographic characterization of non-selective His-bundle pacing: validation of novel diagnostic criteria.

AIMS: Permanent His-bundle (HB) pacing is usually accompanied by simultaneous capture of the adjacent right ventricular (RV) myocardium-this is described as a non-selective (ns)-HB pacing. It is of clinical importance to confirm HB capture using standard electrocardiogram (ECG). Our aim was to identify ECG criteria for loss of HB capture during ns-HB pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with permanent HB pacing were recruited. Electrocardiograms during ns-HB pacing and loss of HB capture (RV-only capture) were obtained. Electrocardiogram criteria for loss/presence of HB capture were identified. In the validation phase, these criteria and the 'HB ECG algorithm' were tested using a separate, sizable set of ECGs. A total of 353 ECG (226 ns-HB and 128 RV-only) were obtained from 226 patients with permanent HB pacing devices. QRS notch/slur in left ventricular leads and R-wave peak time (RWPT) in lead V6 were identified as the best features for differentiation. The 'HB ECG algorithm' based on these features correctly classified 87.1% of cases with sensitivity and specificity of 93.2% and 83.9%, respectively. The criteria for definitive diagnosis of ns-HB capture (no QRS slur/notch in Leads I, V1, V4-V6, and the V6 RWPT ≤ 100 ms) presented 100% specificity. CONCLUSION: A novel ECG algorithm for the diagnosis of loss of HB capture and criteria for definitive confirmation of HB capture were formulated and validated. The algorithm might be useful during follow-up and the criteria for definitive confirmation of ns-HB capture offer a simple and reliable ancillary procedural endpoint during HB device implantation.

His-bundle pacing as a standard approach in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and bradycardia.

BACKGROUND: His-bundle (HB) pacing is the most physiological method of ventricular pacing. However, it is also considered a demanding procedure with a low success rate and has suboptimal pacing parameters. There is a scarcity of data concerning HB pacing as a standard approach in patients with symptomatic bradycardia. Our goal was to compare acute and chronic results of two approaches to pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation, narrow QRS complexes, and symptomatic bradycardia: right ventricular myocardial pacing versus HB pacing. METHODS: Consecutive patients who received HB pacemakers were compared with historical controls-i.e., consecutive patients with classic VVI pacemaker implantations, performed by the same operator before 2014 (commencement of routine HB implantations). Acute and long-term capture threshold, sensing, battery current drain, as well as procedure and fluoroscopy duration, complications, and success rate were compared. RESULTS: One hundred and twenty-five patients were analyzed (including 65 patients with HB pacing): age 73.0 ± 10.5 years, left ventricular ejection fraction of 48.2 ± 13.5%. HB pacing was inferior to right ventricular myocardial pacing in terms of higher threshold, lower sensing amplitude, higher current drain, lower success rate, longer procedure, and fluoroscopy times. However, despite this, HB procedure and fluoroscopy times of 64.4 ± 30.0 and 11.0 ± 10.7 minutes, respectively, long-term successful HB pacing in 87.9% of patients, a chronic threshold of 1.5 ± 1.1 V, chronic sensing of 3.6 ± 2.5 mV, and chronic current drain per pulse of 3.4 ± 4.4 µAh seem acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: HB pacing can be used as an alternative standard method of pacing in atrial fibrillation patients.

Blood pressure changes in patients with chronic heart failure undergoing slow breathing training.

BACKGROUND: Slow breathing training (SBT) has been proposed as a new non-pharmacological treatment able to induce favorable effects in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF). However, no information is available regarding its effects on orthostatic blood pressure (BP) changes in these patients, an issue of practical relevance given the reported BP-lowering effect of SBT. The aim of this study is to evaluate the influence of SBT on BP and whether SBT induces orthostatic hypotension (OH) or changes in quality of life (QoL) in CHF patients. METHODS: The analysis was performed as part of an ongoing crossover open trial aimed at assessing the clinical effectiveness of SBT in treated patients with CHF. The patients underwent 10-12 weeks of SBT with the RESPeRATE device and 10-12 week follow-up under usual care. Patients were randomly divided into two groups: group I began with SBT, followed by usual care; group II began with usual care, followed by SBT. Patients undergoing SBT were asked to perform each day two separate 15 min sessions of device-guided SBT at a breathing frequency of 6 breaths/min. In all patients, before the enrollment and after each study phase, clinical data collection and BP measurements in sitting, supine and standing position were performed. OH was defined as a decrease of ≥ 20 mmHg in systolic blood pressure (SBP) or ≥ 10 mmHg in diastolic blood pressure (DBP) within 3 min of standing. QoL was assessed three times at the beginning, and after each phase of the study by the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLHF) questionnaire. RESULTS: Forty patients (two equal groups) completed the study, with the following baseline characteristics: 32 males/eight females, age 63.3 ± 13.4 years, 25 with ischemic CHF, 37 in New York Heart Association class II and three in class III, left ventricular ejection fraction 30.8 ± 6.7%, mean BP 138.7 ± 16.5/83.1 ± 11.5 mmHg, 23 with arterial hypertension and four with a history of stroke. There were no significant differences between the groups in clinical characteristics, SBP and DBP at rest, while seated and before and after standing up. OH prevalence was low and did not change during the study (10% vs 10%). No significant difference in average SBP and DBP changes secondary to body position were found when comparing the two study phases. Decrease in MLHF score was observed in group I during SBT (p = 0.002), but not in group II. CONCLUSIONS: Our data indicate that SBT is safe, does not affect the prevalence of OH in CHF patients and shows a non-significant tendency to improve QoL. These results should be confirmed in a larger sample of patients to support the safety of SBT and its possible benefits as a novel component of cardiorespiratory rehabilitation programs in CHF.

Coronary Artery Disease in Young Adults: Who Needs Surgical Revascularization? A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a major cause of death and disability in developed countries. Despite the fact that prevalence accrues with age, an increasing number of young patients suffering from CAD is being observed worldwide. The aim of this study is to describe the population of young adults suffering from CAD and requiring coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), and to assess early outcomes after the procedure. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study analyzed 190 consecutive patients aged ≤50 years old that underwent CABG between 2010 and 2014. Baseline characteristics and operative data were presented in the study. Postoperative complications, such as major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (MACCE), prolonged mechanical ventilation (>72 hours), bleeding requiring reexploration, sternal dehiscence, and others were assessed. RESULTS: A population comprising mostly overweight or obese males with a mean age of 46 ± 4.1 years was analyzed. Patients suffered mostly from three-vessel disease (81%), hypertension (74.7%), and had previous history of myocardial infarction (MI) (60%). The majority of patients had normal left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) (83.1%). 22.6% of cases were emergent procedures. Perioperative mortality was low (1%) and overall MACCE rate stood at 2.6%. Emergent surgery was associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications (P = .007). The number of diseased vessels, LVEF, and CCS/NYHA class-on-admission was not associated with a higher incidence of postoperative complications (P > .05 for all). CONCLUSION: CAD in young patients remains an issue described insufficiently in the literature. Among our study cohort of younger patients undergoing CABG, the majority of the patients had multivessel disease and were slightly symptomatic with normal LVEF. Although the postoperative complication rate was low, the percentage of emergent surgeries was alarmingly high in this population. Consistent with the literature, we highlight the importance of CAD screening in the young population to detect subclinical disease, which might be treated therapeutically or operated electively.

A case report of severe panhypopituitarism in a newborn delivered by a women with Turner syndrome.

Turner syndrome (TS) is a congenital disease caused by absence or structural abnormalities of sex chromosomes resulting in gonadal dysgenesis. Spontaneous pregnancies occur in 2-8% of patients, especially with mosaic kariotypes, however they are associated with increased risk of poor outcome both for mother and fetus. We report a 4-day-old male infant delivered by women with mosaic TS who was admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit and presented with severe panhypopituitarism as the early manifestation of pituitary stalk interruption syndrome (PSIS). To the best of our knowledge this is the first report of severe panhypopituitarism in a newborn borne by women with TS.

Strength-duration curves for left bundle branch area pacing.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing clinical use of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), data regarding the fundamentals of this pacing modality, including chronaxie and rheobase, are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to calculate strength-duration curves with chronaxie and rheobase values for LBBP and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), and to analyze battery current drain and presence of selective LBBP at very short pulse duration (PD). METHODS: A group of 141 patients with permanent LBBP were studied. LBBP and LVSP capture thresholds were assessed at 6 different PDs to calculate the strength-duration curves. Battery current drain at these PDs and presence of selective LBBP were determined. For comparison of strength-duration curves between His-bundle pacing (HBP) and LBBP, source data from our previous work based on 127 patients with HBP were obtained. RESULTS: The chronaxies for LBBP and LVSP were very similar (0.38 vs 0.39 ms), and the rheobases were identical (0.27 V). The chronaxie for LBBP was lower than for HBP (0.38 vs 0.53 ms; P <.001), whereas rheobases were similar (0.27 vs 0.26 V). A narrow zone of selective capture was present in 19% and 41% of patients at PD of 0.06 and 0.03 ms, respectively. When pacing with the safety margin of +1 V, the lowest battery current drain was achieved with PD of 0.2 ms. CONCLUSION: The obtained strength-duration curves for LBBP and LVSP provide insights to optimal programming of left bundle branch area pacing devices with regard to PD, voltage amplitude, battery longevity, and selective capture.

Left bundle branch area pacing improves right ventricular function and synchrony.

BACKGROUND: The impact of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) on right ventricular (RV) function and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) remains unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the long-term effects of LBBAP on RV performance and on TR. METHODS: RV function was evaluated using RV free wall strain, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, fractional area changing, and systolic velocity of the lateral tricuspid annulus. The presence of reverse septal flash (RSF) and basal bulge (BB) was used to assess RV motion pattern. The distance between the lead entry site on the interventricular septum and the septal leaflet of the tricuspid annulus (lead-TV distance) was measured. RESULTS: The analysis included 122 subjects [62 men (50.8%); mean age 76.5 ± 11.4 years] with a median follow-up of 21 months (18-24.5 months). During follow-up, RV free wall strain improved significantly (15.2 ± 5.8 vs 16.4 ± 5.5; P < .001) while tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, systolic, and fractional area changing remained unchanged. Left ventricular ejection fraction was an independent predictor of improved RV function (B = 3.51; 95% confidence interval 1.39-8.9; P = .01). With LBBAP, RSF disappeared in 22 of 23 patients (96%) and BB in 15 of 22 patients (68%) in whom RSF and BB were present at baseline, respectively. RV function improvement was significantly higher when RSF was present at baseline (14 patients vs 11 patients; P = .02). At follow-up, no significant deterioration in TR occurred for the overall group. However, a lead-TV distance of <24.5 mm was associated with TR progression. CONCLUSION: LBBAP has a favorable impact on RV function. A basal LBBAP position is associated with worsening TR.

Right bundle branch pacing: Criteria, characteristics, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Targets for right-sided conduction system pacing (CSP) include His bundle and right bundle branch. Electrocardiographic patterns, diagnostic criteria, and outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) are not known. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to delineate electrocardiographic and electrophysiological characteristics of RBBP and to compare outcomes between RBBP and His bundle pacing (HBP). METHODS: Patients with confirmed right CSP were divided according to the conduction system potential to QRS complex interval at the pacing lead implantation site. Six hypothesized RBBP criteria as well as pacing parameters, echocardiographic outcomes, and all-cause mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: All analyzed criteria discriminated between HBP and RBBP: double QRS complex transition during the threshold test, selective paced QRS complex different from conducted QRS complex, stimulus to selective-QRS complex > potential-QRS complex, small increase in V6 R-wave peak time (V6RWPT) during QRS complex transition, equal capture thresholds of CSP and myocardium, and stimulus-V6RWPT > potential-V6RWPT (adopted as the diagnostic standard). According to the last criterion, RBBP was observed in 19.2% of patients (64 of 326) who had been targeted for HBP, present mainly among patients with potential to QRS complex interval <35 ms (90.6% [48 of 53]) and occasionally among the remaining patients (5.6% [16 of 273]). RBBP was characterized by longer QRS complex (by 10.5 ms), longer V6RWPT (by 11.6 ms), and better sensing (by 2.6 mV) compared with HBP. During a median follow-up duration of 29 months, no differences in capture threshold, echocardiographic outcomes, or mortality were found. CONCLUSION: RBBP has distinct features that separate it from HBP and is observed in approximately a fifth of patients in whom HBP is intended.

Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with heart failure and right bundle branch block: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative-Study Group.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing has limited efficacy in patients with heart failure (HF) and right bundle branch block (RBBB). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiologic pacing option. Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LBBAP in HF patients with RBBB and reduced left ventricular systolic function, and indication for CRT or ventricular pacing. Methods: LBBAP was attempted in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%, RBBB, HF, and indications for CRT or ventricular pacing. Procedural, pacing, and electrocardiographic parameters; clinical response (no HF hospitalization and improvement in NYHA class); and echocardiographic response (≥5% increase in ejection fraction) to LBBAP were assessed. Results: LBBAP was attempted in 121 patients and successful in 107 (88%). Patient characteristics included age 74 ± 12 years, female 25%, ischemic cardiomyopathy 49%, and ejection fraction 35% ± 9%. QRS axis at baseline was normal in 24%, left axis 63%, right axis 13%. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.8 ± 0.3 V @ 0.5 ms and 10 ± 9 mV at implant and remained stable during mean follow-up of 13 ± 8 months. LBBAP resulted in narrowing of QRS duration (156 ± 20 ms to 150 ± 24 ms (P = .01) with R-wave peak times in V6 of 85 ± 16 ms. LVEF improved from 35% ± 9% to 43% ± 12% (P < .01). Clinical and echocardiographic response was observed in 60% and 61% of patients, respectively. Female sex and reduction in QRS duration with LBBAP were predictive of echocardiographic response and super-response. Conclusion: LBBAP is a feasible alternative to deliver CRT or physiologic ventricular pacing in patients with RBBB, HF, and LV dysfunction.

Physiology-based electrocardiographic criteria for left bundle branch capture.

BACKGROUND: During left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, it is important to confirm that capture of the LBB, and not just capture of only adjacent left ventricular (LV) myocardium, has been achieved. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for LBB capture. We hypothesized that because LBB pacing results in physiological depolarization of the LV, then the native QRS can serve as a reference for diagnosis of LBB capture in the same patient. METHODS: Only patients with evidence of LBB capture (QRS morphology transition) were included. Several QRS characteristics were compared between the native rhythm and different types of LBB area capture. RESULTS: A total of 357 ECGs (124 patients) were analyzed: 118 with native rhythm, 124 with nonselective LBB capture, 69 with selective LBB capture, and 46 with LV septal capture. Our hypotheses that during LBB capture the paced V6 R-wave peak time (RWPT; measured from QRS onset) equals the native V6 RWPT and that the paced V6 RWPT (measured from the stimulus) equals the LBB potential to V6 R-wave peak interval were positively validated. Criteria based on these rules had sensitivity and specificity of 88.2%-98.0% and 85.7%-95.4%, respectively. Moreover, 100% specific V6 RWPT cutoff for LBB capture diagnosis in patients with narrow QRS/right bundle branch block was determined to be 74 ms. CONCLUSION: We showed equivalency of LV activation times on ECG during native and paced LBB conduction. Therefore, if V6 RWPT is longer during pacing, this finding is indicative of lack of LBB capture.

Fixation beats: A novel marker for reaching the left bundle branch area during deep septal lead implantation.

BACKGROUND: One of the challenges of left bundle branch (LBB) pacing is placing the pacing lead deep enough in the septum to reach the LBB area, yet not too deep to avoid perforation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the occurrence of the ectopic beats with qR/rsR' morphology in lead V1 (fixation beats) during lead fixation would predict whether the desired intraseptal lead depth had been reached, whereas the lack of fixation beats would indicate a too-shallow position and the need for more lead rotations. METHODS: Consecutive patients during LBB pacing device implantation were analyzed retrospectively and then prospectively with respect to the occurrence of fixation beats during each episode of lead rotation. We compared the presence of fixation beats during the lead rotation event directly before the LBB area depth was reached vs during the events before intermediate/unsuccessful positions. RESULTS: A total of 339 patients and 1278 lead rotation events were analyzed. In the retrospective phase, fixation beats were observed in 327 of 339 final lead positions and in 9 of 939 intermediate lead positions (P <.001). Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of the fixation beats as a marker for reaching the LBB area were 96.4%, 97.3%, 97.3%, and 96.5%, respectively. In the prospective, fixation beats-guided implantation phase, fixation beats were observed in all patients and only at the LBB capture depth. CONCLUSION: Monitoring fixation beats during deep septal lead deployment can facilitate the procedure and possibly increase the safety of lead implantation.

Comparison of six risk scores for the prediction of atrial fibrillation recurrence after cryoballoon-based ablation and development of a simplified method, the 0-1-2 PL score.

INTRODUCTION: There are several prognostic scores for the assessment of risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence post ablation procedure. However, the use of these complex scores is difficult and the validation on different populations brought divergent results. Our goal was to compare the performance of these risk scores as the basis for the development of a new, simplified score based only on few universally predictive variables. METHODS: All cryoballoon-based AF ablations performed in a single-center over a 10-year period were prospectively analyzed with regard to AF recurrence. This served to analyze the performance of APPLE, CAAP-AF, SCALE-CryoAF, MB-LATER, CHADS2, and CHA2DS2-VASc risk scores. RESULTS: A total of 597 patients, mostly (78.1%) with paroxysmal AF were studied. Analyzed risk scores performed poorer than in the original publications because some risk factors were not predictive of AF recurrence. A simplified score named 0-1-2 PL, composed of just two universally predictive variables, AF type (1 point for Persistent AF) and LA dimension (1 point for LA size >45 mm) was developed. The 0-1-2 PL score stratified patients into low risk (0 points), intermediate risk (1 point), and high risk categories (2 points) which were related to a 2-year risk of AF recurrence of 21%, 37%, and 55%, respectively. This score had C-statistics (0.620) higher/comparable to other investigated much more complex scores. CONCLUSION: The assessment of risk of AF recurrence at the pre-ablation stage can be simplified without compromising accuracy. This could help to popularize risk assessment and standardization of AF management.