Conduction system pacing: how far are we from the "electrical" bypass?

Conduction system pacing is an alternative practice to conventional right ventricular apical pacing. It is a method that maintains physiologic ventricular activation, based on a correct pathophysiological basis, in which the pacing lead bypasses the lesion of the electrical fibers and the electrical impulse transmits through the intact adjacent conduction system. For this reason, it might be reasonably characterized by the term "electrical bypass" compared to the coronary artery bypass in revascularization therapy. In this review, reference is made to the sequence of events in which conventional right ventricular pacing may cause adverse outcomes. Furthermore, there is a reference to alternative strategies and pacing sites. Interest focuses on the modalities for which there are data from the literature, namely for the right ventricular (RV) septal pacing, the His bundle pacing (HBP), and the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). A more extensive reference is about the HBP, for which there are the most updated data. We analyze the considerations that limit HBP-wide application in three axes, and we also present the data for the implantation and follow-up of these patients. The indications with their most important studies to date are then described in detail, not only in their undoubtedly positive findings but also in their weak aspects, because of which this pacing mode has not yet received a strong recommendation for implementation. Finally, there is a report on LBBP, focusing mainly on its points of differentiation from HBP.

Optimizing conduction system pacing lead placement utilizing the image overlay technique.

The His-bundle has several locations from which conduction system pacing can be achieved. Some locations offer better sensing, thresholds and paced QRS durations. Existing techniques to aid repositioning of an already deployed, but sub-optimally placed lead, include either simple memory of the initial lead position combined with its observation on an x-ray review screen or utilizing an additional vascular access and pacing lead with the first lead serving as a real-time marker (Two-lead technique). We describe a novel, readily available, cost-efficient, imaging-based approach to assist in the re-positioning of a pacing lead for His-bundle pacing (the Image Overlay Technique).

Beyond biventricular pacing: Exploring the advantages of his-bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing in heart failure-A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: This meta-analysis compares His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP), a novel cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) technique that targets the intrinsic conduction system of the heart, with conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP) in heart failure (HF) patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and dyssynchrony. METHODS: We searched multiple databases up to May 2023 and identified 18 studies (five randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies) involving 1291 patients. The outcome measures were QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) change, HF hospitalization, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improvement. We used a random-effects model to calculate odds ratios (OR), and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We also assessed the methodological quality of the studies. RESULTS: The mean LVEF was 30.7% and the mean follow-up duration was 8.1 months. Among LBBP, HBP, and BiVP, HBP provided the shortest QRS duration [MD: -18.84 ms, 95% CI: -28.74 to -8.94; p = 0.0002], while LBBP showed the greatest improvement in LVEF [MD: 5.74, 95% CI: 2.74 to 7.46; p < 0.0001], LVEDD [MD: -5.55 mm, 95% CI: -7.51 to -3.59; p < 0.00001], and NYHA functional class [MD: -0.58, 95% CI: -0.80 to --0.35; p < 0.00001]. However, there was no significant difference in HF hospitalization between HPSP and BiVP. CONCLUSION: LBBP as modality of HPSP demonstrated superior outcomes in achieving electrical ventricular synchrony and systolic function, as well as alleviating HF symptoms, compared to other pacing techniques.

Determination of sensed and paced atrial-ventricular delay in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Optimization of atrial-ventricular delay (AVD) during atrial sensing (SAVD) and pacing (PAVD) provides the most effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We demonstrate a novel electrocardiographic methodology for quantifying electrical synchrony and optimizing SAVD/PAVD. METHODS: We studied 40 CRT patients with LV activation delay. Atrial-sensed to RV-sensed (As-RVs) and atrial-paced to RV-sensed (Ap-RVs) intervals were measured from intracardiac electrograms (IEGM). LV-only pacing was performed over a range of SAVD/PAVD settings. Electrical dyssynchrony (cardiac resynchronization index; CRI) was measured at each setting using a multilead ECG system placed over the anterior and posterior torso. Biventricular pacing, which included multiple interventricular delays, was also conducted in a subset of 10 patients. RESULTS: When paced LV-only, peak CRI was similar (93 ± 5% vs. 92 ± 5%) during atrial sensing or pacing but optimal PAVD was 61 ± 31 ms greater than optimal SAVD. The difference between As-RVs and Ap-RVs intervals on IEGMs (62 ± 31 ms) was nearly identical. The slope of the correlation line (0.98) and the correlation coefficient r (0.99) comparing the 2 methods of assessing SAVD-PAVD offset were nearly 1 and the y-intercept (0.63 ms) was near 0. During simultaneous biventricular (BiV) pacing at short AVD, SAVD and PAVD programming did not affect CRI, but CRI was significantly (p < .05) lower during atrial sensing at long AVD. CONCLUSIONS: A novel methodology for measuring electrical dyssynchrony was used to determine electrically optimal SAVD/PAVD during LV-only pacing. When BiV pacing, shorter AVDs produce better electrical synchrony.

Post-implantation CMR imaging to study biventricular pacing effects on the right ventricle in left bundle branch block patients.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for heart failure patients with left ventricular dysfunction and a left bundle branch block. However, its impact on right ventricular (RV) function remains uncertain. This cardiac magnetic resonance imaging study found that CRT did not improve RV volumes and function, and CRT-off during follow-up had an immediate detrimental effect on the RV, which may suggest potential unfavorable RV remodeling with RV pacing during CRT.

Coronary artery complications after left bundle branch area pacing: An increasingly reported issue in the era of physiologic pacing.

Coronary artery lesions related to pacemaker implantation are rare complications. With the increasing adoption of the technique of permanent transseptal pacing of the left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), an increase in the incidence of these complications may be expected. We report two cases of coronary lesions after permanent transeptal pacing of the LBBAP: the first with a small coronary artery fistula, and the second with an extrinsic coronary compression. Both complications occurred with stylet-driven pacing leads with extendable helix. In the first case, since the shunt volume was small and no major complications were reported, the patient was treated conservatively with good outcome. The second case required lead repositioning due to acute decompensated heart failure.

Mapping and ablation of ventricular arrhythmias arising from the left ventricular summit.

The left ventricular summit (LVS) refers to the highest portion of the left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). It is an epicardially delimited triangular area by the left coronary arteries and the coronary venous circulation. Its deep myocardium correlates closely with the left coronary cusp, aortic-mitral continuity, and right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), complicating the anatomical relationship. Ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) originating from this area are common, accounting for 14.5% of all VAs origin from left ventricle. Specific electrocardiogram (ECG) characteristics may assist in locating LVS-VAs pre-procedure and facilitate procedure planning. However, catheter ablation of LVS-VAs remains challenging because of anatomical constraints. This paper reviews the recent understanding of LVS anatomy, concludes ECG characteristics, and summarizes current mapping and ablation methods for LVS-VAs.

Outcomes of dual-chamber implantable cardioverter defibrillator for left bundle branch area pacing: A systematic review of literature.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review of literature aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of dual-chamber ICDs for LBBAP in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). METHODS: Digital databases were searched systematically to identify studies reporting the left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) with implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement in patients with LBBB. Detailed study and patient-level baseline characteristics including the type of study, sample size, follow-up, number of cases, age, gender, and baseline characteristics were abstracted. RESULTS: In a total of three studies, 34 patients were included in this review. There was a significant improvement reported in QRS duration in all studies. The mean QRS duration at baseline was 170 ± 17.4 ms, whereas the follow-up QRS duration at follow-up was 121 ± 17.3 ms. Two studies reported a significant improvement of 50% in LVEF from baseline. No lead-related complications or arrhythmic events were recorded in any study. The findings of the systematic review suggest that dual-chamber ICD for LBBAP is a promising intervention for patients with heart conditions. CONCLUSION: The procedure offers significant improvements in QRS duration and LVEF, and there were no lead-related complications or arrhythmic events recorded in any of the studies.

Paradoxical interatrial conduction recovery after cavotricuspid isthmus ablation: A case report.

We present a case of a patient with advanced interatrial block who was admitted for cavotricuspid isthmus ablation as treatment of typical atrial flutter. A baseline advanced interatrial block pattern turned into partial interatrial block pattern and prolonged PR interval after the procedure. We discuss the mechanism underlying that change.

Comparison of the relation of the ESC 2021 and ESC 2013 definitions of left bundle branch block with clinical and echocardiographic outcome in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate the impact of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline changes in left bundle branch block (LBBB) definition on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patient selection and outcomes. METHODS: The MUG (Maastricht, Utrecht, Groningen) registry, consisting of consecutive patients implanted with a CRT device between 2001 and 2015 was studied. For this study, patients with baseline sinus rhythm and QRS duration ≥ 130ms were eligible. Patients were classified according to ESC 2013 and 2021 guideline LBBB definitions and QRS duration. Endpoints were heart transplantation, LVAD implantation or mortality (HTx/LVAD/mortality) and echocardiographic response (LVESV reduction ≥15%). RESULTS: The analyses included 1.202, typical CRT patients. The ESC 2021 definition resulted in considerably less LBBB diagnoses compared to the 2013 definition (31.6% vs. 80.9%, respectively). Applying the 2013 definition resulted in significant separation of the Kaplan-Meier curves of HTx/LVAD/mortality (p < .0001). A significantly higher echocardiographic response rate was found in the LBBB compared to the non-LBBB group using the 2013 definition. These differences in HTx/LVAD/mortality and echocardiographic response were not found when applying the 2021 definition. CONCLUSION: The ESC 2021 LBBB definition leads to a considerably lower percentage of patients with baseline LBBB then the ESC 2013 definition. This does not lead to better differentiation of CRT responders, nor does this lead to a stronger association with clinical outcomes after CRT. In fact, stratification according to the 2021 definition is not associated with a difference in clinical or echocardiographic outcome, implying that the guideline changes may negatively influence CRT implantation practice with a weakened recommendation in patients that will benefit from CRT.

Insight of electrocardiographic and electrophysiological parameters on the left ventricular function in patients with ventricular arrhythmia from left ventricular summit.

INTRODUCTION: Ventricular arrhythmia (VA) commonly originate from the left ventricular summit (LVS) and results in left ventricular (LV) dysfunction in some patients; however, factors related to LV cardiomyopathy have not been well elucidated. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the risk factors for LV cardiomyopathy and the outcomes of patients with LVS VA. METHODS: Between 2013 and 2018, a total of 139 patients (60.7% men; mean age 53.2 ± 13.9 years old) underwent catheter ablation for LVS VA in two centers. Detailed patient demographics, electrocardiograms, electrophysiological characteristics, and clinical outcomes were analyzed. LV cardiomyopathy was defined as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%. RESULTS: Acute procedural success was achieved in 92.8% of patients. There were 40 patients (28.8%) with LV cardiomyopathy, and the mean LVEF improved from 37.5 ± 9.3% to 48.5 ± 10.2% after ablation (p < .001). After multivariate analysis, the independent factors of LV dysfunction were wider QRS duration (QRSd) of the VA (odds ratio [OR] 1.02; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00-1.04; p = .046) and the absolute earliest activation time discrepancy (AEAD) between epicardium and endocardium (OR 1.05; 95% CI: 1.00-1.09; p = .048). After ablation, the LV function was completely recovered in 20 patients (50%). The factors for LV dysfunction without recovery included wider premature ventricular complex (PVC) QRSd (OR 1.09; 95% CI: 1.02-1.17; p = .012) and poorer LVEF (OR 0.85; 95% CI: 0.74-0.97; p = .020). CONCLUSION: In patients with VA from the LVS, PVC QRSd and AEAD are factors associated with deteriorating LV systolic function. Catheter ablation can reverse LV remodeling. Narrower QRSd and better LVEF are associated with better recovery of LV function after ablation.

Conduction system pacing: promoting the physiology to prevent heart failure.

Cardiac conduction system pacing provides physiological ventricular activation by directly stimulating the conduction system. This review describes the two types of conduction system pacing: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle area pacing (LBAP). The most significant advantage of HB pacing is that it can provide a regular, narrow QRS; however, the disadvantages are challenging implantation and a high risk of re-intervention due to lead dislodgement and the development of high pacing threshold. LBAP provides optimum physiological activation of the left ventricle by engaging the left bundle/fascicular fibers. LBAP is more physiological than traditional RV apical pacing and could be an attractive alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The advantages of LBAP are a relatively more straightforward implantation technique than HBP, better lead stability and pacing thresholds. HBP and LBAP are more physiological than right ventricular pacing and may be used instead of conventional pacemakers. Both HBP and LBBP are being investigated as alternatives to conventional CRT.

Learning Curve Analyses for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing with Conventional Stylet-Driven Pacing Leads.

Background: Physiological conduction system pacing has attracted attention to overcome the dyssynchrony problems of conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), which complements short combing of His bundle pacing (HBP), has emerged and has proven its efficiency and safety. In addition, initial experiences of LBBAP were mainly using lumen-less pacing lead, and the feasibility of stylet-driven pacing lead (SDL) was also established. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the learning curve for LBBAP using SDL. Methods: The study enrolled 265 patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP performed by operators without previous LBBAP experience at Yonsei University Severance Hospital in Korea between December 2020 and October 2021. LBBAP was performed using SDL with an extendable helix. The learning curve was evaluated by analyzing fluoroscopy and procedure times. And, before and after reaching the learning curve, we evaluated how much the time required for the LBBAP differed from the time required for the RVP. Results: LBBAP was successful in 50 of 50 (100.0%) patients left bundle branch pacing was successful in 49 of 50 (98.0%). In 50 patients who underwent LBBAP, mean fluoroscopy and procedural times were 15.1 ± 13.5 minutes and 59.9 ± 24.8 minutes, respectively. The plateau of fluoroscopy time reached in the 25th case and the plateau of procedure time reached in the 24th case. Conclusion: During the initial experience with LBBAP, fluoroscopy and procedural times improved with increasing operator experience. For operators who were experienced in cardiac pacemaker implantation, the steepest part of the learning curve was over the first 24-25 cases. It is shorter than the previously reported learning curves of HBP.

Left bundle branch area pacing in congenital heart disease.

AIMS: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be effective and safe. Limited data are available on LBBAP in the congenital heart disease (CHD) population. This study aims to describe the feasibility and safety of LBBAP in CHD patients compared with non-CHD patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a single-centre, non-randomized observational study recruiting consecutive patients with bradycardia indication. Demographic data, ECGs, imaging, and procedural data including lead parameters were recorded. A total of 39 patients were included: CHD group (n = 13) and non-CHD group (n = 26). Congenital heart disease patients were younger (55 ± 14.5 years vs. 73.2 ± 13.1, P < 0.001). Acute success was achieved in all CHD patients and 96% (25/26) of non-CHD patients. No complications were encountered in either group. The procedural time for CHD patients was comparable (96.4 ± 54 vs. 82.1 ± 37.9 min, P = 0.356). Sheath reshaping was required in 7 of 13 CHD patients but only in 1 of 26 non-CHD patients, reflecting the complex and distorted anatomy of the patients in this group. Lead parameters were similar in both groups; R wave (11 ± 7 mV vs. 11.5 ± 7.5, P = 0.881) and pacing threshold (0.6 ± 0.3 V vs. 0.7 ± 0.3, P = 0.392). Baseline QRS duration was longer in the CHD group (150 ± 28.2 vs. 118.6 ± 26.6 ms, P = 0.002). Despite a numerically greater reduction in QRS and a similar left ventricular activation time (65.9 ± 6.2 vs. 67 ± 16.8 ms, P = 0.840), the QRS remained longer in the CHD group (135.5 ± 22.4 vs. 106.9 ± 24.7 ms, P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: Left bundle branch area pacing is feasible and safe in CHD patients as compared to that in non-CHD patients. Procedural and fluoroscopy times did not differ between both groups. Lead parameters were satisfactory and stable over a short-term follow-up.

Electromechanical factors associated with favourable outcome in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

AIMS: Electromechanical coupling in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is not fully understood. Our aim was to determine the best combination of electrical and mechanical substrates associated with effective CRT. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-two patients were prospectively enrolled from two centres. Patients underwent 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG), cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR), echocardiography, and anatomo-electromechanical mapping (AEMM). Remodelling was measured as the end-systolic volume (ΔESV) decrease at 6 months. CRT was defined effective with ΔESV ≤ -15%. QRS duration (QRSd) was measured from ECG. Area strain was obtained from AEMM and used to derive systolic stretch index (SSI) and total left-ventricular mechanical time. Total left-ventricular activation time (TLVAT) and transeptal time (TST) were derived from AEMM and ECG. Scar was measured from CMR. Significant correlations were observed between ΔESV and TST [rho = 0.42; responder: 50 (20-58) vs. non-responder: 33 (8-44) ms], TLVAT [-0.68; 81 (73-97) vs. 112 (96-127) ms], scar [-0.27; 0.0 (0.0-1.2) vs. 8.7 (0.0-19.1)%], and SSI [0.41; 10.7 (7.1-16.8) vs. 4.2 (2.9-5.5)], but not QRSd [-0.13; 155 (140-176) vs. 167 (155-177) ms]. TLVAT and SSI were highly accurate in identifying CRT response [area under the curve (AUC) > 0.80], followed by scar (AUC > 0.70). Total left-ventricular activation time (odds ratio = 0.91), scar (0.94), and SSI (1.29) were independent factors associated with effective CRT. Subjects with SSI >7.9% and TLVAT <91 ms all responded to CRT with a median ΔESV ≈ -50%, while low SSI and prolonged TLVAT were more common in non-responders (ΔESV ≈ -5%). CONCLUSION: Electromechanical measurements are better associated with CRT response than conventional ECG variables. The absence of scar combined with high SSI and low TLVAT ensures effectiveness of CRT.

Electroanatomical mapping-guided left bundle branch area pacing in patients with structural heart disease and advanced conduction abnormalities.

AIMS: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) can be technically challenging and fluoroscopy-intense. Three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping (EAM) facilitates non-fluoroscopic lead navigation and electrogram mapping. We sought to prospectively evaluate the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of routine EAM-guided LBBAP in patients with structural heart disease (SHD) and advanced conduction abnormalities. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with SHD and conduction abnormalities who underwent an attempt at EAM-guided LBBAP were included. The feasibility, safety, procedural, and mid-term outcomes were evaluated. Electrical, echocardiographic, and clinical parameters were assessed at implantation and last follow-up. Thirty-two patients (68 ± 18 years; 19% female) were included, of which 75% had intrinsic QRS > 150 ms, 53% left bundle branch block, and 25% right bundle branch block. Primary EAM-guided LBBAP was successful in 29 patients (91%). The procedural duration was 95 (70-110) min, total fluoroscopy time 0.93 (0.40-1.73) min, and total fluoroscopy dose 35.4 (20.5-77.2) cGy cm2. Paced QRS duration (QRSd) was significantly shorter than intrinsic QRSd (121.9 ± 10.7 vs. 159.2 ± 34.4 ms; P < 0.001) and remained stable during the mean follow-up of 7.0 ± 5.9 months. The LBBAP capture threshold was 0.57 ± 0.23 V/0.4 ms at implantation and remained low during follow-up (0.58 ± 0.18 V/0.5 ± 0.2 ms; P = 0.877). Overall left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly from 44.2 ± 14.3% at baseline to 49.4 ± 13.1% at follow-up (P = 0.009), New York Heart Association class from 2.4 ± 0.6 to 1.8 ± 0.6 (P = 0.002), respectively. No complications occurred that required intervention. CONCLUSION: Routine near-zero fluoroscopy EAM-guided LBBAP can safely be performed in patients with SHD and advanced conduction abnormalities with high success rates and favourable mid-term outcomes. Further studies are needed to investigate whether the use of EAM improves the overall outcome of conduction system pacing and to identify specific patient populations who benefit the most from EAM-guided lead implantation.

Stepwise application of ECG and electrogram-based criteria to ensure electrical resynchronization with left bundle branch pacing.

AIMS: To define a stepwise application of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) criteria that will simplify implantation and guarantee electrical resynchronization. Left bundle branch pacing has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing. However, a systematic stepwise criterion to ensure electrical resynchronization is lacking. METHODS AND RESULTS: A cohort of 24 patients from the LEVEL-AT trial (NCT04054895) who received LBBP and had electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) at 45 days post-implant were included. The usefulness of ECG- and electrogram-based criteria to predict accurate electrical resynchronization with LBBP were analyzed. A two-step approach was developed. The gold standard used to confirm resynchronization was the change in ventricular activation pattern and shortening in left ventricular activation time, assessed by ECGI. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients showed electrical resynchronization on ECGI. All patients fulfilled pre-screwing requisites: lead in septal position in left-oblique projection and W paced morphology in V1. In the first step, presence of either right bundle branch conduction delay pattern (qR or rSR in V1) or left bundle branch capture Plus (QRS ≤120 ms) resulted in 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity to predict LBBP resynchronization, with an accuracy of 95.8%. In the second step, the presence of selective capture (100% specificity, only 41% sensitivity) or a spike-R <80 ms in non-selective capture (100% specificity, sensitivity 46%) ensured 100% accuracy to predict resynchronization with LBBP. CONCLUSION: Stepwise application of ECG and electrogram criteria may provide an accurate assessment of electrical resynchronization with LBBP (Graphical abstract).

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: an acute electrical and haemodynamic within-patient comparison of left bundle branch area, His bundle, and biventricular pacing.

AIMS: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP -35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP -19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (-46 ± 15 ms, -36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP -43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP -45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP -13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: HBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response.

Right ventricular epicardial arrhythmogenic substrate in long-QT syndrome patients at risk of sudden death.

AIMS: The long-QT syndrome (LQTS) represents a leading cause of sudden cardiac death (SCD). The aim of this study was to assess the presence of an underlying electroanatomical arrhythmogenic substrate in high-risk LQTS patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: The present study enrolled 11 consecutive LQTS patients who had experienced frequent implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD discharges triggered by ventricular fibrillation (VF). We acquired electroanatomical biventricular maps of both endo and epicardial regions for all patients and analyzed electrograms sampled from several myocardial regions. Abnormal electrical activities were targeted and eliminated by the means of radiofrequency catheter ablation. VF episodes caused a median of four ICD discharges in eleven patients (6 male, 54.5%; mean age 44.0 ± 7.8 years, range 22-53) prior to our mapping and ablation procedures. The average QTc interval was 500.0 ± 30.2 ms. Endo-epicardial biventricular maps displayed abnormally fragmented, low-voltage (0.9 ± 0.2 mV) and prolonged electrograms (89.9 ± 24.1 ms) exclusively localized in the right ventricular epicardium. We found electrical abnormalities extending over a mean epicardial area of 15.7 ± 3.1 cm2. Catheter ablation of the abnormal epicardial area completely suppressed malignant arrhythmias over a mean 12 months of follow-up (median VF episodes before vs. after ablation, 4 vs. 0; P = 0.003). After the procedure, the QTc interval measured in a 12-lead ECG analysis shortened to a mean of 461.8 ± 23.6 ms (P = 0.004). CONCLUSION: This study reveals that, among high-risk LQTS patients, regions localized in the epicardium of the right ventricle harbour structural electrophysiological abnormalities. Elimination of these abnormal electrical activities successfully prevented malignant ventricular arrhythmia recurrences.

Non-invasive three-dimensional electrical activation mapping to predict cardiac resynchronization therapy response: site of latest left ventricular activation relative to pacing site.

AIMS: Pacing remote from the latest electrically activated site (LEAS) in the left ventricle (LV) may diminish response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We tested whether proximity of LV pacing site (LVPS) to LEAS, determined by non-invasive three-dimensional electrical activation mapping [electrocardiographic Imaging (ECGI)], increased likelihood of CRT response. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive CRT patients underwent ECGI and chest/heart computed tomography 6-24 months of post-implant. Latest electrically activated site and the distance to LVPS (dp) were assessed. Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction of ≥15% at clinical follow-up defined response. Logistic regression probabilistically modelled non-response; variables included demographics, heart failure classification, left bundle branch block (LBBB), ischaemic heart disease (IHD), atrial fibrillation, QRS duration, baseline ejection fraction (EF) and LVESV, comorbidities, use of CRT optimization algorithm, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor(ACE)/angiotensin-receptor blocker (ARB), beta-blocker, diuretics, and dp. Of 111 studied patients [64 ± 11 years, EF 28 ± 6%, implant duration 12 ± 5 months (mean ± SD), 98% had LBBB, 38% IHD], 67% responded at 10 ± 3 months post CRT-implant. Latest electrically activated sites were outside the mid-to-basal lateral segments in 35% of the patients. dp was 42 ± 23 mm [31 ± 14 mm for responders vs. 63 ± 24 mm non-responders (P < 0.001)]. Longer dp and the lack of use of CRT optimization algorithm were the only independent predictors of non-response [area under the curve (AUC) 0.906]. dp of 47 mm delineated responders and non-responders (AUC 0.931). CONCLUSION: The distance between LV pacing site and latest electrical activation is a strong independent predictor for CRT response. Non-invasive electrical evaluation to characterize intrinsic activation and guide LV lead deployment may improve CRT efficacy.