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).

Longitudinal comparison of dyssynchrony correction and 'strain' improvement by conduction system pacing: LEVEL-AT trial secondary findings.

AIMS: Longitudinal dyssynchrony correction and 'strain' improvement by comparable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) techniques is unreported. Our purpose was to compare echocardiographic dyssynchrony correction and 'strain' improvement by conduction system pacing (CSP) vs. biventricular pacing (BiVP) as a marker of contractility improvement during 1-year follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: A treatment-received analysis was performed in patients included in the LEVEL-AT trial (NCT04054895), randomized to CSP or BiVP, and evaluated at baseline (ON and OFF programming) and at 6 and 12 months (n = 69, 32% women). Analysis included intraventricular (septal flash), interventricular (difference between left and right ventricular outflow times), and atrioventricular (diastolic filling time) dyssynchrony and 'strain' parameters [septal rebound, global longitudinal 'strain' (GLS), LBBB pattern, and mechanical dispersion). Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 27.5 ± 7%, and LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) was 138 ± 77 mL, without differences between groups. Longitudinal analysis showed LVEF and LVESV improvement (P < 0.001), without between-group differences. At 12-month follow-up, adjusted mean LVEF was 46% with CSP (95% CI 42.2 and 49.3%) vs. 43% with BiVP (95% CI 39.6 and 45.8%), (P = 0.31), and LVESV was 80 mL (95% CI 55.3 and 104.5 mL) vs. 100 mL (95% CI 78.7 and 121.6 mL), respectively (P = 0.66). Longitudinal analysis showed a significant improvement of all dyssynchrony parameters and GLS over time (P < 0.001), without differences between groups. Baseline GLS significantly correlated with LVEF and LVESV at 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION: CSP and BiVP provided similar dyssynchrony and 'strain' correction over time. Baseline global longitudinal 'strain' predicted ventricular remodelling at 12-month follow-up.