RESUMO
AIMS: To assess the frontal QRS- T angle (f QRS- T angle) in patients with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) as compared to right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP) implanted for symptomatic high degree atrioventricular (AV) block and to compare with control subjects with normal ventricular conduction (CSNVC) METHODS: A total of one-fifty subjects were chosen (50 patients with LBBP, 50 patients with RVSP and 50 CSNVC). The indication for pacemaker implantation was symptomatic high degree AV block. Baseline clinical and electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters like QRS duration (QRSD), QRS axis and f QRS-T angle and Ejection Fraction (EF) were assessed. f QRS-T angle was measured as the difference between the computerised mean frontal QRS and T wave axes in the limb leads. If the difference between the QRS axis and T-wave axis exceeds 180°, then the resultant QRS-T angle would be calculated as 360° minus the absolute angle to obtain a value between 0° and 180°. Baseline, immediate post procedural and 6 month follow up (f/u) ECGs and EF were chosen for the analysis. RESULTS: Patients who underwent LBBP had significantly shorter paced QRSD than patients who had undergone RVSP (112 ± 12 ms vs 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 43, -31; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the QRSD before and after LBBP. The QRSD before and after pacing in RVSP was 111 ± 27 ms and 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % CI: 43, -28; p < 0.001. The QRSD in control patients with NVC was 82.94 ± 9.59 ms. RVSP was associated with wider f QRS-T angle when compared with LBBP (103 ± 53° vs 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 39, -1.0; p = 0.037). The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in LBBP was 70 ± 48° and 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 31, 5.3; p = 0.2. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle was 61 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 8.5, 35; p=0.002. The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in RVSP was 67 ± 51° and 103 ± 53°; 95 % CI: 54, -17; p < 0.001. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle in RVSP group was 87 ± 58°; 95 % CI: 2.6, 29; p = 0.020. The f QRS T angle in control patients with NVC was 24 ± 16°. When subgroup analysis was done the difference in the f QRS-T angle was significant between RVSP and LBBP groups only in patients who had wide QRS escape. The mean LVEF at 6-month follow-up in LBBP vs RVSP was 61 ± 3.7 % vs 57.1 ± 7.8 %; 95 % CI:1.48, 6.32, p = 0.002. In the RVSP group, three patients developed pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PIC) whereas no patients in the LBBP group developed PIC at 6-month follow-up; p=0.021. One patient with PIC had deterioration of functional status with new onset HF symptoms. The patient symptoms improved with medical therapy and needed no hospitalisation. The patient declined further interventions including upgradation to CRT or LBB pacing. No deaths or ventricular arrhythmias were observed during the study period. CONCLUSION: LBBP is associated with narrower f QRS-T angle as compared to RVSP both at post implant period and at 6 month f/u period. These findings might be due to the more physiological depolarization and repolarization kinetics associated with LBBP. RVSP was associated with 6 % incidence of PIC. Hence wide f QRS-T angle might be a predictor of PIC.
RESUMO
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in an international, multicenter, collaborative study. BACKGROUND: CRT using biventricular pacing is effective in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB). LBBAP has been reported as an alternative option for CRT. METHODS: LBBAP was attempted in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50% and indications for CRT or pacing. Procedural outcomes, left bundle branch capture, New York Heart Association functional class, heart failure hospitalization, echocardiographic data, and lead complications were recorded. Clinical (no heart failure hospitalization and improvement in New York Heart Association functional class) and echocardiographic responses (≥5% improvement in LVEF) were assessed. RESULTS: LBBAP was attempted in 325 patients, and CRT was successfully achieved in 277 (85%) (mean age 71 ± 12 years, 35% women, ischemic cardiomyopathy in 44%). QRS configuration at baseline was LBBB in 39% and non-LBBB in 46%. Procedure and fluoroscopy duration were 105 ± 54 and 19 ± 15 min, respectively. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.6 ± 0.3 V at 0.5 ms and 10.6 ± 6 mV at implantation and remained stable during mean follow-up of 6 ± 5 months. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing from 152 ± 32 to 137 ± 22 ms (p < 0.01). LVEF improved from 33 ± 10% to 44 ± 11% (p < 0.01). Clinical and echocardiographic responses were observed in 72% and 73% of patients, respectively. Baseline LBBB (odds ratio: 3.96; 95% confidence interval: 1.64 to 9.26; p < 0.01) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (odds ratio: 0.62; 95% confidence interval: 0.49 to 0.79; p < 0.01) were independent predictors of echocardiographic response. CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP is feasible and safe and provides an alternative option for CRT. LBBAP provides remarkably low and stable pacing thresholds and was associated with improved clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.