Is left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) associated with better depolarization and repolarization kinetics than right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP)? - Comparison of frontal QRS -T angle in patients with LBBP, RVSP and normal ventricular conduction.

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.

Observations of interventricular septal behavior during left bundle branch pacing.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) involves the deployment of the lead deep inside the septum. Penetration of the septum by the lead depends on the texture of the septum, rapidity of rotations, operator experience, and implantation tools. OBJECTIVES: The aim of our study was to assess the behavior of the lumenless lead during rapid rotations and the physiological property of the interventricular septum(IVS) during LBBP. METHODS: Patients undergoing LBBP between January 2021 and December 2022 were retrospectively included in the study. RESULTS: Among 255 attempted patients, 20 (7.9%) had procedural failure(no LBB capture-four, inability to penetrate septum-seven, and dislodgements after sheath removal-nine). Septal penetration achieved in 248/255 patients (97.2%). Lead movement inside the IVS was assessed by lead traverse time. Based on the behavior of the IVS (n = 255), three different responses were noted. Type-I response(normal/firm septum) in 93.7% (n = 239) characterized by constant and progressive movement of lead. Neither perforation nor further change in premature-ventricular-complex morphology beyond M-beat were observed despite additional few unintentional rotations indicating the protective mechanism of LV-endocardium. Type-II response(soft/cheesy septum) in 3.5% (n = 9) characterized by hyper-movement of lead without resistance due to altered texture of septum and poor LV subendocardial barrier resulting in perforation. No patients in this group had LV dysfunction or associated coronary artery disease. In type-III response, seen in 2.8% (n = 7), lead could not be penetrated due to scar in IVS. CONCLUSION: Three different patterns of responses were observed during LBBP. The most distinct type-ll response was associated with soft/cheesy septum with hyper-movement of the lead predisposing for future dislodgments in patients without structural heart disease.

Retrograde Conduction in Left Bundle Branch Block: Insights From Left Bundle Branch Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the retrograde conduction properties of the left bundle branch in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB during LBBP and its clinical implications. METHODS: Patients undergoing successful LBBP for nonischemic cardiomyopathy with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and LBBB were included. Continuous recording of His potential was performed using a quadripolar catheter. Unidirectional block was defined as retrograde His bundle activation during LBBP with stimulus to His potential (SH) duration less than or equal to antegrade HV interval and bidirectional block as VH dissociation or SH duration greater than HV interval. HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were documented. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 21.8 ± 13.1 months. Bidirectional block (group I) was observed in 82% (n = 136), and these patients were noted to have advanced HF stage and prolonged baseline QRS duration. Unidirectional block (group II) with intact retrograde conduction was observed in 18% (n = 29) and was associated with narrow paced QRS duration and higher LVEF during follow-up. Super-response (LVEF ≥50%) was observed in 54.4% (n = 74) in group I compared with 73.3% (n = 22) in group II (P = 0.03). The OR for LVEF normalization was 4.1 (95% CI: 1.26-13.97; P = 0.02), with unidirectional block compared with bidirectional block in patients with LBBB and LV dysfunction. Adverse clinical outcomes as measured by a composite of HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were significantly higher in group I compared with group II (12.5% vs 0%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Bidirectional block in LBBB was characterized by advanced HF symptoms, while unidirectional block was associated with better clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy by LBBP.

Left bundle branch pacing lead for sensing ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A pilot study (LBBP-ICD study).

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative modality for biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-eligible patients. As it provides stable R-wave sensing, LBBP has been recently used to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term safety and efficacy of the LBBP lead for appropriate detection of ventricular arrhythmia and delivery of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients requiring defibrillator therapy with CRT. METHODS: CRT-eligible patients who underwent successful LBBP-optimized ICD and LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator were enrolled. The LBBP lead was connected to the right ventricular-P/S port after capping the IS-1 connector plug of the DF-1-ICD lead. LBBP-optimized ICD or LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator was decided on the basis of correction of conduction system disease. Documented arrhythmic episodes and therapy delivered were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled. The mean age was 59.7 ± 10.5 years. LBBP resulted in an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction from 29.9% ± 4.6% to 43.9% ± 11.2% (P < .0001). During a mean follow-up of 22.9 ± 12.5 months, 254 ventricular arrhythmic events were documented. Appropriate events (n = 225 [89%]) included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 212 episodes [94%]), VT (n = 8 [3.5%]), and ventricular fibrillation (n = 5 [2.5%]). ATP efficacy in terminating VT was 75%. Eleven percent of episodes (n = 29) were inappropriately detected because of T-wave oversensing. Inappropriate therapy (ATP) was delivered for 14 episodes (5.5%). Three patients (10%) had worsening of tricuspid regurgitation. CONCLUSION: Sensing from the LBBP lead for arrhythmia detection is safe as ∼90% of the episodes were detected appropriately. Future studies with a dedicated LBBP-defibrillator lead along with algorithms to avoid oversensing can help in combining defibrillation with conduction system pacing.

MAgnetic resonance imaging based DUal lead cardiac Resynchronization therapy: A prospectIve Left Bundle Branch Pacing study (MADURAI LBBP study).

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a class I indication for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and heart failure (HF). Left bundle branch block (LBBB)-associated nonischemic cardiomyopathy (LB-NICM) with minimal or no scar by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging may be associated with excellent prognosis following CRT. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can achieve excellent resynchronization in LBBB patients. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to prospectively assess the feasibility and efficacy of LBBP with or without a defibrillator in patients with LB-NICM and LVEF ≤35%, risk stratified by CMR. METHODS: Patients with LB-NICM, LVEF ≤35%, and HF were prospectively enrolled from 2019 to 2022. If the scar burden was <10% by CMR then LBBP only (group I) and if ≥10% then LBBP + implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (group II) was performed. Primary endpoints were (1) echocardiographic response (ER) [ΔLVEF ≥15%] at 6 months; and (2) composite of time to death, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), or sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT)/ventricular fibrillation (VF). Secondary endpoints were (1) echocardiographic hyperresponse (EHR) [LVEF ≥50% or ΔLVEF ≥20%] at 6 and 12 months; and (2) indication for ICD upgrade [persistent LVEF <35% at 12 months or sustained VT/VF]. RESULTS: One hundred twenty patients were enrolled. CMR showed <10% scar burden in 109 patients (90.8%). Four patients opted for LBBP+ICD and withdrew. LBBP-optimized dual-chamber pacemaker (LOT-DDD-P) was performed in 101 patients and LOT-CRT-P in 4 patients (group I; n = 105). Eleven patients with scar burden ≥10% underwent LBBP+ICD (group II). During mean-follow-up of 21 ± 12 months, the primary endpoint of ER was observed in 80% (68/85 patients) in group I vs 27% (3/11 patients) in group II (P = .0001). Primary composite endpoint of death, HFH, or VT/VF occurred in 3.8% in group I vs 33.3% in group II (P <.0001). Secondary endpoint of EHR (LVEF≥50%) was observed in 39.5% vs 0%, 61.2% vs 9.1%, and 80% vs 33.3% at 3, 6, and 12 months in groups I and II, respectively. CONCLUSION: CMR-guided CRT using LOT-DDD-P seems to be a safe and feasible approach in LB-NICM and has the potential to reduce health care costs.

Mid-term feasibility, safety and outcomes of left bundle branch pacing-single center experience.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) has evolved as the most physiological form of pacing but associated with limitations. Recently, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is emerging as an effective alternative strategy for HBP. OBJECTIVES: Our study was designed to assess the feasibility, efficacy, electrophysiological parameters, and mid-term outcomes of LBBP in Indian population. METHODS: All patients requiring permanent pacemaker implantation for symptomatic bradycardia and heart failure were prospectively enrolled. Echocardiography, QRS duration, pacing parameters, left bundle (LB) potentials, paced QRS duration, and peak left ventricular activation time (pLVAT) were recorded. RESULTS: LBBP was successful in 93 out of 99 patients (94% acute success). Mean age was 62.6 ± 13 years, male 59%, diabetes 69%, and coronary artery disease 65%. Follow-up duration was 4.8 months (range1-12 months). Indication for pacing included atrioventricular (AV) block 43%, cardiac resynchronization therapy 44%, and AV node ablation 4%. LB potential was noted in 37 patients (40%). QRS duration reduced from 144.38 ± 34.6 at baseline to 110.8 ± 12.4 ms after LBBP (p < 0.0001). Pacing threshold was 0.59 ± 0.22 V and sensed R wave 14.14 ± 7.19 mV, and it remained stable during follow-up. Lead depth in the septum was 9.62 mm. LV ejection fraction increased from 44.96 to 53.3% after LBBP (p < 0.0001). One died due to respiratory tract infection on follow up. CONCLUSION: LBBP is a safe and effective strategy (94% acute success) of physiological pacing. The pacing parameters remained stable over a period of 12 months follow-up. LBBP can effectively overcome the limitations of HBP.

Catheter Ablation of Pediatric Atrioventricular Nodal Re-entrant Tachycardia.

Catheter ablation is considered as the standard treatment for all patients with symptomatic drug-refractory tachyarrhythmia. The safety and efficacy of the procedure in the adult population is well-established. Due to the small size of the patient and difficulty in attaining venous access, infants are rarely subjected to radiofrequency ablation. Here, we report a case of drug-refractory AV nodal re-entrant tachycardia in a two-year-old child. Radiofrequency ablation was performed with a 5-Fr sized medium-curve ablation catheter deployed at the slow pathway region where a fractionated A-wave with slow-pathway potential was recorded. After ablation, no recurrence of SVT at the end of 12 months of follow-up was observed.

Safety, Efficacy, and Intermediate-Term Outcomes of Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation for Pediatric Arrhythmias.

Background Arrhythmias are one of the reasons for emergency hospitalization among the pediatric population. Radiofrequency ablation is a major advancement in the management of children with cardiac arrhythmias. Objectives Our study was designed to describe the outcomes of catheter ablation in the pediatric population for atrial and ventricular arrhythmias in our center. Methods All patients between two and 18 years of age undergoing radiofrequency ablation after failed medical management for arrhythmias in our institute were included. Age less than two years, no previous medical management, and complex congenital heart disease were excluded. Baseline and electrophysiological characteristics were recorded. The patients were followed up for a clinical or electrocardiographic recurrence of arrhythmia. Results Thirty-six patients were included (mean age 12.8 ± 3.9 years (range 2-18 years), male 56%, average weight 36.39 ± 11.02 kg). The mean follow-up duration was 27.7 ± 15.9 months (range 3-58). Five-point five percent (5.5%) had tachycardiomyopathy. The arrhythmias included (1) atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT, n=16, 44%), (2) atrioventricular reciprocating tachycardia (AVRT, n=14, 39%), (3) atrial tachycardia (AT, n=2, 5.5%), (4) ventricular premature complexes (VPCs, n=2, 5.5%), (5) atrial flutter (AFL, n=1, 3%), and (6) ventricular tachycardia (VT, n=1, 3%). A transeptal puncture was done in 10 patients (28%). 3D mapping was done in six patients. The mean radiofrequency (RF) pulses were 2.3 ± 1.3. The acute procedural success rate was 100%. The long-term success was 97.2%. One (2.7%) developed recurrence. No major complications were reported. Conclusion Catheter ablation in the pediatric population is a safe procedure and can be done with more feasibility and fewer complications when done in experienced hands.