Early effects of left bundle branch area pacing on ventricular activation by speckle tracking echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging cardiac pacing modality that preserves fast electrical activation of the ventricles and provides very good electrical measures. Little is known on mechanical ventricular activation during this pacing modality. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients receiving LBBAP. Electrocardiographic and electrical parameters were evaluated at implantation, < 24 h and 3 months. Transthoracic echocardiography with strain analysis was performed at baseline and after 3 months, when ventricular mechanical activation and synchrony were analyzed by time-to-peak standard deviation (TPSD) of strain curves for both ventricles. Intraventricular left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony was investigated by LV TPSD and interventricular dyssynchrony by left ventricle-right ventricle TPSD (LV-RV TPSD). RESULTS: We screened 58 patients with permanent pacing indication who attempted LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in 56 patients (97%). Strain data were available in 50 patients. QRS duration was 124.1 ± 30.7 ms at baseline, while paced QRS duration was 107.7 ± 13.6 ms (p < 0.001). At 3 months after LBBAP, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 52.9 ± 10.6% at baseline to 56.9 ± 8.4% (p = 0.004) and both intraventricular LV dyssynchrony and interventricular dyssynchrony significantly improved (LV TPSD reduction from 38.2 (13.6-53.9) to 15.1 (8.3-31.5), p < 0.001; LV-RV TPSD from 27.9 (10.2-41.5) to 13.9 (4.3-28.7), p = 0.001). Ameliorations with LBBAP were consistent in all subgroups, irrespective of baseline QRS duration, types of intraventricular conduction abnormalities, and LVEF. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiographic strain analysis shows that LBBAP determines a fast and synchronous biventricular contraction with a stereotype mechanical activation, regardless of baseline QRS duration, pattern, and LV function.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) Auto Threshold algorithms Evaluation for Conduction System Pacing: The LATECS pilot Trial.

BACKGROUND: Automated threshold measurements (ATM) and output adaptation improved safety and follow-up of cardiac implantable devices (CIED) in the last years. These algorithms were validated for conventional cardiac pacing; however, they were not suitable for permanent His Pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging technique to obtain physiologic cardiac stimulation; we tried to assess if ATM could be applied to this setting. METHODS: Consecutive patients receiving ATM-capable CIED and LBBAP in our hospital were enrolled in this prospective, observational trial; they were evaluated 3 months after implant, comparing pacing thresholds manually assessed and obtained via ATM. Subsequent remote follow-up was carried on when available. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were enrolled. ATM for LBBAP lead provided consistent results in all the patients and was therefore activated; mean value of manually obtained LBBAP capture threshold was 0.66 ± 0.19 V versus ATM of 0.64 ± 0.19 V. TOST analysis showed equivalence of the two measures (p = .66). At subsequent follow-up (mean follow up 7.7 ± 3.2 months), ATM was effective in assessing pacing thresholds and no clinical adverse event was observed. CONCLUSIONS: ATM algorithms proved equivalent to manual testing in determining capture threshold and were reliably employed in patients receiving LBBAP CIED.

Rate and nature of complications of conduction system pacing compared with right ventricular pacing: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Comparative data on the risk of complications between CSP and RVP are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to compare the long-term risk of device-related complications between CSP and RVP. METHODS: A total of 1029 consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation with CSP (including HBP and LBBAP) or RVP were enrolled. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 201 matched pairs. The rate and nature of device-related complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up duration of 18 months, device-related complications were observed in 19 patients: 7 in RVP (3.5%) and 12 in CSP (6.0%) (P = .240). On dividing the matched cohort into 3 groups with similar baseline characteristics according to pacing modality (RVP, n = 201; HBP, n = 128; LBBAP, n = 73), patients with HBP showed a significantly higher rate of device-related complications than did patients with RVP (8.6% vs 3.5%; P = .047) and patients with LBBAP (8.6% vs 1.3%; P = .034). Patients with LBBAP showed a rate of device-related complications similar to that of patients with RVP (1.3% vs 3.5%; P = .358). Most of the complications observed in patients with HBP (63.6%) were lead related. CONCLUSION: Globally, CSP was associated with a risk of complications similar to that of RVP. Considering HBP and LBBAP separately, HBP showed a significantly higher risk of complications than did both RVP and LBBAP whereas LBBAP showed a risk of complications similar to that of RVP.

Coronary sinus for cardiac resynchronization therapy: leave it alone and go for the branch! a case report.

Background: Coronary sinus is the target of an increasing number of percutaneous interventional procedures. Thus, in some patients, conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may not be feasible or preferable, and 'alternative' CRT approaches should be applied. Case summary: We present the case of a successful CRT via direct left bundle branch permanent pacing (LBBP) in a patient with relative contraindication to conventional CRT because of previous percutaneous indirect mitral annuloplasty. Discussion: LBBP is emerging as a promising technique for physiological cardiac pacing and CRT. It may represent the technique of choice when coronary sinus is not viable for the implant of a conventional left ventricular catheter.