Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing in Heart Failure and Wide QRS Patients: LEVEL-AT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP). Randomized studies comparing both therapies are scarce and do not include left bundle branch pacing. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare ventricular resynchronization achieved by CSP vs BiVP in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication. METHODS: LEVEL-AT (Left Ventricular Activation Time Shortening with Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Resynchronization Therapy) was a randomized, parallel, controlled, noninferiority trial. Seventy patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication were randomized 1:1 to BiVP or CSP, and followed up for 6 months. Crossover was allowed when primary allocation procedure failed. Primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular activation time, measured using electrocardiographic imaging. Secondary endpoints were left ventricular reverse remodeling and the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or death at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were allocated to each group. Eight (23%) patients crossed over from CSP to BiVP; 2 patients (6%) crossed over from BiVP to CSP. Electrocardiographic imaging could not be performed in 2 patients in each group. A similar decrease in left ventricular activation time was achieved by CSP and BiVP (-28 ± 26 ms vs -21 ± 20 ms, respectively; mean difference -6.8 ms; 95% CI: -18.3 ms to 4.6 ms; P < 0.001 for noninferiority). Both groups showed a similar change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-37 ± 59 mL CSP vs -30 ± 41 mL BiVP; mean difference: -8 mL; 95% CI: -33 mL to 17 mL; P = 0.04 for noninferiority) and similar rates of mortality or heart failure hospitalizations (2.9% vs 11.4%, respectively) (P = 0.002 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Similar degrees of cardiac resynchronization, ventricular reverse remodeling, and clinical outcomes were attained by CSP as compared to BiVP. CSP could be a feasible alternative to BiVP. (LEVEL-AT [Left Ventricular Activation Time Shortening With Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Resynchronization Therapy]; NCT04054895).

Comparisons of electrophysiological characteristics, pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects in right ventricular septal pacing, right ventricular apical pacing and left bundle branch area pacing.

BACKGROUND: As a near-physiological pacing innovation, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has drawn much attention recently. This study was aimed to investigate the electrophysiological characteristics, unipolar/bipolar pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects and safety of three different pacing methods and identify possible predictors of adverse left ventricular remodeling. METHODS: Ninety-two patients were divided into the LBBAP group, right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) group and right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) group. Baseline information, electrophysiological, pacing and echocardiographic parameters were collected. RESULTS: The three pacing methods were performed with a similar high success rate. The paced QRSd was significantly different among the LBBAP, RVSP and RVAP groups (105.93 ± 15.85 ms vs. 143.63 ± 14.71 ms vs. 155.39 ± 14.17 ms, p < 0.01). The stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) was the shortest in the LBBAP group, followed by the RVSP and RVAP groups (72.80 ± 12.07 ms vs. 86.29 ± 8.71 ms vs. 94.14 ± 10.14 ms, p < 0.001). LBBAP had a significantly lower tip impedance during the procedure and 3-month follow up as compared to RVSP and RVAP (p < 0.001). Higher bipolar captured thresholds were observed in LBBAP during the procedure (p < 0.001). Compared to the baseline values, there was a greater reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) in the LBBAP group (p = 0.046) and a significant enlargement in LVEDD in the RVAP group (p = 0.008). Multiple regression analysis revealed that the Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of LVEDD at 12 months post-procedure. At the 24-h post-procedure, significant elevations were observed in the cTnI levels in LBBAP (p < 0.001) and RVSP (p < 0.05). More transient RBB injury was observed in LBBAP. But no significant difference was found in cardiac composite endpoints among three groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP demonstrated a stable captured threshold, a low tip impedance and a high R-wave amplitude during the 12-month follow-up. Left ventricular remodeling was improved at 12 months post-procedure through LBBAP. The Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of left ventricular remodeling. LBBAP demonstrated its feasibility, effectiveness, safety and some beneficial electrophysiological characteristics during this mid- to long-term follow-up, which should be confirmed by further studies.

An Electrocardiographic Characterization of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing-Induced Right Ventricular Activation Delay: A Comparison With Native Right Bundle Branch Block.

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) induces delayed RV activation and is thought to be harmless, since the electrocardiographic signature is reminiscent to native RBBB. However, to what extent the delayed RV activation during LBBAP truly resembles that of native RBBB remains unexplored. Methods: This study included patients with incomplete RBBB (iRBBB), complete RBBB (cRBBB) and patients who underwent LBBAP. Global and right ventricular activation times were estimated by QRS duration and R wave peak time in lead V1 (V1RWPT) respectively. Delayed RV activation was further characterized by duration, amplitude and area of the terminal R wave in V1. Results: In patients with LBBAP (n = 86), QRS duration [120 ms (116, 132)] was longer compared to iRBBB patients (n = 422): 104 ms (98, 110), p < 0.001, but shorter compared to cRBBB (n = 223): 138 ms (130, 152), p < 0.001. V1RWPT during LBBAP [84 ms (72, 92)] was longer compared to iRBBB [74 ms (68, 80), p < 0.001], but shorter than cRBBB [96 ms (86, 108), p < 0.001]. LBBAP resulted in V1 R' durations [42 ms (28, 55)] comparable to iRBBB [42 ms (35, 49), p = 0.49] but shorter than in cRBBB [81 ms (68, 91), p < 0.001]. During LBBAP, the amplitude and area of the V1 R' wave were more comparable with iRBBB than cRBBB. V1RWPT during LBBAP was determined by baseline conduction disease, but not by LBBAP capture type. Conclusion: LBBAP-induced delayed RV activation electrocardiographically most closely mirrors the delayed RV activation as seen with incomplete rather than complete RBBB.

Evaluation of Criteria for Left Bundle Branch Capture.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provides electrical and mechanical synchrony at low and stable pacing output and effectively corrects distal conduction system disease. The criteria for differentiating LBBP from LV septal pacing has not been validated in large trials. There are several electrocardiography-based and intracardiac electrogram-based criteria to confirm LBB capture. In this section, the authors review these criteria and their overall accuracy.

Influence of Capture Selectivity and Left Intrahisian Block on QRS Characteristics During Left Bundle Branch Pacing.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to examine QRS and intracardiac characteristics during selective (S) and nonselective (NS) left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) from direct left septal recordings. BACKGROUND: Criteria for S-LBBP and NS-LBBP have not been validated with intracardiac mapping. METHODS: Pacing was performed from multielectrode Purkinje recordings below the left-sided His. S-LBBP and NS-LBBP were performed in patients with narrow QRS (n = 9), right bundle branch block (n = 3), intraventricular conduction delay (n = 5), and left bundle branch block (n = 10). QRS duration was measured from stimulus onset (QRSst) and from the intrinsicoid deflection of the R-wave in V1-V2 (QRSid) to QRS end. Retrograde left bundle branch conduction was assessed by stimulus-to-retrograde His intervals. RESULTS: Among 27 patients analyzed, 20 demonstrated both NS- and S-LBBP and were studied in paired comparisons. NS-LBBP resulted in narrower QRS compared to S-LBBP (QRSst: 163 ms [interquartile range (IQR): 144-179 ms] vs 181 ms [IQR: 173-203 ms]; P < 0.001; QRSid: 125 ms [IQR: 117-142 ms] vs 150 ms [IQR: 135-157 ms]; P < 0.001). Left ventricular activation time was also significantly shorter for NS-LBBP compared to S-LBBP (88 ms [IQR: 75-111 ms] vs 97 ms [IQR: 82-123 ms]; P = 0.019). Left intrahisian block was bidirectional in 10 patients with long retrograde stimulus-to-His intervals. QRSst duration was significantly longer in patients with complete conduction block compared to those with intact Purkinje activation during NS-LBBP (181 ms [IQR: 162-195 ms] vs 157 ms [IQR: 139-168 ms]; P = 0.022). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to His-bundle pacing, S-LBBP predominantly yields a wide QRS as a result of delayed RBB synchronization, whereas NS-LBBP results in shorter QRS duration because of recruitment of the basal right ventricular septum. A wider-paced morphology of LBBP was noted in patients with complete conduction block caused by bidirectional left intrahisian block. Achievement of narrow QRS during LBBP is predicated upon capture nonselectivity or programmed atrioventricular fusion, rather than intrinsic physiologic synchrony from left bundle branch stimulation.

Coronary Venous Visualization During Deep Septal Lead Placement: An Unexpected Finding.

Left bundle branch area pacing has emerged as a safe and feasible alternative to conventional pacing. Acute septal injury, septal perforation, and arteriovenous fistula are potential risks of deep septal implants. Contrast drainage through the lesser cardiac veins and subsequent filling of major epicardial vessels may be benign observations noted during forceful hand injection. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Left Posterior Fascicular Pacing.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is emerging as an alternative to His bundle pacing that overcomes the latter's limitations. Several studies have reported on the safety, efficacy, and electrophysiological properties of LBBP, while postoperative success rates range from 80.5% to 94%. The left posterior fascicle is composed of broad bands of fibers coursing inferiorly and posteriorly toward the papillary muscle, while the anterior fascicle is a thin, tendon-like structure. We report a case of a 70-year-old man in whom left posterior fascicular pacing was done after LBBP failed. We were able to demonstrate all the features of left posterior fascicular capture, including fascicular potential and a left anterior hemiblock pattern, using surface 12-lead electrocardiography. Left posterior fascicular pacing could be an alternative technique when attempts to deploy LBBP fail.

Physiology-based electrocardiographic criteria for left bundle branch capture.

BACKGROUND: During left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, it is important to confirm that capture of the LBB, and not just capture of only adjacent left ventricular (LV) myocardium, has been achieved. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for LBB capture. We hypothesized that because LBB pacing results in physiological depolarization of the LV, then the native QRS can serve as a reference for diagnosis of LBB capture in the same patient. METHODS: Only patients with evidence of LBB capture (QRS morphology transition) were included. Several QRS characteristics were compared between the native rhythm and different types of LBB area capture. RESULTS: A total of 357 ECGs (124 patients) were analyzed: 118 with native rhythm, 124 with nonselective LBB capture, 69 with selective LBB capture, and 46 with LV septal capture. Our hypotheses that during LBB capture the paced V6 R-wave peak time (RWPT; measured from QRS onset) equals the native V6 RWPT and that the paced V6 RWPT (measured from the stimulus) equals the LBB potential to V6 R-wave peak interval were positively validated. Criteria based on these rules had sensitivity and specificity of 88.2%-98.0% and 85.7%-95.4%, respectively. Moreover, 100% specific V6 RWPT cutoff for LBB capture diagnosis in patients with narrow QRS/right bundle branch block was determined to be 74 ms. CONCLUSION: We showed equivalency of LV activation times on ECG during native and paced LBB conduction. Therefore, if V6 RWPT is longer during pacing, this finding is indicative of lack of LBB capture.

R-peak time in clinically healthy dogs with different thoracic conformations.

R-peak time (RPT) is an electrocardiographic parameter that represents the time taken for electrical activation to spread from the endocardium to the epicardium. In human medicine, right ventricular RPT is measured from lead V1 to lead V2, and left ventricular RPT from lead V5 to lead V6. The aim of the present study was to define RPT duration in a group of clinically healthy dogs with different thoracic conformations. Sixty clinically healthy dogs underwent a 12-lead electrocardiogram recorded using a previously described precordial system. The dogs were allocated into three morphologic groups. In the brachymorphic group, the median and 25th-75th percentiles for RPT in V1 were 10.5 ms (10-12 ms); V2, 18 ms (16.5-20 ms); V3, 19 ms (18-22 ms); V4, 20 ms (17-23.5 ms); V5, 21 ms (18.5-24 ms); and V6: 22 ms (18.5-25.5 ms). In the mesomorphic group, RPT in V1 was 16 ms (14-18 ms); V2, 22 ms (20-24 ms); V3, 23 ms (21-25 ms); V4, 23 ms (22-25 ms); V5, 25 ms (23-27 ms); and V6, 28 ms (25-30 ms). In the dolichomorphic group, RPT in V1 was 15 ms (13-17 ms); V2, 29 ms (26-32.5 ms); V3, 30 ms (27-33.5 ms); V4, 29.5 ms (26-35 ms); V5, 30 ms (28-34 ms); and V6, 31.5 ms (28-35 ms). RPT in V1 was significantly shorter than RPT in V2 to V6 in all morphotypes (P < 0.05). In all precordial leads, RPT was significantly different between morphotypes (P < 0.05). These results are in agreement with previous findings in humans and with the observation that V1 reads the right ventricle and V2 to V6 read the left ventricle. These preliminary data provide RPT ranges in clinically healthy dogs of different morphotypes.

Electrophysiological Insights into Three Modalities of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients Indicated for Pacing Therapy.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been adopted as a new pacing therapy whether in routine pacing or patients with heart failure, but the criteria for a completely captured LBBP are too complicated and have a low success rate in routine clinical practice.Consecutive patients with pacing therapy indications were enrolled. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) was conducted, and the presence of LBB potential, paced QRS duration, stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Stim-LVAT), and LBB potential to left ventricular activation time (LBB po-LVAT) were determined and utilized to characterize LBBAP modalities. Pacing parameters and safety were assessed at 6-month follow-up. LBBAP succeeded in 95.6% of patients (103/106) who completed the 6-month follow-up. Complete LBBP was achieved in 21 (20%) patients, characterized with a short Stim-LVAT equal to LBB po-LVAT. Incomplete LBBP was achieved in 58 (56%) patients with a short Stim-LVAT equal to LBB po-LVAT at a high pacing output and a relatively longer Stim-LVAT at a low pacing output. Deep septal pacing (DSP) characterized with no LBB potential and a longer Stim-LVAT (83.3 ± 7.7 ms) than that in LBBP (71.37 ± 7.1 ms, P < 0.01 versus DSP) was observed in 24 (23%) patients. Complete LBBP had a longer total procedure time and longer fluoroscopic time than the other two groups.This study describes the similarities and differences in electrophysiological characteristics and the possible mechanisms of the different types of LBBAP, classified into 3 modalities in routine clinical practice, each with narrow paced QRS duration and stable parameters, indicating LBBAP can be a near-physiological pacing modality.

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.

A pilot study to determine if left ventricular activation time is a useful parameter for left bundle branch capture: Validated by ventricular mechanical synchrony with SPECT imaging.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing has emerged as a novel pacing modality. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was reported to be associated with the activation via LBB, but the value of LVAT for determining LBB pacing was unknown. We conducted a pilot study to determine if LVAT could define LBB capture by validating left ventricular (LV) mechanical synchrony. METHODS: We analyzed LVAT in 68 bradycardia-indicated patients who received LBB pacing. LVAT was measured from the stimulus to R-wave peak in lead V5 and V6. LV mechanical synchrony assessed by SPECT MPI was compared according to the value of LVAT and the presence of LBB potential. RESULTS: The mean LVAT was 75.4 ± 12.7 ms. LBB potential was recorded in 47 patients (69.1%). Patients with LVAT < 76 ms had better LV mechanical synchrony than those with LVAT ≥ 76 ms. Patients with LVAT < 76 ms or LBB potential had better mechanical synchrony than those with LVAT ≥ 76 ms and no potential. LVAT < 76 ms could predict the normal synchrony with a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 87.5%. CONCLUSION: A short LVAT indicated favorable mechanical synchrony in SPECT imaging. LVAT < 76 ms might be a practical parameter for defining LBB capture.

Identifying the most important ECG predictors of reduced ejection fraction in patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Non-invasive screening tools of cardiac function can play a significant role in the initial triage of patients with suspected acute coronary syndrome. Numerous ECG features have been previously linked with cardiac contractility in the general population. We sought to identify ECG features that are most predictive for real-time screening of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the acute care setting. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of a prospective, observational cohort study of patients evaluated for suspected acute coronary syndrome. We included consecutive patients in whom an echocardiogram was performed during indexed encounter. We evaluated 554 automated 12-lead ECG features in multivariate linear regression for predicting LVEF. We then used regression trees to identify the most important predictive ECG features. RESULTS: Our final sample included 297 patients (aged 63 ± 15, 45% females). The mean LVEF was 57% ± 13 (IQR 50%-65%). In multivariate analysis, depolarization dispersion in the horizontal plane; global repolarization dispersion; and abnormal temporal indices in inferolateral leads were all independent predictors of LVEF (R2 = 0.452, F = 6.679, p < 0.001). Horizontal QRS axis deviation and prolonged ventricular activation time in left ventricular apex were the most important determinants of reduced LVEF, while global QRS duration was of less importance. CONCLUSIONS: Poor R wave progression in precordial leads with dominant QS pattern in V3 is the most predictive feature of reduced LVEF in suspected ACS. This feature constitutes a simple visual marker to aid clinicians in identifying those with impaired cardiac function.

Selective left bundle branch pacing for pediatric complete heart block.

Traditionally Right Ventricle has been the preferred site of pacing for the management of symptomatic brady-arrhythmias. The deleterious effect of chronic RV pacing has been shown by several studies. This has generated interest into a novel pacing strategy called physiological pacing wherein the His bundle or the left bundle is paced directly with 4.1 F pacing lead. Herewith we are reporting a case of congenital complete heart block in a 13-year-old child for whom selective left bundle branch pacing was done. This physiological pacing will ensure a synchronized contraction of the ventricles thereby avoiding the deleterious effect of RV pacing.

Evidence of reverse electrical remodelling by non-invasive electrocardiographic imaging to assess acute and chronic changes in bulk ventricular activation following cardiac resynchronisation therapy.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) corrects electrical dyssynchrony. However, the temporal changes in the electrical timing according to substrate are unclear. We used electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) for serial non-invasive assessment of the underlying electrical substrate and its response to resynchronisation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: ECGi activation maps were constructed 1 day and 6 months post CRT implant. ECGi maps were analysed offline to determine the total ventricular activation time (TVaT) and the time for the bulk of ventricular activation (10th to 90th percentile activation; VaT10-90 Index). Statistical analysis was performed using repeated measures ANOVA with post-hoc pairwise comparisons using paired t-tests. The % relative change within each time point was also calculated and compared between the two time points. RESULTS: Eleven CRT patients were studied. Both total and bulk ventricular activation significantly decreased with CRT turned ON at day 1. Intrinsic (CRT OFF) TVaT and VaT10-90 Index at day 1 were 143 ± 23 and 84 ± 20 ms, respectively, and they significantly decreased post CRT to 115 ± 26 ms (P < 0.001) and 49 ± 17 ms (P < 0.05), respectively. The relative change at day 1 was also statistically significant for TVaT (19 ± 12%, P < 0.001) and VaT10-90 Index (39 ± 25%, P < 0.001). After 6 months, the relative decrease in TVaT with CRT ON remained stable (19% vs. 18% at day 1 and 6 months, respectively) whereas reduction the in VaT10-90 Index was decreased 39% vs. 26% at day 1 and 6 months, respectively. In non-ischaemic patients both total and bulk activation times reduced following CRT. Volumetric responders exhibited an electrical remodelling for bulk activation not apparent in Non-responders, after 6 months of CRT ON. CONCLUSIONS: Intrinsic bulk myocardium activation becomes more rapid and synchronous with CRT. The bulk activation time is more susceptible to improvement by CRT in ischaemic patients and volumetric responders. These observations are consistent with CRT causing reverse electrophysiological remodelling in the bulk myocardium, but not in late-activating ischaemic or fibrotic regions.

The characteristics of the electrocardiogram and the intracardiac electrogram in left bundle branch pacing.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has recently been reported to maintain left ventricular electrical synchrony with a low and stable threshold. However, the electrocardiogram (ECG) definitions of LBBP have not been well established. We report four cases to show the characteristics of the ECG and the intracardiac electrogram (EGM) in LBBP. METHODS AND RESULTS: Four patients, two with an atrioventricular block (AVB) and two with left bundle branch block (LBBB), were included in the study. LBBP was performed and the ECGs and EGMs were collected and compared at different pacing outputs. Selective LBBP (S-LBBP) was defined as only capturing the LBB with a typical RBBB morphology and a discrete component between the pacing stimulus and ventricular activation in the EGMs. While nonselective LBBP (NS-LBBP) captured both the LBB and the local myocardium, resulting in a narrow right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology without the discrete component. The left bundle branch (LBB) potential was recorded in two cases during narrow QRS complex or LBBB correction by selective His bundle pacing and SLBBP (n = 3) was achieved. A constant and shortest stimulus to left ventricular activation time (LVAT) in LBBP was obtained at different pacing outputs. CONCLUSION: The ECG and EGM characteristics of LBBP can be summarized as: 1) RBBB pattern; 2) usually with the LBB potential; 3) SLBBP with specific ECG changes and a discrete component in EGM; and 4) with a constant and shortest stimulus to LVAT at different pacing outputs. Further studies are necessary to confirm these observations.

Left Bundle Branch Conduction Recovery Following Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Heart Failure Patient.

This report presents the application of left bundle branch pacing as a cardiac resynchronization therapy in a patient with systolic heart failure and complete left bundle branch block. At the 3-month follow-up, the patient had significant improvement in cardiac function accompanied by the recovery of left bundle branch conduction. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Non-invasive electrophysiological assessment of the optimal configuration of quadripolar lead vectors on ventricular activation times.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is now generally delivered via quadripolar leads. Assessment of the effect of different vector programs from quadripolar leads on ventricular activation can be now done using non-invasive electrocardiographic mapping (ECM). MATERIAL AND METHODS: In nineteen patients with quadripolar LV leads, activation maps were constructed. The total ventricular activation time (TVaT) and the time for the bulk of ventricular activation (VaT10-90) were calculated. RESULTS: CRT delivered via a quadripolar lead significantly reduced TVaT and VaT10-90 by a mean of 16 ms and 31 ms, respectively, compared to baseline. There was a marked reduction in ventricular activation between the most and least synchronous vectors: 28% difference in baseline TVaT and 37% difference in VaT10-90. CONCLUSION: Changes in the configuration of an LV quadripolar lead significantly affected ventricular activation timings in both ischaemic and non-ischaemic subjects. This suggests that programming of the optimal pacing vector may need to be individually tailored.

Guidewire Method for Measuring Local Left Ventricular Electrical Activation Time During Cardiac Resynchronization Implantation.

The timing of local activation at left ventricular (LV) pacing leads is measured from the onset of the QRS complex to the peak of the LV electrogram (QLV). Pacing from the sites of late activation is associated with higher response rates to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Prior studies have measured QLV from permanent pacing leads, or have used electroanatomic mapping systems. The current study compares QLV measurements made with a guidewire to those collected from permanent LV pacing leads positioned at the same venous site without the use of electroanatomic mapping systems. In this study, 20 patients undergoing CRT implantation (14 males, mean QRS: 164.0 ms) had QLV measurements taken using a guidewire. QLV and LV electrogram duration measurements were made at LV pacing sites, and were repeated after positioning the permanent LV pacing lead at the same site. There was no difference in QLV measurements obtained using a guidewire and those obtained using the permanent pacing lead placed at the same site (p = 0.569). QLV measurements obtained with a guidewire and the permanent LV pacing lead at the same site, respectively, were strongly correlated (r = 0.965; p < 0.001). The median absolute difference in electrogram duration was 7.0 ms (p = 0.55). The average time required to make QLV measurements using the guidewire was 11.7 minutes [standard deviation (SD): 6.8]. The average total fluoroscopy time for the entire CRT implant procedure was 10.9 minutes (SD: 5.1). In light of these results, it can be suggested that a guidewire can be used to prospectively measure LV prior to selection or placement of a permanent pacing lead without the use of an electroanatomic mapping system.