Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing.

Cardiac pacing to treat bradyarrhythmias has evolved in recent decades. Recognition that a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients can develop heart failure due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from traditional right ventricular apical pacing has led to development of more physiologic pacing methods that better mimic normal cardiac conduction and provide synchronized ventricular contraction. Conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease but can be limited by scarring and fibrosis. His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing are novel techniques that can provide more physiologic ventricular activation as an alternative to conventional or biventricular pacing. Leadless pacing has emerged as another alternative pacing technique to overcome limitations in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Our objective is to review the evolution of cardiac pacing and explore these new advances in pacing strategies.

Prognostic benefits of His-Purkinje capture in physiological pacemakers for bradycardia.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical outcomes of long-term ventricular septal pacing (VSP) without His-Purkinje capture remain unknown. This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes between conduction system pacing (CSP), VSP, and right ventricular pacing (RVP). METHODS: Consecutive patients with bradycardia indicated for pacing from 2016 to 2022 were prospectively followed for the clinical endpoints of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations and all-cause mortality at 2 years. VSP was defined as septal pacing due to unsuccessful CSP implant or successful CSP followed by loss of His-Purkinje capture within 90 days. RESULTS: Among 1016 patients (age 73.9 ± 11.2 years, 47% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 612 received RVP, 335 received CSP and 69 received VSP. Paced QRS duration was similar between VSP and RVP, but both significantly longer than CSP (p < .05). HF-hospitalizations occurred in 130 (13%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 16% vs. VSP 13%, p = .001), and all-cause mortality in 143 (14%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 19% vs. VSP 9%, p < .001). The association of pacing modality with clinical events was limited to those with ventricular pacing (Vp) > 20% (pinteraction < .05). Adjusting for clinical risk factors among patients with Vp > 20%, VSP (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 4.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-14.36) and RVP (AHR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.44-6.60) were associated with increased hazard of HF-hospitalizations, and RVP (2.52, 95% CI: 1.19-5.35) with increased mortality, compared to CSP. Clinical endpoints did not differ between VSP and RVP with Vp > 20%, or amongst groups with Vp < 20%. CONCLUSION: Conduction system capture is associated with improved clinical outcomes. CSP should be preferred over VSP or RVP during pacing for bradycardia.

Conduction system pacing: how far are we from the "electrical" bypass?

Conduction system pacing is an alternative practice to conventional right ventricular apical pacing. It is a method that maintains physiologic ventricular activation, based on a correct pathophysiological basis, in which the pacing lead bypasses the lesion of the electrical fibers and the electrical impulse transmits through the intact adjacent conduction system. For this reason, it might be reasonably characterized by the term "electrical bypass" compared to the coronary artery bypass in revascularization therapy. In this review, reference is made to the sequence of events in which conventional right ventricular pacing may cause adverse outcomes. Furthermore, there is a reference to alternative strategies and pacing sites. Interest focuses on the modalities for which there are data from the literature, namely for the right ventricular (RV) septal pacing, the His bundle pacing (HBP), and the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). A more extensive reference is about the HBP, for which there are the most updated data. We analyze the considerations that limit HBP-wide application in three axes, and we also present the data for the implantation and follow-up of these patients. The indications with their most important studies to date are then described in detail, not only in their undoubtedly positive findings but also in their weak aspects, because of which this pacing mode has not yet received a strong recommendation for implementation. Finally, there is a report on LBBP, focusing mainly on its points of differentiation from HBP.

Mid-term performance of His bundle pacing and usefulness of backup leads.

Ventricular backup leads may be considered in selected patients with His bundle pacing (HBP), but it remains unknown to what extent this is useful. A total of 184 HBP patients were studied. At last follow-up, 147 (79.9%) patients retained His bundle capture at programmed output. His bundle pacing lead revision was performed in 5/36 (13.9%) patients without a backup lead and in 3/148 (2.0%) patients with a backup lead (P = 0.008). One patient without a backup lead had syncope due to atrial oversensing. Thus, implantation of ventricular backup leads may avoid lead revision and adverse events in selected HBP patients.

Extraction of lumen less pacing leads from the His Bundle and left bundle branch area - outcomes of the high volume center.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The application of conduction system pacing (CSP) in clinical practice is growing, and the need for lead extraction will also increase. The data on outcomes and safety of CSP lead extraction are limited. The aim of this study was to assess procedural outcomes and safety of CSP lead removal. METHODS: Forty-seven patients from the EXTRACT Registry with the indication for CSP lead removal were enrolled in the study conducted at the Department of Electrocardiology in Katowice, Poland. Extraction technique, outcomes, safety, and complication were evaluated. RESULTS: Forty-three (91.5%) leads were successfully removed, and 41 (87.2%) were removed with traction only. The dwelling time of 28 extracted leads was longer than one year, and the oldest extracted lead was implanted for 89 months. Seven (14.9%) leads were removed from the left bundle branch area and 36 from the His bundle. Transient complete AV block occurred during the procedure in two patients. In 27 out of 31 attempts (87.1%), new CSP leads were implanted: nine (33.3%) His bundle pacing leads and 18 (66.7%) left bundle branch area pacing leads. CONCLUSION: The CSP lead extraction is safe and feasible with a low complication rate and high rate of CSP lead reimplantation.

The clinical anatomy of the atrioventricular conduction axis.

It is axiomatic that the chances of achieving accurate capture of the conduction axis and its fascicles will be optimized by equally accurate knowledge of the relationship of the components to the recognizable cardiac landmarks, and we find it surprising that acknowledged experts should continue to use drawings that fall short in terms of anatomical accuracy. The accuracy achieved by Sunao Tawara (1906) in showing the location of the atrioventricular conduction axis is little short of astounding. Our purpose in bringing this to current attention is to question the need of the experts to have produced such inaccurate representations, since the findings of Tawara have been extensively endorsed in very recent years. The recent studies do no more than point to the amazing accuracy of the initial account of Tawara. At the same time, we draw attention to the findings described in the middle of the 20th century by Ivan Mahaim (1947). These observations have tended to be ignored in recent accounts. They are, perhaps, of equal significance to those seeking specifically to pace the left fascicles of the branching atrioventricular bundle.

His potential injury as the end point of screwing by a continuous recording technique in His bundle pacing: A case report.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) engaged electrical activation of both ventricles by stimulating the His-Purkinje network, which could avoid marked ventricles dyssynchrony. The lead was given three to five clockwise rotations at the site with the His potential to anchor the interventricular septum. In 2018, the Multicenter His Bundle Pacing Collaborative Working Group recommended that the His bundle capture threshold should be lower than 2.5 V/1 ms in non-pacing-dependent patients, and pacing-dependent patients should have a lower adjacent ventricular capture threshold as self-backup. Therefore, to avoid safety issues such as loss of capture caused by increased threshold, we believe that more stringent criteria should be adopted in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). In previous studies, the connection cable needed to be disconnected during the screwing. When the procedure was finished, the performer found that the patients with His bundle injury could obtain a lower threshold than those without His bundle injury. Although no studies of new bundle branch block (BBB) or AVB by the acute His bundle injury was reported. However, It is worrying that the damage of His bundle seems random during the procedure. How to balance avoiding severe injury with a lower capture threshold? At present, we report a case of light His injury and lower His capture threshold under continuous intracardiac electrocardiogram monitoring.

Single operator experience, learning curve, outcomes, and insights gained with conduction system pacing.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is increasingly utilized to prevent and correct dyssynchrony. Barriers to CSP adoption include limited training, methodologic variability, laboratory slot allocation, and few data on learning curves. We report learning curves/clinical outcomes from a single experienced electrophysiologist who was new to CSP, and share gained insights. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent attempted CSP implantation (2016-2023). Patient characteristics, ECGs, echocardiograms, fluoroscopy/procedure times, lead data were recorded at implant and follow-up. RESULTS: CSP leads were implanted successfully in 167/191(87.4%) patients with a follow-up of 278 ± 378 days. His-bundle pacing (HBP = 59) and left-bundle-area pacing (LBAP = 108) had similar procedure/fluoroscopy times, QRS duration decreases, and ejection fraction improvements (all p > NS). Eight HBP lead revisions were required for high capture thresholds LBAP demonstrated lower pacing thresholds, higher lead impedances, and greater R-wave amplitudes at implant and follow-up. After 25 HBP cases, implant pacing thresholds, fluoroscopy, procedural times did not decrease. After 25 LBAP cases, there were significant decreases in all these parameters (p < 0.05). A separate analysis in LBAP patients with recorded Purkinje signals showed no differences in paced ECG characteristics between patients with pre- QRS Purkinje signals versus patients with Purkinje signals post-QRS onset. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced implanters who are new to CSP can achieve steady-state procedural/fluoroscopy times after a learning curve of 25 implants. LBAP showed lower capture thresholds and higher success rates. Adequate depth of lead deployment (as determined by published parameters) does not require Purkinje potential to be pre-QRS. Operators new to CSP.can forego HBP and directly implement LBAP.

Optimizing conduction system pacing lead placement utilizing the image overlay technique.

The His-bundle has several locations from which conduction system pacing can be achieved. Some locations offer better sensing, thresholds and paced QRS durations. Existing techniques to aid repositioning of an already deployed, but sub-optimally placed lead, include either simple memory of the initial lead position combined with its observation on an x-ray review screen or utilizing an additional vascular access and pacing lead with the first lead serving as a real-time marker (Two-lead technique). We describe a novel, readily available, cost-efficient, imaging-based approach to assist in the re-positioning of a pacing lead for His-bundle pacing (the Image Overlay Technique).

Output-dependent His bundle pacing: Unexpected His-Purkinje system pathology unmasking.

The anatomy of the His-Purkinje system has been studied, yet there remains a knowledge gap regarding the impact of His bundle pacing and its electrocardiographic implications. This case report highlights the presence of His-Purkinje system pathology without apparent clues on the surface electrocardiogram (EKG). By observing identical QRS morphology with varying HV intervals resulting from different pacing outputs, we demonstrate the presence of an electrical propagation block within the His bundle.

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). RECENT FINDINGS: Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

The interventricular conduction delays guide best cardiac resynchronization therapy: A tailored-patient approach to perform a CRT through Conduction System Pacing.

Evaluation of conduction intervals to predict success of resynchronization in biventricular pacing(BiVP) or Conduction System Pacing(CSP) is not spread in clinical practice. A right ventricle-to-left ventricle intrinsic conduction interval (RVs-LVs) > 70 ms or prolonged RVpaced - LVs(RVp-LVs)interval can predict Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT)response.This paper describes a case of cardiac resynchronization guided by spontaneous and paced interventricular conduction delays (IVCD) obtained in BiVP that led to changing intraoperative approach. A strategy for cardiac resynchronization based on the CSP/BiVP approach according to the IVCD could represent a viable and reliable solution to obtain a narrow paced QRS and to improve the CRT response.

Antitachycardia pacing at the His bundle is safer than conventional right ventricular antitachycardia pacing in a canine myocardial ischemic injury model.

INTRODUCTION: Antitachycardia pacing (ATP) is used to terminate ventricular tachycardia (VT) by delivering rapid, low energy pacing to the right ventricle (RV). Unfortunately, ATP is not effective against all VT episodes and can result in adverse outcomes, such as VT acceleration and degeneration into ventricular fibrillation (VF). Improving ATP is therefore desirable. Our objective was to compare the efficacy and safety of ATP delivered at the His bundle to traditional ATP. METHODS: Six dogs were anesthetized and pacing leads were implanted in the RV and His bundle. The left anterior descending artery was occluded for 2 h to create an ischemic injury. In a study 4-7 days later, a 128-electrode sock was placed snugly around the ventricles and VT was induced using rapid pacing. ATP was delivered from either the His bundle or RV lead, then attempted at the other location if unsuccessful. Success rates and instances of VT acceleration and degeneration into VF were calculated. RESULTS: We induced 83 runs of VT and attempted ATP 128 times. RV ATP was successful in 36% of attempts; His ATP was successful in 38% of attempts. RV ATP resulted in significantly more adverse outcomes. RV and His ATP induced VT acceleration in 9% and 3% of trains, respectively, and induced degeneration into VF in 5% and 1% of trains, respectively. CONCLUSION: His bundle ATP is safer, but not significantly more effective, than RV ATP.

Effect of scar and His-Purkinje and myocardium conduction on response to conduction system pacing.

INTRODUCTION: Conduction system pacing (CSP), in the form of His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), is emerging as a valuable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery method. However, patient selection and therapy personalization for CSP delivery remain poorly characterized. We aim to compare pacing-induced electrical synchrony during CRT, HBP, LBBP, HBP with left ventricular (LV) epicardial lead (His-optimized CRT [HOT-CRT]), and LBBP with LV epicardial lead (LBBP-optimized CRT [LOT-CRT]) in patients with different conduction disease presentations using computational modeling. METHODS: We simulated ventricular activation on 24 four-chamber heart geometries, including His-Purkinje systems with proximal left bundle branch block (LBBB). We simulated septal scar, LV lateral wall scar, and mild and severe myocardium and LV His-Purkinje system conduction disease by decreasing the conduction velocity (CV) down to 70% and 35% of the healthy CV. Electrical synchrony was measured by the shortest interval to activate 90% of the ventricles (90% of biventricular activation time [BIVAT-90]). RESULTS: Severe LV His-Purkinje conduction disease favored CRT (BIVAT-90: HBP 101.5 ± 7.8 ms vs. CRT 93.0 ± 8.9 ms, p < .05), with additional electrical synchrony induced by HOT-CRT (87.6 ± 6.7 ms, p < .05) and LOT-CRT (73.9 ± 7.6 ms, p < .05). Patients with slow myocardium CV benefit more from CSP compared to CRT (BIVAT-90: CRT 134.5 ± 24.1 ms; HBP 97.1 ± 9.9 ms, p < .01; LBBP: 101.5 ± 10.7 ms, p < .01). Septal but not lateral wall scar made CSP ineffective, while CRT was able to resynchronize the ventricles in the presence of septal scar (BIVAT-90: baseline 119.1 ± 10.8 ms vs. CRT 85.1 ± 14.9 ms, p < .01). CONCLUSION: Severe LV His-Purkinje conduction disease attenuates the benefits of CSP, with additional improvements achieved with HOT-CRT and LOT-CRT. Septal but not lateral wall scars make CSP ineffective.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is observed to produce greater improvements in echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, whether these surrogate endpoints directly translate to improvements in hard clinical outcomes such as death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) with CSP remains uncertain as studies reporting these outcomes are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the existing data to compare the clinical outcomes of CSP versus BiVP. METHODS: A systematic search of the Embase and PubMed database was performed for studies comparing CSP and BiVP for patients indicated to receive a CRT device. The coprimary endpoints were all-cause mortality and HFH. Other secondary outcomes included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), change in NYHA class, and increase in NYHA class ≥1. A random-effects model was chosen a priori to analyze the composite effects given the anticipated heterogeneity of included trials. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (4 randomized and 17 observational) were identified reporting either primary outcome and were included in the meta-analysis. In total 1960 patients were assigned to CSP and 2367 to BiVP. Median follow-up time was 10.1 months (ranging 2-33 months). CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.83) and HFH (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.63). Mean improvement in LVEF was also greater with CSP (mean difference 4.26, 95% CI: 3.19-5.33). Reduction in NYHA class was significantly greater with CSP (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.22) and the number of patients with an increase in NYHA class ≥1 was significantly greater with CSP (OR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.70-2.40). CONCLUSIONS: CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and HFH when compared to conventional BiVP for CRT. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to verify these observations.

Optimization of the atrioventricular delay in conduction system pacing.

INTRODUCTION: In patients receiving conduction system pacing (CSP), it is not well established how to program the sensed atrioventricular delay (sAVD), with respect to the type of capture obtained (selective, nonselective His-bundle [HB] capture or left bundle branch [LBB] capture). The aim of this study was to acutely assess the effectiveness of an electrophysiology (EP)-guided method for sAVD optimization by comparing it with the echocardiogram-guided optimization. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients undergoing HB or LBB pacing were enrolled. The EP-guided sAVD was defined as the sAVD leading to a PR interval of 150 ms on surface electrocardiogram (ECG). In HB pacing patients, EP-guided sAVD was obtained subtracting the time from the onset of the P wave on ECG to the local atrial electrogram (EGM) recorded by the atrial lead (right atrial sensing latency, RASL) and the His-ventricular interval from 150 ms; in LBB pacing patients, subtracting RASL from 150 ms. Transmitral flow assessment by pulsed wave Doppler was used to find the echo-optimized sAVD by a modified iterative method. The discordance between the EP-guided and the echo-optimized sAVD was recorded. RESULTS: Seventy-one patients were enrolled: 12 with selective, 32 nonselective HB capture, and 27 LBB capture. Overall, the rate of concordance between the EP-guided and the echo-optimized sAVD was 71.8%, with no significant differences between the three groups. CONCLUSION: In CSP patients, an optimal sAVD can be programmed, in more than 70% of cases, considering only simple EGM intervals to obtain a physiological PR interval on surface ECG.

Conduction system pacing: promoting the physiology to prevent heart failure.

Cardiac conduction system pacing provides physiological ventricular activation by directly stimulating the conduction system. This review describes the two types of conduction system pacing: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle area pacing (LBAP). The most significant advantage of HB pacing is that it can provide a regular, narrow QRS; however, the disadvantages are challenging implantation and a high risk of re-intervention due to lead dislodgement and the development of high pacing threshold. LBAP provides optimum physiological activation of the left ventricle by engaging the left bundle/fascicular fibers. LBAP is more physiological than traditional RV apical pacing and could be an attractive alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The advantages of LBAP are a relatively more straightforward implantation technique than HBP, better lead stability and pacing thresholds. HBP and LBAP are more physiological than right ventricular pacing and may be used instead of conventional pacemakers. Both HBP and LBBP are being investigated as alternatives to conventional CRT.

A conversion CRT strategy combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative for heart failure patients with persistent atrial fibrillation.

Heart failure (HF) combined with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist and may promote the pathological conditions of cardiac dysfunction, leading to poor prognosis. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) combined with atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) is a highly effective treatment for HF patients with underlying AF who either have failed or are not suitable for catheter ablation. The CRT-AVJA combination therapy can improve clinical outcomes in HF patients. Currently, clinical CRT methods are categorized into biventricular pacing (BVP) - based and conduction system pacing (CSP) - based methods. These procedures have inherent advantages and disadvantages, in addition to their considerable differences in clinical applications. This article aims to review the clinical progress of AVJA combined with different CRT strategies for treating HF patients with persistent AF and propose that conversion CRT strategy (BVP/CSP-CRT) combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative. Meanwhile, we generalize that 7 categories of HF patients with persistent AF may need to consider the CRT-AVJA combination therapy.

Conversion to Sinus Rhythm in Refractory Atrial Fibrillation Patients after Atrioventricular Node Ablation with Conduction System Pacing.

Background: "Ablate and pace" strategy is a reasonable treatment option in refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) when sinus rhythm (SR) cannot be achieved with catheter ablation or pharmacological therapy. Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) combined with conduction system pacing (CSP), with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) or His bundle pacing (HBP), is gaining recognition since it offers the most physiological activation of the left ventricle. However, the incidence of conversion to SR after AVNA with CSP is not known. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the incidence of spontaneous conversion to SR and its predicting factors in patients undergoing CSP and AVNA. Methods: Consecutive refractory symptomatic AF patients undergoing AVNA with CSP at our institution between June 2018 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Twelve lead electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings were analyzed at each outpatient follow-up visit. Echocardiographic and clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and six months after the implantation. Results: Sixty-eight patients (male 42.6%, age 71 ± 8 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 40 ± 15%) were included. Thirty-seven patients (54.4%) received HBP and 31 (45.6%) LBBP. During follow-up, spontaneous conversion to SR was registered in 6 patients (8.8%); 3 in the HBP group and 3 in the LBBP group. Baseline characteristics of patients who converted to SR did not differ from non-sinus rhythm (NSR) patients except for left atrial volume index (LAVI), which was significantly smaller in the SR group (45 mL/ m 2 (41-51) vs. 60 mL/ m 2 (52-75); p = 0.002). Multiple regression model confirmed an inverse association between LAVI and conversion to SR even after considering other clinically relevant covariates (odds ratio 1.273, p = 0.028). At follow-up, LAVI did not change in any group (SR: p = 0.345; NSR: p = 0.508). Improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class was comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Spontaneous conversion to SR after AVNA combined with CSP is not uncommon, especially in patients with smaller left atria. Further studies are warranted to clarify which patients should be considered for initial dual-chamber device implantation to provide atrio-ventricular synchrony in case of SR restoration.

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: an acute electrical and haemodynamic within-patient comparison of left bundle branch area, His bundle, and biventricular pacing.

AIMS: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP -35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP -19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (-46 ± 15 ms, -36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP -43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP -45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP -13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: HBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response.