Relationship Between Electrical Parameters and Cardiac Synchrony in Patients Underwent Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.

PURPOSE: The study aims to assess cardiac synchrony under different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and evaluate the relationship between different surface or intracardiac electrical parameters and mechanical synchrony. METHODS: Eighty-two patients with successful LBBAP were recruited. The electrical synchrony, evaluated by paced QRS duration (pQRSD) and Stim-LVAT (stimulus to left ventricular activation time), and mechanical synchrony, evaluated by the standard deviation of the time-to-peak contraction velocity in 12 left ventricular segments (Tsd-12-LV), were compared between groups in patients underwent LBBAP. To investigate the relationship between different electrical parameters with mechanical synchrony under LBBAP, patients were divided into subgroups according to left ventricular activation time (LVAT, < 60, 60-70, and > 70 ms), presence of left bundle branch (LBB) potential (positive, negative), QRS axis (normal, left axis deviation [LAD]), and potential to ventricular interval (PVI, < 20 and > 20 ms). Mechanical synchrony was compared among the subgroups respectively 3 days post LBBAP procedure. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences were documented in electrical synchrony, evaluated by pQRSD, and mechanical synchrony, evaluated by Tsd-12-LV among the subgroups divided by the stim-LVAT, LBB potential, PVI duration, or paced QRS axis in the LBBAP group. CONCLUSIONS: LBB potential, PVI, or normal paced QRS axis is not the prerequisite for successful LBBAP and optimal cardiac synchrony. Adopting a Stim-LVAT value of less than 75 ms to attain ideal electrical and mechanical synchrony during the LBBAP procedure may be applicable. TRIAL REGISTRATION: http://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx. CLINICALTRIALS: gov identifier: ChiCTR1800021104.

Abnormal inter-ventricular diastolic mechanical delay in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate the ventricular mechanical relaxation pattern and its clinical influence in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). METHODS: Echocardiography was performed to measure mitral and tricuspid diastolic opening times. Left ventricular diastolic mechanical delay (LVMDd) was defined as diastolic filling of the right ventricle earlier than that of the left ventricle, and right ventricular diastolic mechanical delay (RVMDd) was defined as the right ventricular diastolic filling later than left ventricular filling. RESULTS: Among 152 patients with STEMI, 100 (65.8%) had LVMDd, and 47 (30.9%) had RVMDd. In-hospital complications were significantly increased in patients with RVMDd (61.6% vs. 41.0%, P = 0.017). Those with RVMDd exhibited significantly lower left ventricular global longitudinal strain (11.7 ± 4.1% vs. 13.2 ± 4.0%, P = 0.035), global work index (913.8 ± 365.9 vs. 1098.9 ± 358.8 mmHg%, P = 0.005) and global constructive work (1218.6 ± 392.8 vs. 1393.7 ± 432.7 mmHg%, P = 0.021). Mitral deceleration time significantly decreased (127.4 ± 33.5 vs. 145.6 ± 41.7 ms, P = 0.012), and the ratio of early mitral inflow to early mitral annular velocity (E/E') significantly increased [13.0(11.0-20.0) vs. 11.9(9.3-14.3), P = 0.006] in the RVMDd group. Logistic regression analysis showed that age (odds ratio [OR]:0.920; P = 0.001), brain natriuretic peptide level (OR: 1.1002; P = 0.036) and mitral E/E' (OR: 1.187; P = 0.003) were independently associated with RVMDd. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed right ventricular filling is related to more severe left ventricular systolic and diastolic dysfunction in STEMI patients. More attention should be paid to patients with RVMDd to prevent adverse events during hospitalization.

Impact on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation: Left bundle branch pacing versus right ventricular septum pacing.

BACKGROUND: The novel method of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been reported to achieve better electrical and mechanical synchrony in the left ventricle than conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing dual-chamber pacemaker (PM) implantation for sick sinus syndrome (SSS) with normal cardiac function and a narrow QRS complex were recruited for the study. The pacing characteristics and echocardiogram parameters were measured to evaluate RV function, interventricular and RV synchrony, and were compared between ventricular pacing-on and native-conduction modes. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients diagnosed with SSS and an indication for pacing therapy were enrolled. Forty-two patients (50%; mean age 65.50 ± 9.30 years; 35% male) underwent successful LBBP and 42 patients (50%; mean age 69.26 ± 10.08 years; 33% male) RVSP, respectively. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. We found no significant differences in RV function [RV-FAC (Fractional Area Change)%, 47.13 ± 5.69 versus 48.60 ± 5.83, p = .069; Endo-GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)%, -28.88 ± 4.94 versus -29.82 ± 5.35, p = .114; Myo-GLS%, -25.72 ± 4.75 versus -25.72 ± 5.21, p = .559; Free Wall St%, 27.40 ± 8.03 versus -28.71 ± 7.34, p = .304] between the native-conduction and LBBP capture modes, while the RVSP capture mode was associated with a significant reduction in the above parameters compared with the native-conduction mode (p < .0001). The interventricular synchrony in the LBBP group was also superior to the RVSP group significantly. CONCLUSION: LBBP is a pacing technique that seems to associate with a positive and protective impact on RV performance.

Left bundle branch potential predicts better electrical synchrony in bradycardia patients receiving left bundle branch pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technology. We aim to explore the relation between LBB potential (LBB Po) and left ventricular (LV) electrical/mechanical synchrony in bradycardia patients without heart failure (HF) receiving LBBP. METHODS: A total of 62 patients undergoing LBBP were categorized by LBB Po: the LBB Po positive (+) group and the LBB Po negative (-) group. The perioperative electrocardiographic and echocardiography parameters related to cardiac synchrony were analyzed. RESULTS: There were 42 (67.74%) patients in the LBB Po (+) group and 20 patients in the LBB Po (-) group. Paced QRS duration (113.50 ± 17.65 ms vs. 123.40 ± 13.18 ms, P = 0.031) and stimulus left ventricular activation time (71.76 ± 3.53 ms vs. 74.45 ± 3.12 ms, P = 0.005) were shorter in the LBB Po (+) group than in the LBB Po (-) group. No significant differences in the LV mechanical synchrony (Ts-SD-12, 36.55 ± 19.76 vs. 39.95 ± 16.04, P = 0.505; PSD, 51.14 ± 17.69 vs. 45.65 ± 10.55, P = 0.205) between the two groups. There was not statistically difference in ventricular lead parameters measured intraoperative between the two groups. Compared with the LBB Po (-) group, the LBB Po (+) group showed a dramatically higher total procedure duration time (93.52 ± 9.18 min vs. 86.25 ± 10.54 min, p = 0.007) and fluoroscopy time for ventricle lead implantation (18.95 ± 3.43 min vs. 14.00 ± 3.16 min, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The appearance of LBB Po may suggest better electrical synchrony during LBBP, but similar in LV mechanical synchrony. However, the total operation duration and fluoroscopy time of ventricular lead implantation in the LBB Po (+) group were longer. Therefore, it may be unnecessary to deliberately recognize the LBB Po when it is difficult to detect LBB Po and meet the LBBP criterion.

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.

Comparison of synchronization between left bundle branch and his bundle pacing in atrial fibrillation patients: An intra-patient-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological pacing strategy to preserve the electrical synchrony of ventricular conduction and left ventricular (LV) function. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative physiological pacing technique. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony comparing LBBP and HBP in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Consecutive patients with symptomatic bradycardia and AF were enrolled from January to June of 2019. The cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony in different pacing mode were evaluated at baseline and after implantation. RESULTS: Both HBP and LBBP were performed in 20 patients. LBBP significantly widened the QRS duration compared with the intrinsic conduction (113.2 ± 14.5  vs. 96.5 ± 16.2 ms; p = .01), while HBP did not (104.5 ± 22.3  vs. 96.5 ± 16.2 ms; p = .12). Both LBBP and HBP patients had similar LV myocardial strain measurements for the mechanical synchrony evaluation without significant change compared with baseline. There was no significant difference in right ventricular synchrony measurement between LBBP and HBP. Compared to HBP, LBBP had less interventricular synchrony (IMVD, 14.7 ± 9.2  vs. 3.1 ± 12.7 ms, p < .01; Ts-LV-RV, 37.9 ± 10.7  vs. 18.5 ± 10.8 ms, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although LBBP's a physiological pacing mode can achieve a similar cardiac electrical and mechanical synchronization when compared to HBP, LBBP results in modest delay in RV activation, and the clinical implication remains to be studied.

Evaluation of cardiac synchrony in left bundle branch pacing: Insights from echocardiographic research.

AIM: The aim of this study is to assess if left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can preserve physiological cardiac synchrony and deliver favorable hemodynamic effects. METHODS: Consecutive patients undergoing dual chamber pacemaker implantation for sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and a normal cardiac function with a narrow QRS complex were recruited for the study. Electrocardiogram and echocardiographic examinations were performed during ventricular pacing-on and native-conduction modes. The QRS duration (QRSd), systolic dyssynchrony index (SDI), and the standard deviation of time-to-peak contraction velocity in left ventricular (LV) 12 segments (Tsd-12-LV) were measured to evaluate LV synchrony. The stroke volume (SV) and the degree of atrioventricular valvular regurgitation were also assessed. RESULTS: A total of 40 patients underwent LBBP, while another 38 patients underwent right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) as control group. Baseline characteristics were similar between the two groups. With LBBP, the paced QRSd was slightly wider than the intrinsic QRSd (101.03 ± 8.79 ms vs 91.06 ± 14.17 ms, P < .0001) while the LV mechanical synchrony during LBBP pacing mode was similar to that of native-conduction mode (SDI, 3.14 ± 2.49 vs 2.70 ± 1.68, P = 0.129; Tsd-12-LV, 26.43 ± 15.55 vs 25.61 ± 16.07, P = .671) in the LBBP group. The LV synchrony in the LBBP group was superior to the RVSP group significantly. No significant differences in SV (64.08 ± 16.97 mL vs 65.45 ± 18.68 mL, P = .241) or the degree of atrioventricular valvular regurgitation were noted between LBBP capture and native-conduction modes. CONCLUSION: LBBP could preserve satisfactory LV synchrony and result in favorable hemodynamic effects.

Ventricular synchrony is not significantly determined by absolute myocardial perfusion in patients with chronic heart failure: A 13N-ammonia PET study.

BACKGROUND: It is thought that heart failure (HF) patients may benefit from the evaluation of mechanical (dys)synchrony, and an independent inverse relationship between myocardial perfusion and ventricular synchrony has been suggested. We explore the relationship between quantitative myocardial perfusion and synchrony parameters when accounting for the presence and extent of fixed perfusion defects in patients with chronic HF. METHODS: We studied 98 patients with chronic HF who underwent rest and stress Nitrogen-13 ammonia PET. Multivariate analyses of covariance were performed to determine relevant predictors of synchrony (measured as bandwidth, standard deviation, and entropy). RESULTS: In our population, there were 43 (44%) women and 55 men with a mean age of 71 ± 9.6 years. The SRS was the strongest independent predictor of mechanical synchrony variables (p < .01), among other considered predictors including: age, sex, body mass index, smoking, diabetes mellitus, dyslipidemia, hypertension, rest myocardial blood flow (MBF), and myocardial perfusion reserve (MPR). Results were similar when considering stress MBF instead of MPR. CONCLUSIONS: The existence and extent of fixed perfusion defects, but not the quantitative PET myocardial perfusion parameters (sMBF and MPR), constitute a significant independent predictor of ventricular mechanical synchrony in patients with chronic HF.

Comparison of CZT SPECT and conventional SPECT for assessment of contractile function, mechanical synchrony and myocardial scar in patients with heart failure.

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare CZT-SPECT (CZT SPECT) to conventional SPECT (C-SPECT) in the assessment of left ventricular myocardial scar, contractile function, and mechanical synchrony in patients with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Fifty-nine patients with HF who were referred for myocardial perfusion/metabolism imaging were enrolled. All patients underwent resting 99mTc-MIBI gated myocardial perfusion imaging using a CZT SPECT camera and a C-SPECT camera, respectively, and 18F-FDG PET myocardial metabolism imaging within three days. Summed rest score (SRS) and total perfusion defect (TPD) (as indices of perfusion abnormality), left ventricular (LV), end diastolic volume (EDV), end systolic volume (ESV), and ejection fraction (EF) (as indices of LV systolic function), and histogram band width (BW) and standard deviation (SD) (as indices of mechanical synchrony) were analyzed by automated software while the perfusion/metabolism patterns were analyzed visually. RESULTS: There was a good correlation between CZT SPECT and C-SPECT for SRS and TPD. CZT SPECT tended to underestimate SRS and TPD compared to C-SPECT. CZT-SPECT and C-SPECT showed excellent agreement in assessing the perfusion/metabolism pattern though a small proportion of normal segments (6.6%) identified by CZT/PET exhibited mismatch pattern on C-SPECT/PET. CZT SPECT also showed excellent correlation with C-SPECT in measuring EDV, ESV, and EF. Finally, BW and SD measured by CZT SPECT correlated well with C-SPECT but CZT SPECT tended to overestimate BW and SD compared to C-SPECT. CONCLUSION: CZT SPECT provided comparable data to C-SPECT for measuring LV scar, function and synchrony at a considerable reduction in imaging time. CZT SPECT holds a promise for comprehensive evaluation of myocardial performance in patients with HF.

Feasibility and cardiac synchrony of permanent left bundle branch pacing through the interventricular septum.

AIMS: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) recently emerges as a novel pacing modality. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and cardiac synchrony of permanent LBBP in bradycardia patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Left bundle branch pacing was successfully performed in 56 pacemaker-indicated patients with normal cardiac function. Left bundle branch pacing was achieved by penetrating the interventricular septum (IVS) into the left side sub-endocardium with the pacing lead. His-bundle pacing (HBP) was successfully performed in another 29 patients, 19 of whom had right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) for backup pacing. The QRS duration, left ventricular (LV) activation time (LVAT), and mechanical synchrony using phase analysis of gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging were evaluated. Paced QRS duration in LBBP group was significantly shorter than that in RVSP group (117.8 ± 11.0 ms vs. 158.1 ± 11.1 ms, P < 0.0001) and wider than that in HBP group (99.7 ± 15.6 ms, P < 0.0001). Left bundle branch potential was recorded during procedure in 37 patients (67.3%). Left bundle branch pacing patients with potential had shorter LVAT than those without potential (73.1 ± 11.3 ms vs. 83.2 ± 16.8 ms, P = 0.03). Left bundle branch pacing patients with potential had similar LV mechanical synchrony to those in HBP group. R-wave amplitude and capture threshold of LBBP were 17.0 ± 6.7 mV and 0.5 ± 0.1 V, respectively at implant and remained stable during a mean follow-up of 4.5 months without lead-related complications. CONCLUSION: Permanent LBBP through IVS is safe and feasible in bradycardia patients. Left bundle branch pacing could achieve favourable cardiac electrical and LV mechanical synchrony.

Left bundle branch pacing on mechanical synchrony and myocardial work in bradycardia patients.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing method to produce narrower QRS duration, but whether it could restore mechanical synchrony and improve myocardial work still lacks sufficient evidence. Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate mechanical synchrony and myocardial work in LBBP. We collected 20 patients with LBBP due to symptomatic bradycardia and another 29 age-matched patients with right ventricular pacing (RVP). For LBBP patients, cardiac electro-mechanical synchrony and myocardial work were measured at baseline and 7 days after implantation and compared with the RVP patients. In the LBBP group, paced QRS duration and mechanical synchrony were not significantly different from baseline(all P > 0.05), but significantly smaller than that in the RVP group (all P<0.05). Meanwhile, global longitudinal strain (GLS) in LBBP was greater than that in the RVP group (17.7 ± 3.5% vs. 14.8 ± 3.1%, P < 0.05). Global myocardial work index and global constructive work were also better than that in the RVP group(all P<0.05). Global work efficiency was 91.9 ± 3.1%, which was greater when compared with RVP (P < 0.05). LBBP provides better cardiac electro-mechanical synchrony and more effective myocardial work than that in RVP, thus improving global heart function.

Echocardiographic Evaluation of the Effect on Left Ventricular Function Between Left Bundle Branch Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess the left ventricular function effects of permanent left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) versus traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Patients and Methods: Consecutive patients receiving pacemaker implantation were included and divided into left bundle branch block (LBBB) group and right ventricular pacing (RVP) group. Baseline characteristics were collected, and they received 1-year follow-up. Electrocardiogram (ECG) characteristics and pacing parameters were assessed before and after implantation. Cardiac function parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) were recorded and compared. Results: Of 78 patients included, 45 patients received LBBP (mean age, 72.7 ± 12.2 years; male, 55.6%) and 33 patients underwent RVP (mean age 72.9 ± 11.8 years; male, 63.6%). The pacing parameters were satisfactory during the implantation and remained stable during mid-term follow-up. During the follow-up period, LBBP patients had a greater decrease in LVEDD and LVESD. The TR in the LBBP group was significantly improved as compared to the RVP group (P=0.016). Conclusion: Permanent LBBP achieves favorable cardiac hemodynamic effects with good stability and safety. LBBP may reduce severe TR at 1-year follow-up, and LBBP may be an option for patients with severe TR.

Left bundle branch pacing preserved left ventricular myocardial work in patients with bradycardia.

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. Left ventricular (LV) myocardial work (MW) incorporates afterload and LV global longitudinal strain to estimate global and segmental myocardial contractility. However, the effect of LBBP on LV MW remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of LBBP on LV MW in patients receiving pacemaker for bradyarrhythmia. Methods: We prospectively enrolled 70 bradycardia patients with normal LV systolic function receiving LBBP (n = 46) and non-selective His-bundle pacing (NS-HBP) (n = 24). For comparative analysis, patients receiving right ventricular pacing (RVP) (n = 16) and control subjects (n = 10) were enrolled. Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography was performed. The LV pressure-strain loop was non-invasively constructed to assess global LV MW. Results: After 6-month follow-up, LBBP group (with >40% ventricular pacing during 6 months) had shorter peak strain dispersion (PSD) compared with RVP group, and higher LV global longitudinal strain compared with RVP group and NS-HBP group, but had no difference in left intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony, including septal-to-posterior wall motion delay and PSD, compared with NS-HBP group. During ventricular pacing, LBBP group had higher global MW index (GWI) (2,189 ± 527 vs. 1,493 ± 799 mmHg%, P = 0.002), higher global constructive work (GCW) (2,921 ± 771 vs. 2,203 ± 866 mmHg%, P = 0.009), lower global wasted work (GWW) (211 ± 161 vs. 484 ± 281 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher global MW efficiency (GWE) (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 80.9 ± 8.3%, P < 0.001) compared with RVP group, and had lower GWW (211 ± 161 vs. 406 ± 234 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher GWE (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 86.4 ± 8.1%, P < 0.001) compared with NS-HBP group. Conclusions: In this study we found that in patients with mid-term (6-month) high ventricular pacing burden (>40%), LBBP preserved more LV MW compared with NS-HBP and RVP. Further studies are warranted to assess the association between LV MW and long-term clinical outcomes in LBBP with high ventricular pacing burden.

A Comparative Study of Systolic and Diastolic Mechanical Synchrony in Canine, Primate, and Healthy and Failing Human Hearts.

Aim: Mechanical dyssynchrony (MD) is associated with heart failure (HF) and may be prognostically important in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Yet, little is known about its patterns in healthy or diseased hearts. We here investigate and compare systolic and diastolic MD in both right (RV) and left ventricles (LV) of canine, primate and healthy and failing human hearts. Methods and Results: RV and LV mechanical function were examined by pulse-wave Doppler in 15 beagle dogs, 59 rhesus monkeys, 100 healthy human subjects and 39 heart failure (HF) patients. This measured RV and LV pre-ejection periods (RVPEP and LVPEP) and diastolic opening times (Q-TVE and Q-MVE). The occurrence of right (RVMDs) and left ventricular systolic mechanical delay (LVMDs) was assessed by comparing RVPEP and LVPEP values. That of right (RVMDd) and left ventricular diastolic mechanical delay (LVMDd) was assessed from the corresponding diastolic opening times (Q-TVE and Q-MVE). These situations were quantified by values of interventricular systolic (IVMDs) and diastolic mechanical delays (IVMDd), represented as positive if the relevant RV mechanical events preceded those in the LV. Healthy hearts in all species examined showed greater LV than RV delay times and therefore positive IVMDs and IVMDd. In contrast a greater proportion of the HF patients showed both markedly increased IVMDs and negative IVMDd, with diastolic mechanical asynchrony negatively correlated with LVEF. Conclusion: The present IVMDs and IVMDd findings have potential clinical implications particularly for personalized setting of parameter values in CRT in individual patients to achieve effective treatment of HF.