Search

Aims Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated. Methods and results This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%). Conclusions LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.

BackgroundTargets for right-sided conduction system pacing (CSP) include His bundle and right bundle branch. ECG patterns, diagnostic criteria and outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) are not known.ObjectiveOur aims were to delineate electrocardiographic and electrophysiological characteristics of RBBP and to compare outcomes between RBBP and His bundle pacing (HBP).MethodsPatients with confirmed right CSP were divided according to the conduction system potential to QRS interval at the pacing lead implantation site. Six hypothesized RBBP criteria as well as pacing parameters, echocardiographic outcomes and all-cause mortality were analyzed.ResultsAll analyzed criteria discriminated between HBP and LBBP: double QRS transition during threshold test, selective paced QRS different from conducted QRS, stimulus to selective QRS > potential-QRS, small increase in V6RWPT during QRS transition, equal capture thresholds of CSP and myocardium, and stimulus-V6R-wave peak time (V6RWPT) > potential-V6RWPT (adopted as diagnostic standard). Per this last criterion, RBBP was observed in 19.2% (64/326) patients who had been targeted for HBP, present mainly among patients with potential to QRS < 35 ms (90.6%, 48/53) and occasionally in the remaining patients (5.6%, 16/273). RBBP was characterized by longer QRS (by 10.5 ms), longer V6RWPT (by 11.6 ms) and better sensing (by 2.6 mV) compared to HBP. During median follow-up of 29 months, no differences in capture threshold, echocardiographic outcomes or mortality were found.ConclusionsRBBP is a distinct CSP modality that is frequently observed when the pacing lead is positioned more distally along the right conduction system.

Background: Cardiovascular diseases including arterial hypertension are common comorbidities among patients hospitalized due to COVID-19. We assessed the influence of preexisting hypertension and its pharmacological treatment on in-hospital mortality in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. Methods: We studied all consecutive patients who were admitted to the University Hospital in Krakow, Poland, due to COVID-19 between March 2020 and May 2021. Data of 5191 patients (mean age 61.9±16.7 years, 45.2% female) were analyzed. Results: The median hospitalization time was 14 days, and the mortality rate was 18.4%. About a quarter of patients had an established cardiovascular disease including coronary artery disease (16.6%) or stroke (7.6%). Patients with hypertension (58.3%) were older and had more comorbidities than patients without hypertension. In multivariable logistic regression analysis, age above median (64 years), male gender, history of heart failure or chronic kidney disease, and higher C-reactive protein level, but not preexisting hypertension, were independent risk factors for in-hospital death in the whole study group. Patients with hypertension already treated (n=1723) with any first-line antihypertensive drug (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin receptor blockers, beta-blockers, calcium channel blockers, or thiazide/thiazide-like diuretics) had a significantly lower risk of in-hospital death (odds ratio, 0.25 [95% CI, 0.2–0.3]; P Conclusions: Although the diagnosis of preexisting hypertension per se had no significant impact on in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19, treatment with any first-line blood pressure–lowering drug had a profound beneficial effect on survival in patients with hypertension. These data support the need for antihypertensive pharmacological treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.

His bundle (HB) pacing is an increasingly popular method of physiologic ventricular pacing. The electrocardiographic hallmark of physiologic pacing is the preservation or restoration of physiologic activation times in the left ventricle-a principle of paramount diagnostic importance. The current review focuses on the differentiation between 3 possible capture types when the pacing lead is placed in the HB region: selective HB capture when only HB is activated, nonselective HB capture when there is simultaneous activation of the adjacent right ventricular septal (RVS) myocardium, and selective RVS capture when HB is not activated at all but only septal myocardium.

An 82-year old woman with third degree atrioventricular block underwent left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) lead implantation

BACKGROUND Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) based on the conventional biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) technique sometimes results in broad QRS complex and suboptimal response. OBJECTIVE We aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of CRT based on left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP, in lieu of the right ventricular lead) combined with coronary venous left ventricular pacing in an international multicenter study. METHODS LBBAP-optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) was attempted in nonconsecutive patients with CRT indications. Addition of the LBBA (or coronary venous) lead was at the discretion of the implanting physician, who was guided by suboptimal paced QRS complex, and/or on clinical grounds. RESULTS LOT-CRT was successful in 91 of 112 patients (81%). The baseline characteristics were as follows: mean age 70 +/- 11 years, female 22 (20%), left ventricular ejection fraction 28.7% +/- 9.8%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter 62 +/- 9 mm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level 5821 +/- 8193 pg/mL, left bundle branch block 47 (42%), nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay 25 (22%), right ventricular pacing 26 (23%), and right bundle branch block 14 (12%). The procedure characteristics were as follows: mean fluoroscopy time 27.3 +/- 22 minutes, LBBAP capture threshold 0.8 +/- 0.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and R-wave amplitude 10 mV. LOT-CRT resulted in significantly greater narrowing of QRS complex from 182 +/- 25 ms at baseline to 144 +/- 22 ms (P < .0001) than did BiV-CRT (170 +/- 30 ms; P < .0001) and LBBAP (162 +/- 23 ms; P < .0001). At follow-up of >= 3 months, the ejection fraction improved to 37% +/- 12%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter decreased to 59 +/- 9 mm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level decreased to 2514 +/- 3537 pg/mL, pacing parameters were stable, and clinical improvement was noted in 76% of patients (New York Heart Association class 2.9 vs 1.9). CONCLUSION LOT-CRT is feasible and safe and provides greater electrical resynchronization as compared with BiV-CRT and could be an alternative, especially when only suboptimal electrical re synchronization is obtained with BiV-CRT. Randomized controlled trials comparing LOT-CRT and BiV-CRT are needed.

A two centre clinical study was performed to analyse exposure levels of cardiac physicians performing electrophysiology and haemodynamic procedures with the use of state of the art Zero-Gravity™ radiation protective system (ZG). The effectiveness of ZG was compared against the commonly used ceiling suspended lead shield (CSS) in a haemodynamic lab. The operator’s exposure was assessed using thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs) during both ablation (radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and cryoablation (CRYA)) and angiography and angioplasty procedures (CA/PCI). The dosimeters were placed in multiple body regions: near the left eye, on the left side of the neck, waist and chest, on both hands and ankles during each measurement performed with the use of ZG. In total 29 measurements were performed during 105 procedures. To compare the effectiveness of ZG against CSS an extra 80 measurements were performed with the standard lead apron, thyroid collar and ceiling suspended lead shield during CA/PCI procedures. For ZG, the upper values for the average eye lens and whole body doses per procedure were 4 µSv and 16 µSv for the left eye lens in electrophysiology lab (with additionally used CSS) and haemodynamic lab (without CSS), respectively, and about 10 µSv for the remaining body parts (neck, chest and waist) in both labs. The skin doses to hands and ankles non-protected by the ZG were 5 µSv for the most exposed left finger and left ankle in electrophysiology lab, while in haemodynamic lab 150 µSv and 17 µSv, respectively. The ZG performance was 3 times (p p e − 2 Sv/Gym2 vs. 4.31 e − 2 Sv/Gym2, p = 0.016). The study results indicate that ZG performance is superior to CSS. It can be simultaneously used with the ceiling suspended lead shield to ensure the protection to the hands as long as this is not obstructive for the work.

Aims We hypothesized that during left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, the various possible combinations of direct capture/non-capture of the septal myocardium and the LBB result in distinct patterns of right and left ventricular activation. This could translate into different combinations of R-wave peak time (RWPT) in V1 and V6. Consequently, the V6-V1 interpeak interval could differentiate the three types of LBB area capture: non-selective (ns-)LBB, selective (s-)LBB, and left ventricular septal (LVS). Methods and results Patients with unquestionable evidence of LBB capture were included. The V6-V1 interpeak interval, V6RWPT, and V1RWPT were compared between different types of LBB area capture. A total of 468 patients from two centres were screened, with 124 patients (239 electrocardiograms) included in the analysis. Loss of LVS capture resulted in an increase in V1RWPT by ≥15 ms but did not impact V6RWPT. Loss of LBB capture resulted in an increase in V6RWPT by ≥15 ms but only minimally influenced V1RWPT. Consequently, the V6-V1 interval was longest during s-LBB capture (62.3 ± 21.4 ms), intermediate during ns-LBB capture (41.3 ± 14.0 ms), and shortest during LVS capture (26.5 ± 8.6 ms). The optimal value of the V6-V1 interval value for the differentiation between ns-LBB and LVS capture was 33 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 84.7%). A specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of LBB capture was obtained with a cut-off value of >44 ms. Conclusion The V6-V1 interpeak interval is a promising novel criterion for the diagnosis of LBB area capture.