Right sided approach for left bundle branch pacing using lumen‐less lead: Technical considerations and follow‐up outcome.

Introduction: Left bundle branch pacing has gained significant momentum in the last few years. The procedure involves deploying the lead deep inside the interventricular septum through left subclavian vein. We aimed at analyzing the feasibility, efficacy and long‐term outcome of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) using lumen‐less lead through the right subclavian vein. Methods: This was a retrospective‐institutional, single center observational study done in consecutive patients who underwent LBBP using 3830 selectsecuretm lead. Left subclavian venous access was the primary strategy for lead implantation. Patients requiring right sided approach due to venous obstruction or persistent left superior‐vena‐cava (PLSVC) for LBBP were included in the study. Results: Right sided approach was successful in 16 out of 19 (84%) attempted patients. C315‐His catheter was used in all patients without modifying its curvature. PLSVC (n = 7), left venous obstruction (n = 7), right sided device upgradation (n = 1) and left pocket infection (n = 1) were the reasons for right sided approach. Mean follow‐up duration was 17 ± 12 months. LBBP resulted in reduction in QRS duration from 137.3 ± 37.8 ms to 122.3 ± 9.5 ms (p −.13) and increase in LV ejection fraction from 46.2 ± 16.3% to 54.4 ± 11.6% (p −.11). The mean fluoroscopy duration and radiation dose were significantly high in right sided approach (n = 16) as compared to left sided approach (n = 293). In patients requiring cardiac‐resynchronization therapy (CRT), right sided LBBP resulted in reduction in QRS duration from 171.8 ± 18.5 to 125.5 ± 11.9 ms (p −.0001) and increase in LVEF from 29.1 ± 3.8 to 45.1 ± 11.9% (p −.005). Conclusion: Right sided LBBP is feasible, safe and effective in patients requiring pacing for symptomatic bradyarrhythmia and CRT. Further development in dedicated tools for right‐sided approach would help in reducing the fluoroscopy‐duration and radiation‐dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]