Abstract:Abstract Background Left Bundle Branch Pacing (LBBP) ensures a physiologic ventricular activation and shows better electrical parameters compared to His bundle pacing (HBP). A growing body of experience is encouraging a large applicability. Objective To analyse feasibility and technical outcomes of LBBP in the daily clinical practice. Methods During 2019 and 2020, 132 patients (mean age 79±10 years; 72 males) with standard indication for pacing, received the lead deeply intraseptal aiming to pace the left bundle. The indication for pacing were AV block 72 (55%) pts, SND 14 (11%), AF and slow ventricular rate 21 (16%), ablate&pace in 4 (3%); HF in 10 (7.5%), PICM 6 (4%) pts, lead revision in 5 (3.5%). 75% of pts had ischemic cardiopathy; 82% hypertension, 30% diabetes and 21% severe kidney disease. Baseline QRS was 141±38 ms and 68% of pts had bundle branch block. The basal mean EF 49±15%. 91 (69%) of the pts were in sinus rhythm at implant. Criteria for LBBP were: RBB morphology in V1 together with left ventricular activation time (LVAT)<80 ms in V6. Final lead position was always confirmed with injection of 5 ml of dye contrast in left anterior oblique view. Results The lead was successfully implanted in the left bundle in 129 (97,7%) patients. In the remaining 3 patients the cathode only penetrated the septum. In 90 cases LBBP was the first choice, in the remaining 42 patients LBBP was aimed after unsatisfactory HBP (His threshold>2V or paced QRS>140 ms). In 107 cases we utilized the 3830 4Fr lumenless lead; in 25 cases the stylet-driven 6 Fr leads. The LBBP lead was connected to the RV port in the 92 dual-chamber PMs; in the LV port in the 22 three-chamber devices as part of cardiac resynchronization therapy; in the only port in 18 single-chamber PM. Mean fluoroscopy time was 10±6 min including implant of all leads. Electrical parameters were highly favourable (R wave sensing 10,5±5 mV; threshold 0,9±0,2 V@0,5 ms; impedance 829±234 ohm). Paced QRS duration was 114±20 ms (P<0.005). The devices were checked 48 hours after implant and 1 month later. Thereafter were remotely monitored. At the 1-month in clinic interrogation all LB lead showed good performance and QRS morphology and duration like the post implant one (115±21 ms). Mean VP% was 81% and mean AP% 28%. VP ≥90% was detected in 42 (32%) of patients. Chronic AF (AT/AF 100%) in 24 (18%) of patients. In 3 cases the LB lead showed early dislodgement requiring lead revision (1 macroscopic dislodgement and 2 rise in threshold), all of them within 7 days after implant. Conclusion The new technique of pacing the left bundle of the conduction system (LBBP), is safe and feasible in the clinical practice. It is applicable in all pacing indications including heart failure and resynchronization. In our experience lead dislodgement were 2,2% (3/132, all in the first week after implant) whereas paced QRS duration was significantly shortened and ejection fraction remained normal. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry

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

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Using Left Bundle Branch Pacing

Electrical Synchrony Optimization for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients with Bradycardia and Heart Failure.

Feasibility and Outcomes of Upgrading to Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy and Infranodal Atrioventricular Block.

Feasibility and Safety of Both His Bundle Pacing and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Atrial Fibrillation Patients: Intermediate Term Follow-Up

Mid-term clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to accurate right ventricular septal pacing

Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing in older patients

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Right Ventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: 2 Year Single-Centre Experience

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy

Initial Experience with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients with Atrioventricular Block and Impaired LV Function

Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Prognosis and Specific Applications

Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta‐analysis with meta‐regression

Comparison between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing: ventricular electromechanical synchrony and risk of atrial high-rate episodes

A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis Comparing Left Bundle Branch Pacing, His Bundle Branch Pacing, and Right Ventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block

Complications of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry

Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared with right ventricular pacing in TAVI patients

Durability of left bundle branch area pacing

THE SPECIFIC VALUE OF UPGRADING TO LEFT BUNDLE BRANCH PACING IN PATIENTS WITH PACING INDUCED CARDIOMYOPATHY OR NON-PACING INDUCED CARDIOMYOPATHY: A RETROSPECTIVE STUDY