Abstract:Background Interest in conduction system pacing (CSP) has increased in recent years. For left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), 4F and 6F pacing leads have been shown to be effective and safe. No information is available on the potential use of ICD leads for LBBAP. Aim The objective of the study was to demonstrate the feasibility of implanting an ICD lead in the LBBAP position to reduce the number of leads for CRT-D therapy. Patients and Methods We implanted the 7F ICD lead in the LBBAP position through a new 10F CSP delivery sheath in ten consecutive patients. Periprocedural data, QRS morphology and degree of QRS reduction were analyzed. Results Ten consecutive patients (one female) aged 69.5±9.2 years were treated with the above-mentioned method. Eight patients had ischemic cardiomyopathy and two patients had nonischemic cardiomyopathy. All patients had a CRT-D indication. Eight patients had a wide QRS complex with complete LBB and a QRS complex of 184.8±25.8 ms. Two patients had a narrow QRS complex but first-degree AV block with a PR interval greater than 240 ms. Left ventricular ejection fraction was 31.8±8.6%. Operative and fluoroscopy times were 103.6±30.3 minutes and 10.5±6.1 minutes, respectively. On average, 1.7 ± 0.6 screwing attempts were required per patient. The intraprocedural LBBAP threshold was 0.78±0.6V/1.0ms, the impedance was 530.8±86.5 ohm, and the R-wave amplitude was 9±3.3mV. The unipolar paced QRS complex was 123.6±15.9ms, the bipolar paced QRS complex was 129.5±12.8ms, and the bipolar paced QRS complex on the next day was 133.3±11.7. The mean duration from stimulus to R-wave peak in lead V6 was 82.9 ± 19.7 ms. The R-wave interpeak interval between leads V6 and V1 was 43.4 ± 9.7 ms. All but one patient received an effective defibrillation threshold test at 30J (n=8) and 36J (n=1). One patient was not tested during the procedure due to high risk. Conclusion This first-in-human study of ICD lead implantation in the LBBAP position demonstrated its feasibility and efficacy in achieving conduction system stimulation. This approach may lead to a reduction in the number of leads implanted for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Figure 1. A- RAO view, angiography of the RV for verification of the TVA-summit. B- LAO view, angiography from the CSP- sheath after reaching final position of the LBBAP lead (right sided interventricular septum - yellow dotted line). C – 12 lead ECG (speed 50mm/sec) demonstrating paced and native QRS complexes. D – Fluoroscopy in RAO view, final result. E – Fluoroscopy in LAO view, final result. F – Transthoracic echocardiography the next day (4Ch view) demonstrates optimal LBBAP lead position.. RAO – right anterior oblique; LAO – left anterior oblique; TVA – tricuspid valve anulus; CSP – conduction system pacing; LBBAP – left bundle branch area pacing.Figure 1.

Left bundle branch area pacing using a stylet-driven, retractable-helix lead: Short-term results from a prospective multicenter IDE trial (the BIO-CONDUCT study)

Preliminary Experience of Permanent Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Using Stylet‐directed Pacing Lead Without Delivery Sheath

A Multi-Lead ECG Monitoring Combined with a Programmed Intracavitary ECG to Complete LBBaP Pacing: Study Protocol for a Single-center, Prospective Study

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

Result of the left bundle branch area pacing data collection registry, an international multicenter study of conduction system pacing with a Tendril STS 2088 stylet‐driven lead

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

Anatomical and Histological Assessment of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Human Heart with Refractory Heart Failure

Comparison of Procedural Outcomes of Lumenless Fixed-Helix Versus Stylet-Driven Extendable-Helix Lead Systems in Left Bundle Branch Pacing: COMPARE LBBP

Left bundle branch area pacing using a lumenless lead: A systematic literature review and meta‐analysis

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.

Durability of left bundle branch area pacing

Left bundle branch pacing lead for sensing ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A pilot study (LBBP-ICD study)

Clinical Features and Outcomes of Long-Term Lead Performance by Left Bundle Branch Pacing

Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study

Observational study of left bundle branch area pacing: implantation of the solia S lead using the selectra 3D sheath at an inclined angle

Lead performance of stylet-driven leads in left bundle branch area pacing: results from a large single-center cohort and insights from in-vitro bench testing

Lumenless and Stylet-Driven Leads for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Materials, Techniques, Benefits, and Trade-Offs of the Two Approaches

Early Experience of Left Bundle Branch Pacing with Lumenless Lead in a Single Center: A Case Series

Feasibility, safety, and short-term follow-up of defibrillator lead at left bundle branch area pacing location: A pilot study

Dual-chamber CRT-D using ICD lead implantation in the LBBAP position