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.

Left bundle branch pacing guide by uninterrupted recording of intrinsic filtered and unfiltered intracardiac electrograms

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

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

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

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

Comparison Of Synchronization Between Left Bundle Branch And His Bundle Pacing In Atrial Fibrillation Patients: An Intra-Patient-Controlled Study

Effects of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients with Permanent Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: A Retrospective Study

Intracardiac Ultrasound-Guided Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Bradycardia Patient.

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

Electrophysiological characteristics of lead-position-dependent EGM uninterrupted transition during left bundle branch pacing

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: 2 Year Single-Centre Experience

Permanent Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Utilizing Intracardiac Echocardiogram

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy by Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: Current Knowledge and Future Prospects

A novel 9-partition method using fluoroscopic images for guiding left bundle branch pacing

Differentiating Left Bundle Branch Pacing and Left Ventricular Septal Pacing: an Algorithm Based on Intracardiac Electrophysiology.

An Individualized Criterion for Left Bundle Branch Capture in Patients with a Narrow QRS Complex

Electrophysiological Parameters and Anatomical Evaluation of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in an in Vivo Canine Model

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

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Improved Heart Function In A 10-Year-Old Child After A 3-Month Follow-Up