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.

A New Integrated Approach to Improve Left Ventricular Electromechanical Activation During Right Ventricular Septal Pacing

Hemodynamic comparison of different multisites and multipoint pacing strategies in cardiac resynchronization therapies

Optimizing electrical efficacy of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy and leadless left ventricular septal pacing: Insights on left and right ventricular activation from electrocardiographic imaging

A comparison of ventricular function during high right ventricular septal and apical pacing after his-bundle ablation for refractory atrial fibrillation

Ventricular-Arterial Coupling in Patients with Heart Failure Treated with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: May We Predict the Long-Term Clinical Response?

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

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: 2 Year Single-Centre Experience

Abstracts from the World Congress of Cardiology Scientific Sessions

Effects of pacing on hemodynamics in right ventricular outflow tract

Resynchronization Effects and Clinical Outcomes During Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing with and Without Conduction System Capture.

Right ventricular outflow tract septum pacing and right ventricular apical pacing random comparative study

Effects of Right Ventricular Nonapical Pacing on Cardiac Function: A Meta‐analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Effects of Right Ventricular Septum or His-bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Apical Pacing on Cardiac Function: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

A novel method combining gated SPECT and vectorcardiography to guide left ventricular lead placement to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A proof of concept study

Echocardiographic assessment of left ventricular global and segmental myocardial systolic function with pacing at variant right ventricular sites

Hemodynamics Research in Patients with Right Ventricular Septal Pacing

Adverse Consequences Of Right Ventricular Apical Pacing And Novel Strategies To Optimize Left Ventricular Systolic And Diastolic Function

Right ventricular septal pacing in patients with right bundle branch block

Deleterious Effect Of Right Ventricular Apical Pacing On Left Ventricular Diastolic Function And The Impact Of Pre-Existing Diastolic Disease

Is Right Ventricular Mid-Septal Pacing Superior to Apical Pacing in Patients with High Degree Atrio-Ventricular Block and Moderately Depressed Left Ventricular Function?

Noninvasive electrocardiographic imaging assessment of conduction system pacing device: a novel algorithm to assess intraventricular synchrony