Abstract:Background: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) therapy is the conventional approach for atrioventricular block despite its propensity to cause electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony. This dyssynchrony increases the risk of atrial fibrillation and heart failure, eventually leading to left ventricular dysfunction. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has recently emerged as a novel physiological pacing method. This study utilizes conventional ultrasound cardiography (UCG), two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI), and tissue Doppler imaging (TDI) to investigate the disparities in electrical and mechanical cardiac synchrony between LBBP and RVP patients. Methods: The retrospective analysis includes data from patients who underwent LBBP (n=50) and RVP (n=50) in Zhangjiagang First People's Hospital between January 2019 and June 2020, meeting the stipulated inclusion criteria. The study compares pacing parameters, UCG metrics, cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony, pacing success rates, and safety events both pre-operation and at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months post-operation. Results: Implantation success rates for both RVP and LBBP groups were 100%, with 92% and 100% pacing success rates, respectively [P = .001 RR (95% CI) : 2.5 (1.5, 3.5)]. The LBBP group exhibited significant advantages over the RVP group throughout the follow-up period. LBBP patients displayed shortened QRS duration, reduced pacing thresholds and impedance, improved sensory function, lower serum NT-proBNP levels, and an increased proportion of NYHA class I patients [P = .003 RR (95% CI) : 1.6 (1.1, 2.3)]. Furthermore, left ventricular ejection fraction increased significantly, while left ventricular diastolic and end-systolic diameters decreased in the LBBP group compared to the RVP group [P = .004 RR (95% CI) : 1.7 (1.3, 2.2)]. The LBBP group also demonstrated shorter ventricular systolic synchrony parameters, including Tls-Dif, PSD, Trs-SD, Tas-SD, Tas-post, Ts-SD, and Ts-DIf, compared to the RVP group [P = .005 RR (95% CI) : 1.5 (1.2, 2.0)]. Notably, no postoperative complications occurred in either group, such as electrode displacement, lead thrombus attachment, incision bleeding, pocket hemorrhage, or infection. However, the readmission rates for heart failure were 16% in the RVP group and 2% in the LBBP group. Conclusion: LBBP achieves physiological cardiac pacing, leading to significant improvements in serum NT-proBNP levels and cardiac function and enhanced ventricular contraction synchrony. Utilizing UCG, 2D-STI, and TDI for quantitative evaluation of cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony proves to be a valuable clinical approach.

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

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

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

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

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

His-bundle pacing vs biventricular pacing following atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced ejection fraction: A multicenter, randomized, crossover study-The ALTERNATIVE-AF trial

His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch pacing on ventricular function in atrial fibrillation patients referred for pacing: a prospective crossover comparison

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

Long-term Safety and Feasibility of Permanent His Bundle Pacing

Evaluation of Electrophysiological Characteristics and Ventricular Synchrony: an Intrapatient-Controlled Study During His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing.

Left fascicular pacing is not inferior to left bundle branch pacing in preserving ventricular mechanical synchrony and cardiac function

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Acute Cardiac Resynchronization in Patients With Heart Failure

Left bundle branch pacing better preserves ventricular mechanical synchrony than right ventricular pacing: a two-centre study

Comparison of the Acute Effects of Different Pacing Sites on Cardiac Synchrony and Contraction Using Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: Current Knowledge and Future Prospects

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

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing on Electrical Synchrony and Hemodynamics in Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Block

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Postatrioventricular Junction Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Propensity Score Matching With His Bundle Pacing

Mechanical Synchrony and Myocardial Work in Heart Failure Patients with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Comparison with Biventricular Pacing.

Cardiac Electrical and Mechanical Synchrony Analysis of LBBP and RVP Utilizing Tissue Doppler Imaging Technology

Relationship of Different Left Bundle Branch Pacing Sites and Clinical Outcomes in Heart Failure Patients