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.

Application of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing in patients with giant right atrium

Long-term Safety and Feasibility of Permanent His Bundle Pacing

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

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

Upgrade to his bundle pacing in pacing-dependent patients referred for pulse generator change: Feasibility and intermediate term follow up

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

Atrial Pacing Via Unilateral Persistent Left Superior Vena Cava

A Feasible Approach for Direct His-Bundle Pacing Using A New Steerable Catheter to Facilitate Precise Lead Placement

Review of Atrioventricular Node Ablation Combined with Permanent His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure

The Application of His Bundle Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure and His-Purkinje Conduction Disease

[Long-Term Effect of Different Right Ventricular Apex Pacing Ratio on Heart Structure and Function of Patients with Dual Chamber Pacemaker].

Clinical outcomes of His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing

The Feasibility and Efficacy of His-Purkinje System Pacing in Chronic Heart Failure with Permanent Atrial Fibrillation

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: 2 Year Single-Centre Experience

Efficacy of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in the treatment of patients with atrioventricular block and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction

Comparison of His-purkinje Bundle Pacing and Right Ventricular Inflow Tract Septal Pacing in the Elderly

His-Purkinje system pacing reduced tricuspid regurgitation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery

Feasibility and Safety of Permanent Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients with Conduction Disorders Following Prosthetic Cardiac Valves.

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

Preliminary Clinical Application of Permanent Left Bundle Branch Pacing Via Right Axillary Venous Access

Speckle tracking imaging evaluation of left ventricular myocardial work comparing right ventricular septal pacing with His-Purkinje system area pacing