Electrophysiologic effects of left bundle branch area pacing: comparing left ventricular septal pacing and left bundle branch pacing

FUNDING ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Type of funding sources: Private company. Main funding source(s): Medtronic BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing(LBBAP) has been introduced as a more physiological pacing alternative to anti-bradycardia pacing and as an alternative to biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). LBBAP is the common denominator of left ventricular septal pacing(LVSP) and left bundle branch pacing(LBBP). In LVSP, there is only capture of the myocardium on the left side of the interventricular septum, whereas in LBBP there is additional capture of the left bundle branch(LBB) and subsequent Purkinje fibers. PURPOSE: To investigate the electrophysiological differences between LBBP and LVSP. METHODS: Patients with a permanent pacemaker indication due to bradycardia or heart failure according to current guidelines were included and underwent LBBAP implantation. At baseline and during implantation, electrical activation parameters were recorded pacing at different sites (Right ventricle, LVSP and LBBP), using the standard 12-lead ECG and the ECG BELT. Electrophysiologic measures included: QRS duration, QRSarea calculated from the vectorcardiogram after conversion from the ECG using the Kors matrix, and standard deviation of activation time(SDAT) measured through the ECG BELT. Both QRS area and SDAT are known markers of ventricular dyssynchrony. RESULTS: 28 patients (17 male), with an age of 67±7 yrs underwent LBBAP. 21(75%) had a pacing indication for bradycardia with a baseline narrow QRS and 7(25%) for heart failure with a baseline LBBB. In 17 patients (61%) LBB capture was achieved. The remaining patients were treated with LVSP. In patients with baseline narrow QRS, both LVSP and LBBP showed a significant increase in QRS duration(p<0.001, p<0.001 resp.), without a significant difference in QRS duration between LVSP and LBBP(fig. 1 A). There was no significant difference in SDAT between LVSP and LBBP compared to baseline narrow QRS, and a significant SDAT reduction in patients with underlying LBBB (p=0.005, p<0.001 resp.) Furthermore, there was no significant SDAT difference between LVSP and LBBP(fig. 1 B). LVSP showed a small but significant increase in QRSarea compared to baseline narrow QRS (p=0.011) where LBBP showed no difference compared to baseline narrow QRS. Compared to baseline LBBB both LVSP and LBBP showed a significant QRSarea reduction (p=0.003, p<0.001 resp.). Moreover, there was a small but significant reduction in QRSarea when LBBP was achieved over LVSP(p=0.044) (fig. 1 C). CONCLUSION: LVSP and LBBP showed a similar effect on ventricular synchrony in terms of SDAT, with levels of synchrony comparable to normal physiologic activation. Left bundle branch capture resulted in a small, but significant improvement in QRSarea over LVSP. Fig. 1 Relative changes in QRS duration(A), SDAT (B) and QRS area (C) compared to baseline narrow QRS (bradypacing) and baseline heart failure with LBBB. *p<0.05 compared to baseline, **p<0.05 for bradypacing and heart failure with LBBB combined. [Figure: see text]