Cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing vs. optimized biventricular pacing with adaptive algorithm in heart failure with left bundle branch block: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study

Conduction system pacing is superior to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: Insights from the pooled clinical studies

Background: The effects of conduction system pacing (CSP) compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BVP) on heart function in patients with heart failure remain elusive. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane's Library and Web of science databases were searched up to 1 October 2022 for pertinent controlled studies. Random or fixed-effect model were used to synthesize the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to screen the potential confounding factors. Results: Fifteen studies including 1,347 patients were enrolled. Compared with BVP, CSP was significantly associated with shortened QRS duration [WMD -22.51 ms; p = 0.000], improved left ventricular ejection fraction [WMD 5.53%; p = 0.000], improved NYHA grade [WMD -0.42; p = 0.000], higher response rate and lower heart failure rehospitalization rate. CSP resulted in better clinical outcomes in higher male proportion group than lower one compared with BVP. No significant differences of clinical outcomes were observed between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) and his bundle pacing (HBP) except the pacing threshold. The pacing threshold of LBBaP was significantly lower than those in BVP and HBP. Conclusion: This study suggests that CSP might be superior to conventional BVP for HF patients. In a higher male proportion group, CSP may be associated with more benefits than BVP. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022355991; Identifier: CRD42022355991.

Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Pacing: Where Have We Been and What Lies Ahead?

The history of cardiac pacing dates back to the 1930s with externalized pacing and has evolved to incorporate transvenous, multi-lead, or even leadless devices. Annual implantation rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices have increased since the introduction of the implantable system, likely related to expanding indications, and increasing global life expectancy and aging demographics. Here, we summarize the relevant literature on cardiac pacing to demonstrate the enormous impact it has had within the field of cardiology. Further, we look forward to the future of cardiac pacing, including conduction system pacing and leadless pacing strategies.

Left bundle branch pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality in HF patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the gold standard for achieving CRT, but about 30%-40% of patients do not respond to BVP-CRT. Recent studies showed that left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provided remarkable results in CRT. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to December 29, 2022 and focusing on LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients. The primary endpoint was HF hospitalization. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Risk Ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD).

RESULTS

Ten studies enrolling 1063 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to BVP-CRT, LBBP-CRT led to significant reduction in HF hospitalization [7.9% vs.14.5%; RR: 0.60 (95%CI: 0.39-0.93); p = .02], QRSd [MD: 30.26 ms (95%CI: 26.68-33.84); p < .00001] and pacing threshold [MD: -0.60 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.48); p < .00001] at follow up. Furthermore, LBBP-CRT improved LVEF [MD: 5.78% (95%CI: 4.78-6.77); p < .00001], the rate of responder [88.5% vs.72.5%; RR: 1.19 (95%CI: 1.07-1.32); p = .002] and super-responder [60.8% vs. 36.5%; RR: 1.56 (95%CI: 1.27-1.91); p < .0001] patients and the NYHA class [MD: -0.42 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.14); p < .00001] compared to BVP-CRT.

CONCLUSION

In HF patients, LBBP-CRT was superior to BVP-CRT in reducing HF hospitalization. Further significant benefits occurred within the LBBP-CRT group in terms of QRSd, LVEF, pacing thresholds, NYHA class and the rate of responder and super-responder patients.

Device-based therapies for decompensated heart failure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Despite improvements in medical therapies, patients with heart failure continue to suffer significant morbidity and mortality. Acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) remains a common and serious medical condition with a myriad of implications on patient survival and quality of life, and heart failure related readmissions persist [1-3].

RECENT FINDINGS

From the detection of prehospitalization decompensation and inpatient management of ADHF to stabilization of cardiogenic shock and durable mechanical circulatory support, device-based therapies are utilized across the spectrum of heart failure management. At present, there are numerous device-based therapies commonly used in clinical practice and many more devices in the early clinical-trial phase aimed at attenuation of ADHF.

SUMMARY

In this review, we examine recent updates in the breadth and use of devices-based therapies in these three main domains: ambulatory heart failure, acute decompensated heart failure, and cardiogenic shock. Device-based therapies for decompensated heart failure will continue to grow in number, indication, and complexity, making recognition and familiarity with available technologies of increased importance for research and clinical practice.

A conversion CRT strategy combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative for heart failure patients with persistent atrial fibrillation

Heart failure (HF) combined with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist and may promote the pathological conditions of cardiac dysfunction, leading to poor prognosis. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) combined with atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) is a highly effective treatment for HF patients with underlying AF who either have failed or are not suitable for catheter ablation. The CRT-AVJA combination therapy can improve clinical outcomes in HF patients. Currently, clinical CRT methods are categorized into biventricular pacing (BVP) - based and conduction system pacing (CSP) - based methods. These procedures have inherent advantages and disadvantages, in addition to their considerable differences in clinical applications. This article aims to review the clinical progress of AVJA combined with different CRT strategies for treating HF patients with persistent AF and propose that conversion CRT strategy (BVP/CSP-CRT) combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative. Meanwhile, we generalize that 7 categories of HF patients with persistent AF may need to consider the CRT-AVJA combination therapy.

Pacing interventions in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) represent a high-risk, and difficult to treat population of heart failure patients. Studies have shown that these patients have a lower quality of life and reduced life expectancy compared to those who respond to CRT. Whilst the first-line treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure is "conventional" biventricular epicardial CRT, a range of novel pacing interventions have emerged as potential alternatives. This has raised the question whether these new treatments may be useful as a second-line pacing intervention for treating non-responders, or indeed, whether some patients may benefit from these as a first-line option. In this review, we will examine the current evidence for four pacing interventions in the context of treatment of conventional CRT non-responders: CRT optimization; multisite left ventricular pacing; left ventricular endocardial pacing and conduction system pacing.

Plasma Extracellular Vesicles as Liquid Biopsy to Unravel the Molecular Mechanisms of Cardiac Reverse Remodeling Following Resynchronization Therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become a valuable addition to the treatment options for heart failure, in particular for patients with disturbances in electrical conduction that lead to regionally different contraction patterns (dyssynchrony). Dyssynchronous hearts show extensive molecular and cellular remodeling, which has primarily been investigated in experimental animals. Evidence showing that at least several miRNAs play a role in this remodeling is increasing. A comparison of results from measurements in plasma and myocardial tissue suggests that plasma levels of miRNAs may reflect the expression of these miRNAs in the heart. Because many miRNAs released in the plasma are included in extracellular vesicles (EVs), which protect them from degradation, measurement of myocardium-derived miRNAs in peripheral blood EVs may open new avenues to investigate and monitor (reverse) remodeling in dyssynchronous and resynchronized hearts of patients.

Conduction system pacing: promoting the physiology to prevent heart failure

Cardiac conduction system pacing provides physiological ventricular activation by directly stimulating the conduction system. This review describes the two types of conduction system pacing: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle area pacing (LBAP). The most significant advantage of HB pacing is that it can provide a regular, narrow QRS; however, the disadvantages are challenging implantation and a high risk of re-intervention due to lead dislodgement and the development of high pacing threshold. LBAP provides optimum physiological activation of the left ventricle by engaging the left bundle/fascicular fibers. LBAP is more physiological than traditional RV apical pacing and could be an attractive alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The advantages of LBAP are a relatively more straightforward implantation technique than HBP, better lead stability and pacing thresholds. HBP and LBAP are more physiological than right ventricular pacing and may be used instead of conventional pacemakers. Both HBP and LBBP are being investigated as alternatives to conventional CRT.

The Primary Alteration of Ventricular Myocardium Conduction: The Significant Determinant of Left Bundle Branch Block Pattern

Intraventricular conduction disturbances (IVCD) are currently generally accepted as ECG diagnostic categories. They are characterized by defined QRS complex patterns that reflect the abnormalities in the intraventricular sequence of activation that can be caused by pathology in the His-Purkinje conduction system (HP) or ventricular myocardium. However, the current understanding of the IVCD's underlying mechanism is mostly attributed to HP structural or functional alterations. The involvement of the working ventricular myocardium is only marginally mentioned or not considered. This opinion paper is focused on the alterations of the ventricular working myocardium leading to the most frequent IVCD pattern-the left bundle branch block pattern (LBBB). Recognizing the underlying mechanisms of the LBBB patterns and the involvement of the ventricular working myocardium is of utmost clinical importance, considering a patient's prognosis and indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Recruitment of the cardiac conduction system for optimal resynchronization therapy in failing heart

Heart failure (HF) is a leading health burden around the world. Although pharmacological development has dramatically advanced medication therapy in the field, hemodynamic disorders or mechanical desynchrony deteriorated by intra or interventricular conduction abnormalities remains a critical target beyond the scope of pharmacotherapy. In the past 2 decades, nonpharmacologic treatment for heart failure, such as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP), has been playing an important role in improving the prognosis of heart failure. However, the response rate of BVP-CRT is variable, leaving one-third of patients not benefiting from the therapy as expected. Considering the non-physiological activation pattern of BVP-CRT, more efforts have been made to optimize resynchronization. The most extensively investigated approach is by stimulating the native conduction system, e.g., His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). These emerging CRT approaches provide an alternative to traditional BVP-CRT, with multiple proof-of-concept studies indicating the safety and efficacy of its utilization in dyssynchronous heart failure. In this review, we summarize the mechanisms of dyssynchronous HF mediated by conduction disturbance, the rationale and acute effect of CSP for CRT, the recent advancement in clinical research, and possible future directions of CSP.

Left bundle branch area pacing: A promising modality for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recognized as the first-line management for patients with heart failure (HF) and conduction disorders. As a conventional mode for delivering CRT, biventricular pacing (BVP) improves cardiac function and reduces HF hospitalizations and mortality, but there are still limitations given the high incidence of a lack of response rates. Alternative pacing methods are needed either for primary or rescue therapy. In recent years, conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological pacing modality for simultaneous stimulation of the ventricles, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). CSP activates the His-Purkinje system, allowing normal ventricular stimulation. However, HBP is technically challenging with a relatively low success rate, high pacing threshold, and failure to correct distal conduction abnormalities. Therefore, LBBP stands out as a novel ideal physiological pacing modality for CRT. Several non-randomized studies compared the feasibility and safety of LBBP with BVP and concluded that LBBP is superior to BVP for delivering CRT with a narrower QRS and greater improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Concurrently, some studies showed lower and stable pacing thresholds and greater improvement of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, as well as better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. LBBP ensures better ventricular electromechanical resynchronization than BVP. In this review, we discuss current knowledge of LBBP, compare LBBP with BVP, and explore the potential of LBBP to serve as an alternative primary therapy to realize cardiac resynchronization.

Coronary sinus for cardiac resynchronization therapy: leave it alone and go for the branch! a case report

Background

Coronary sinus is the target of an increasing number of percutaneous interventional procedures. Thus, in some patients, conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) may not be feasible or preferable, and 'alternative' CRT approaches should be applied.

Case summary

We present the case of a successful CRT via direct left bundle branch permanent pacing (LBBP) in a patient with relative contraindication to conventional CRT because of previous percutaneous indirect mitral annuloplasty.

Discussion

LBBP is emerging as a promising technique for physiological cardiac pacing and CRT. It may represent the technique of choice when coronary sinus is not viable for the implant of a conventional left ventricular catheter.

Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review

Background

As a novel physiological pacing technique, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can preserve the left ventricular (LV) electrical and mechanical synchronization by directly capturing left bundle branch (LBB). Approximately 60-90% of LBBP were confirmed to have captured LBB during implantation, implying that up to one-third of LBBP is actually left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). LBB capture is critical for distinguishing LBBP from LVSP.

Methods and results

A total of 15 articles were included in the analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database till August 2022. Comparisons of paced QRS duration between LVSP and LBBP have not been uniformly concluded, but the stimulus artifact to LV activation time in lead V5 or V6 (Stim-LVAT) was shorter in LBBP than LVSP in all studies. Stim-LVAT was used to determine LBB capture with a sensitivity of 76-95.2% and specificity of 78.8-100%, which varied across patient populations.

Conclusion

The output-dependent QRS transition from non-selective LBBP to selective LBBP or LVSP is direct evidence of LBB capture. LBB potential combined with short Stim-LVAT can predict LBB capture better. Personalized criteria rather than a fixed value of Stim-LVAT are necessary to confirm LBB capture in different populations, especially in patients with LBB block or heart failure.

Randomized Trial of Left Bundle Branch vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is the most rapidly growing conduction system pacing technique that is capable of correcting intrinsic left bundle branch block (LBBB). As such, it is potentially an optimal alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiVP).

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to compare the efficacy of LBBP-CRT with BiVP-CRT in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

This is a prospective, randomized trial of patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB with 6-month preplanned follow-up. Crossovers were allowed if LBBP or BiVP were unsuccessful. The primary endpoint was the difference in LVEF improvement between 2 groups. The secondary endpoints included changes in echocardiographic measurements, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute walk distance, QRS duration, and CRT response.

RESULTS

The study included 40 consecutive patients (20 males, mean age 63.7 years, LVEF 29.7% ± 5.6%). Crossovers occurred in 10% of LBBP-CRT and 20% of BiVP-CRT. All patients completed follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher LVEF improvement at 6 months after LBBP-CRT than BiVP-CRT (mean difference: 5.6%; 95% CI: 0.3-10.9; P = 0.039). LBBP-CRT also appeared to have greater reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-24.97 mL; 95% CI: -49.58 to -0.36 mL) and NT-proBNP (-1,071.80 pg/mL; 95% CI: -2,099.40 to -44.20 pg/mL), and comparable changes in New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute walk distance, QRS duration, and rates of CRT response compared with BiVP-CRT.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP-CRT demonstrated greater LVEF improvement than BiVP-CRT in heart failure patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB. (Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [LBBP-RESYNC]; NCT04110431).

Dual-chamber ICD for left bundle branch area pacing: the cardiac resynchronization and arrhythmia sensing via the left bundle (cross-left) pilot study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising technique to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, safety and efficacy of ventricular arrhythmia sensing via the left bundle in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients remain unclear. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of a single LBBAP lead connected to a dual-chamber ICD in patients indicated with a CRT-D implantation.

METHODS

The CROSS-LEFT pilot study prospectively included 10 consecutive patients with a reduced ejection fraction and a complete left bundle branch block, indicated with a prophylactic CRT-D. A DF-1 lead was implanted at the right ventricular (RV) apex, and an LBBAP lead through the interventricular septum. Ventricular fibrillation was induced at implantation in both conventional (RV) and left bundle branch area sensing configurations. The latter was the final sensing configuration, and patients were implanted with a dual-chamber DF-1 ICD connected to the atrial lead (RA port), the LBBAP lead (RV IS-1 port), and the defibrillation lead (RV DF-1 port), the IS-1 pin being capped. Atrioventricular delay was optimized to ensure fusion between LBBAP and native conduction from the right bundle. Patients were followed during 6 months.

RESULTS

No difference between both configurations was observed regarding R-wave sensing in sinus rhythm (p = 0.22), ventricular fibrillation median interval detection (p = 1.00), or total induced episode duration (p = 0.78). LBBAP resulted in a significant reduction of median QRS width from 164 to 126 ms (p = 0.002). Median ventricular sensing significantly improved from 9.7 at implantation to 18.8 mV at 6 months (p = 0.01). Median LVEF also significantly improved from 29 to 44% at 6 months (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Ventricular arrhythmia sensing and defibrillation can be performed via a single LBBAP lead connected to a dual-chamber ICD, and is associated with significant electromechanical reverse remodeling.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05102227 In patients presenting with left bundle branch block and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, a left bundle branch area pacing lead connected to a DF-1 dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator provides safe ventricular arrhythmia sensing and efficient electro-mechanical resynchronization.

Left bundle branch pacing in a ventricular pacing dependent patient with heart failure: A case report

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing method that has emerged in recent years. It is an ideal choice for patients with complete left bundle branch block who are in need of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Moreover, LBBP is superior in maintaining physiological ventricular activation and can effectively improve heart function and quality of life in patients with pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy. However, LBBP in pacing-dependent patients who already have cardiac dysfunction has not been well assessed.

CASE SUMMARY

A 69-year-old male patient presented with symptoms of chest tightness, palpitation and systolic heart failure with New York Heart Association class III for 1 mo. The 12-lead electrocardiogram showed atrial fibrillation with third-degree atrioventricular block and ventricular premature beat. Holter revealed a right bundle branch block, atrial fibrillation with third-degree atrioventricular block, frequent multifocal ventricular premature beats, Ron-T and ventricular tachycardia. The echocardiogram documented an enlarged left atrium and left ventricle and a low left ventricular ejection fraction. Coronary angiography indicated a stenosis of 30% in the middle left anterior descending artery. Apparently, a CRT-D pacemaker was the best choice for this patient according to previous findings. However, the patient was worried about the financial burden. A single-chamber pacemaker with LBBP was selected, with the plan to take amiodarone and upgrade with dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or CRT-D at an appropriate time. During the follow-up at 3 mo after LBBP, the patient showed an improvement in cardiac function with slight improvement in echocardiography parameters, and the New York Heart Association functional class was maintained at I. Moreover, the patient no longer suffered from chest tightness and palpitation. Holter showed decreased ventricular arrhythmia of less than 5%.

CONCLUSION

LBBP might be used in patients with heart failure and a high-degree atrioventricular block as an alternative to conventional CRT.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Upgrading to His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) has been proven to reverse ventricular remodeling and improve cardiac function in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and clinical benefit of upgrading to HPCSP in patients with PICM after chronic right ventricular pacing (RVP).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for relevant articles from databases' establishment to April 22, 2022. Clinical outcomes and pacing parameters included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) pre-RVP, pre-HPCSP, and during follow-up, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at baseline and follow-up, lead-related complications, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, pacing thresholds at implant and during follow-up, and QRS duration (QRSd) pre-RVP, pre-HPCSP, and during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles including 144 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. QRSd increased from 127 ± 29 ms at baseline to 175 ± 19 ms (P < 0.001) during RVP and then significantly narrowed to 116 ± 18 ms (P < 0.001) after upgrading to HPCSP. During a mean follow-up of 17.9 ± 10.5 months, LVEF improved from 35 ± 8% pre-HPSCP to 48 ± 12% after upgrading to HPCSP (P < 0.001). The capture thresholds were 1.2 ± 0.9 V at baseline and increased slightly during follow-up. NYHA functional class improved significantly from 2.7 ± 0.8 to 1.9 ± 0.8 during follow-up (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis indicates that upgrading to HPCSP in patients with PICM is feasible and efficient, as it significantly improves electrical synchrony and cardiac function.

Evaluation of electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony: An intrapatient-controlled study during His-Purkinje conduction system pacing versus right ventricular pacing

Objectives to Background

To compare electromechanical ventricular synchrony when pacing from different sites, including right ventricular apex pacing (RVAP), right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP), His bundle pacing (HBP), left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and RVSP during unipolar pacing from the ring electrode of LBBP lead (RVSP_ring) in each patient and evaluate the correlations between electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony.

Methods

Twenty patients with complete atrioventricular block indicated for dual‐chamber pacemaker implantation were included in the study. Unipolar pacing at different sites, including RVAP, RVSP, HBP, LBBP, and RVSP_ring, was successively performed in each patient. The pacing characteristics and echocardiogram parameters were collected and compared among intrinsic rhythm and pacing at different sites.

Results

Similar to HBP (114.84 ± 18.67 ms), narrower paced QRSd was found in LBBP (116.15 ± 11.60 ms) as compared to RVSP_ring (135.11 ± 13.68 ms), RVSP (141.65 ± 14.26 ms), and RVAP (160.15 ± 19.35 ms) (p < .001). LBBP showed comparable pacing parameters to RVAP or RVSP and was significantly better than HBP, with maintained cardiac function. TS‐12‐SD was significantly improved in LBBP (41.80 ± 20.97 ms) than RVAP (69.70 ± 32.42 ms, p = .003) and RVSP (63.30.56 ± 32.53 ms, p = .018) but similar to HBP (51.50 ± 25.67 ms, p = .283) or RVSP_ring (57.80 ± 25.65 ms, p = .198). Among these pacing strategies, negative values of interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were only identified in LBBP (−19.25 ± 18.43 ms), significantly different from RVAP (35.00 ± 30.72 ms), RVSP (22.85 ± 22.05 ms), HBP (5.20 ± 18.64 ms), and RVSP_ring (16.00 ± 26.76 ms (all p < .05). Using Pearson's analysis, Sti‐LVAT was positively correlated with QRS duration, IVMD, TS‐12‐SD, LVEDV, and LVESV, while a negative relationship could be observed for left ventricular ejection fraction.

Conclusions

His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) achieved better electrical and mechanical synchrony than conventional RV pacing. For interventricular synchrony, only LBBP initiated earlier LV activation than RV, in accordance with the right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern of paced QRS during LBBP. Sti‐LVAT might be a good parameter correlating with LV systolic function and mechanical synchrony.