Deep septal deployment of a thin, lumenless pacing lead: a translational cadaver simulation study

Physiologic Pacing Targeting the His Bundle and Left Bundle Branch: a Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a means to preserve or restore physiological ventricular activation via pacing at the His bundle or at more distal targets in the conduction system, including the left bundle branch area. This review examines strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of CSP performed via these approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

His bundle pacing (HBP) has been successfully utilized for standard bradyarrhythmia indications and for QRS correction among patients receiving devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Limitations of HBP pacing have included implant complexity and rising pacing thresholds over time. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) appears to deliver similar physiological benefits with shorter implant times and more stable thresholds. More recently, hybrid systems utilizing HBP or LBBAP in combination with left ventricular leads have been used to treat heart failure (HF) patients, and may be useful in multilevel or mixed conduction blocks. There is growing interest in CSP for bradycardia and HF indications, although high quality data with randomized controlled trials are needed to help guide future treatment paradigms.

A Guide to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Using Stylet-Driven Pacing Leads

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel pacing modality which aims to capture the left bundle branch area and avoids the detrimental effects of right ventricular pacing. Current approaches for LBBAP have been developed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLL). Expanding the tools and leads for LBBAP might contribute to a wider adoption of this technique. Standard stylet-driven pacing leads (SDL) differ from current LLL as they are characterized by a wider lead body diameter, are stylet-supported and often have a non-isodiametric extendable helix design. Although LBBAP can be performed safely with SDL, the implant technique of LBBAP differs compared to LLL. In the current overview we describe in detail how different types of SDL can be used to target a deep septal position and provide a practical guide on how to achieve LBBAP using SDL.

Is the pacing site closer to the left ventricular septal endocardium in left bundle branch pacing or in left ventricular septal pacing?

PURPOSE

Distinguishing between left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) is challenging. This study aimed to compare the echocardiographic distance from the pacing lead tip to the left ventricular (LV) septal endocardium between patients who underwent LBBP and those who underwent LVSP successfully.

METHODS

Fifty-nine consecutive patients (age 71.9 ± 12.0 years, 35.6% male) with traditional indications for permanent cardiac pacing were included (LBBP group, n = 46; LVSP group, n = 13). Unipolar pacing from the final pacing sites generated narrow QRS complexes with a right bundle branch block pattern in all patients. After the procedure, a physician blinded to the group allocation performed echocardiographic measurements of the distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium.

RESULTS

The mean paced QRS duration was comparable between the LBBP group and the LVSP group (105.3 ± 15.6 ms vs. 109.2 ± 9.6 ms, P = 0.287). In the LBBP group, the interval from the left bundle branch potential to QRS onset was 28.7 ± 9.0 ms. During diastole, the mean distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium was 0.6 ± 0.9 mm in the LBBP group and 3.0 ± 1.6 mm in the LVSP group (P < 0.001). During systole, the distance was 1.5 ± 1.4 mm in the LBBP group and 4.3 ± 2.6 mm in the LVSP group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The landing zone of the lead tip was closer to the LV septal endocardium in the patients who underwent LBBP. There is a need for real-time intraprocedural monitoring of the distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium when performing LBBP.

Quantitative distance and electrocardiographic parameters for lead-implanted site selection to enhance the success likelihood of left bundle branch pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel near-physiological pacing method that still lacks quantitative criteria to guide the selection of lead-implanted sites to enhance the success likelihood of lead deployments. This study aimed to quantitatively analyze the relationships of LBBP success likelihood to the distribution of lead-implanted sites and the lead-localization-pacing electrocardiographic (ECG) features.

METHODS

All the lead-implanted sites in patients with finally successful LBBP were enrolled for analysis, including successful and failed sites. A novel coordinate system was invented to describe the sites' distribution as longitudinal distance (longit-dist) and lateral distance (lat-dist). Corrected distance parameters were generated to eliminate the cardiac dimension variations. The lead-localization-pacing ECG parameters were also collected, such as paced QRS duration (locat-QRSd), left ventricular activation time (locat-LVAT), LVAT/QRSd ratio (locat-LVAT/QRSd), and QRS directions.

RESULTS

A total of 94 patients with 105 successful sites and 93 failed sites were enrolled. Longit-dist and corrected longit-dist of successful sites were significantly longer, while locat-QRSd and locat-LVAT were shorter and locat-LVAT/QRSd was lower than failed sites. There was a positive dose-response relationship between LBBP success likelihood and corrected longit-dist with a cut-off of 26.95 mm, whereas there were negative dose-response relationships of LBBP success likelihood to locat-QRSd, locat-LVAT, and locat-LVAT/QRSd with the cut-offs of 142 ms, 92 ms, and 64.7%, respectively. Downward QRS direction in II/III ECG leads was also associated with successful LBBP.

CONCLUSION

Longit-dist, locat-QRSd, locat-LVAT, and locat-LVAT/QRSd were quantitative parameters to guide the selection of lead-implanted sites during LBBP implantation. Quantitative distance and electrocardiographic parameters for lead-implanted site selection to enhance the success likelihood of left bundle branch pacing. LBBP, left bundle branch pacing; Longit-dist, longitudinal distance; CL-apex-dist, distance from contraction line to apex; LBBB, left bundle branch block; IVCD, intraventricular conduction delay; Locat-QRSd, lead-localization-pacing QRS duration; Locat-LVAT, lead-localization-pacing left ventricular activation time; Locat-LVAT/QRSd, lead-localization-pacing LVAT/QRSd ratio.