Which Is More Likely to Achieve Cardiac Synchronization: Left Bundle Branch Pacing or Left Ventricular Septal Pacing?

Conduction system pacing in pediatric and congenital heart disease

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has evolved rapidly to become the pacing method of choice for many adults with structurally normal hearts. Studies in this population have repeatedly demonstrated superior hemodynamics and outcomes compared to conventional pacing with the recruitment of the native conduction system. Children and patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) are also likely to benefit from CSP but were excluded from original trials. However, very recent studies have begun to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of CSP in these patients, with growing evidence that some outcomes may be superior in comparison to conventional pacing techniques. Concerns regarding the technical challenges and long-term lead parameters of His Bundle Pacing (HBP) have been overcome to many extents with the development of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP), and both techniques are likely to play an important role in pediatric and CHD pacing in the future. This review aims to assimilate the latest developments in CSP and its application in children and CHD patients.

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.