BACKGROUND: During left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, it is important to confirm that capture of the LBB, and not just capture of only adjacent left ventricular (LV) myocardium, has been achieved. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to establish electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for LBB capture. We hypothesized that because LBB pacing results in physiological depolarization of the LV, then the native QRS can serve as a reference for diagnosis of LBB capture in the same patient. METHODS: Only patients with evidence of LBB capture (QRS morphology transition) were included. Several QRS characteristics were compared between the native rhythm and different types of LBB area capture. RESULTS: A total of 357 ECGs (124 patients) were analyzed: 118 with native rhythm, 124 with nonselective LBB capture, 69 with selective LBB capture, and 46 with LV septal capture. Our hypotheses that during LBB capture the paced V6 R-wave peak time (RWPT; measured from QRS onset) equals the native V6 RWPT and that the paced V6 RWPT (measured from the stimulus) equals the LBB potential to V6 R-wave peak interval were positively validated. Criteria based on these rules had sensitivity and specificity of 88.2%-98.0% and 85.7%-95.4%, respectively. Moreover, 100% specific V6 RWPT cutoff for LBB capture diagnosis in patients with narrow QRS/right bundle branch block was determined to be 74 ms. CONCLUSION: We showed equivalency of LV activation times on ECG during native and paced LBB conduction. Therefore, if V6 RWPT is longer during pacing, this finding is indicative of lack of LBB capture.

1st Department of Cardiology Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension Jagiellonian University Medical College Kraków Poland

Department of Cardiology 3rd Faculty of Medicine Charles University and University Hospital Kralovske Vinohrady Prague Czech Republic

Geisinger Heart Institute Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine Wilkes Barre Pennsylvania

Komentář v

Heart Rhythm. 2021 Jun;18(6):944-945. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2021.03.035. PubMed

Komentář v

J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2023 Jun;34(6):1491-1494. doi: 10.1111/jce.15921. PubMed

Citace poskytuje Crossref.org

European Society of Cardiology (ESC) clinical consensus statement on indications for conduction system pacing, with special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association of the ESC and endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society, the Canadian Heart Rhythm Society, the Heart Rhythm Society, and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society

Clinical impact and predictors of periprocedural myocardial injury among patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging, echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing

Left bundle branch area pacing results in more physiological ventricular activation than biventricular pacing in patients with left bundle branch block heart failure

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), and Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: executive summary. Endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS) and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing-cardiac resynchronization therapy in elderly patients

Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study

The V6-V1 interpeak interval: a novel criterion for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture

Left Ventricular Myocardial Septal Pacing in Close Proximity to LBB Does Not Prolong the Duration of the Left Ventricular Lateral Wall Depolarization Compared to LBB Pacing