AIMS: We hypothesized that during left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, the various possible combinations of direct capture/non-capture of the septal myocardium and the LBB result in distinct patterns of right and left ventricular activation. This could translate into different combinations of R-wave peak time (RWPT) in V1 and V6. Consequently, the V6-V1 interpeak interval could differentiate the three types of LBB area capture: non-selective (ns-)LBB, selective (s-)LBB, and left ventricular septal (LVS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with unquestionable evidence of LBB capture were included. The V6-V1 interpeak interval, V6RWPT, and V1RWPT were compared between different types of LBB area capture. A total of 468 patients from two centres were screened, with 124 patients (239 electrocardiograms) included in the analysis. Loss of LVS capture resulted in an increase in V1RWPT by ≥15 ms but did not impact V6RWPT. Loss of LBB capture resulted in an increase in V6RWPT by ≥15 ms but only minimally influenced V1RWPT. Consequently, the V6-V1 interval was longest during s-LBB capture (62.3 ± 21.4 ms), intermediate during ns-LBB capture (41.3 ± 14.0 ms), and shortest during LVS capture (26.5 ± 8.6 ms). The optimal value of the V6-V1 interval value for the differentiation between ns-LBB and LVS capture was 33 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 84.7%). A specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of LBB capture was obtained with a cut-off value of >44 ms. CONCLUSION: The V6-V1 interpeak interval is a promising novel criterion for the diagnosis of LBB area capture.

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

Cardiac Pacing Unit Cardiology Department University Hospital of Geneva Geneva Switzerland

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 PA USA

Zobrazit více v PubMed

Burri H, Jastrzebski M, Vijayaraman P.  Electrocardiographic analysis for His bundle pacing at implantation and follow-up. JACC Clin Electrophysiol  2020;6:883–900. PubMed

Jastrzębski M, Moskal P, Curila K, Fijorek K, Kukla P, Bednarek A  et al.  Electrocardiographic characterization of non-selective His-bundle pacing: validation of novel diagnostic criteria. Europace  2019;21:1857–64. PubMed

Huang W, Chen X, Su L, Wu S, Xia X, Vijayaraman P.  A beginner's guide to permanent left bundle branch pacing. Heart Rhythm  2019;16:1791–6. PubMed

Vijayaraman P, Subzposh FA, Naperkowski A, Panikkath R, John K, Mascarenhas V  et al.  Prospective evaluation of feasibility and electrophysiologic and echocardiographic characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing. Heart Rhythm  2019;16:1774–82. PubMed

Vijayaraman P, Sundaram S, Cano O, Sharma P, Naperkowski A, Subsposh AF  et al.  Left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: results from the international LBBP Collaborative Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol  2021;7:135–47. PubMed

Jastrzębski M, Moskal P, Bednarek A, Kiełbasa G, Kusiak A, Sondej T  et al.  Programmed deep septal stimulation: a novel maneuver for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture during permanent pacing. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol  2020;31:485–93. PubMed

Jastrzębski M, Kiełbasa G, Curila K, Moskal P, Bednarek A, Rajzer M  et al.  Physiology-based electrocardiographic criteria for left bundle branch capture. Heart Rhythm  2021;18:935–4. PubMed

Gao MY, Tian Y, Shi L, Wang YJ, Xie AQ, Qi J  et al.  Electrocardiographic morphology during left bundle branch area pacing: characteristics, underlying mechanisms, and clinical implications. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol  2020;43:297–307. PubMed

Assessment of ventricular electrical heterogeneity in left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing by using various electrophysiological methods

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

Conduction system pacing, a European survey: insights from clinical practice

Pacing of the specialized His-Purkinje conduction system: 'back to the future'

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)

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