Conduction system pacing (CSP) is being increasingly adopted as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular and biventricular pacing. Since the 2021 European Society of Cardiology pacing guidelines, there has been growing evidence that this therapy is safe and effective. Furthermore, left bundle branch area pacing was not covered in these guidelines due to limited evidence at that time. This Clinical Consensus Statement provides advice on indications for CSP, taking into account the significant evolution in this domain.

• Keywords
• Biventricular pacing, Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Conduction system pacing, His bundle pacing, Indications, Left bundle branch area pacing,
• MeSH
• Action Potentials MeSH
• Cardiology * standards   MeSH
• Cardiac Pacing, Artificial * standards   adverse effects   methods   MeSH
• Consensus MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Heart Conduction System * physiopathology   MeSH
• Societies, Medical MeSH
• Arrhythmias, Cardiac * therapy   physiopathology   diagnosis   MeSH
• Heart Rate MeSH
• Treatment Outcome MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Practice Guideline MeSH
• Geographicals
• Europe MeSH

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique. A synopsis is provided in this print edition of EP-Europace. The full document may be consulted online, and a 'Key Messages' App can be downloaded from the EHRA website.

• Keywords
• Conduction system pacing, Device implantation, His bundle pacing, Left bundle branch area pacing,
• MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Cardiac Conduction System Disease MeSH
• Heart Conduction System * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Consensus Development Conference MeSH
• Geographicals
• Asia MeSH
• Canada MeSH

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last five years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique.

• Keywords
• Conduction system pacing, Device implantation, His bundle pacing, Left bundle branch area pacing,
• MeSH
• Bundle of His MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Cardiac Conduction System Disease MeSH
• Heart Conduction System * MeSH
• Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy * MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Consensus Development Conference MeSH
• Geographicals
• Canada MeSH
• Latin America MeSH

Background: Three different ventricular capture types are observed during left bundle branch pacing (LBBp). They are selective LBB pacing (sLBBp), non-selective LBB pacing (nsLBBp), and myocardial left septal pacing transiting from nsLBBp while decreasing the pacing output (LVSP). Study aimed to compare differences in ventricular depolarization between these captures using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG). Methods: Using decremental pacing voltage output, we identified and studied nsLBBp, sLBBp, and LVSP in patients with bradycardia. Timing of ventricular activations in precordial leads was displayed using UHF-ECGs, and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated as the difference between the first and last activation. The durations of local depolarizations (Vd) were determined as the width of the UHF-QRS complex at 50% of its amplitude. Results: In 57 consecutive patients, data were collected during nsLBBp (n = 57), LVSP (n = 34), and sLBBp (n = 23). Interventricular dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was significantly lower during LVSP -16 ms (-21; -11), than nsLBBp -24 ms (-28; -20) and sLBBp -31 ms (-36; -25). LVSP had the same V1d-V8d as nsLBBp and sLBBp except for V3d, which during LVSP was shorter than sLBBp; the mean difference -9 ms (-16; -1), p = 0.01. LVSP caused less interventricular dyssynchrony and the same or better local depolarization durations than nsLBBp and sLBBp irrespective of QRS morphology during spontaneous rhythm or paced QRS axis. Conclusions: In patients with bradycardia, LVSP in close proximity to LBB resulted in better interventricular synchrony than nsLBBp and sLBBp and did not significantly prolong depolarization of the left ventricular lateral wall.

• Keywords
• UHF-ECG, depolarization duration, dyssynchrony, left bundle branch pacing, left septal myocardial pacing,
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH