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

BACKGROUND: The clinical impact of Periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI) in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) is unknown. METHODS: 130 patients undergoing LBBAP from January 2020 to June 2021 and completing 12 months follow up were enrolled to assess the impact of PMI on composite clinical outcome (CCO) defined as any of the following: all-cause death, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). High sensitivity Troponin T (HsTnT) was measured up to 24-h after intervention to identify the peak HsTnT values. PMI was defined as increased peak HsTnT values at least > 99th percentile of the upper reference limit (URL: 15 pg/ml) in patients with normal baseline values. RESULTS: PMI occurred in 72 of 130 patients (55%). ROC analysis yielded a post-procedural peak HsTnT cutoff of fourfold the URL for predicting the CCO (AUC: 0.692; p = 0.023; sensitivity 73% and specificity 71%). Of the enrolled patients, 20% (n = 26) had peak HsTnT > fourfold the URL. Patients with peak HsTnT > fourfold the URL exhibited a higher incidence of the CCO than patients with peak HsTnT ≤ fourfold the URL (31% vs. 10%; p = 0.005), driven by more frequent hospitalizations for ACS (15% vs. 3%; p = 0.010). Multiple (> 2) lead repositions attempts, the use of septography and stylet-driven leads were independent predictors of higher risk of PMI with peak HsTnT > fourfold the URL. CONCLUSIONS: PMI seems common among patients undergoing LBBAP and may be associated with an increased risk of clinical outcomes in case of more pronounced (peak HsTnT > fourfold the URL) myocardial damage occurring during the procedure.

• Keywords
• High sensitivity troponin, Left bundle branch area pacing, Lumen less lead, Periprocedural myocardial injury, Septography, Stylet-driven lead,
• MeSH
• Bundle-Branch Block MeSH
• Cardiac Pacing, Artificial MeSH
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Heart Injuries etiology   MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Troponin T * blood   MeSH
• Check Tag
• Middle Aged MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Male MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Names of Substances
• Troponin T * MeSH

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing (BVP). This study assessed ventricular activation patterns and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP and compared this to BVP. METHODS: Fifty consecutive patients underwent LBBP or BVP for CRT. Ventricular activation mapping was obtained by ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG). Functional and echocardiographic outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality after one year from implantation were evaluated. RESULTS: LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization vs BVP (QRS width: 170 ± 16 ms to 128 ± 20 ms vs 174 ± 15 to 144 ± 17 ms, p = 0.002 (LBBP vs BVP); e-DYS 81 ± 17 ms to 0 ± 32 ms vs 77 ± 18 to 16 ± 29 ms, p = 0.016 (LBBP vs BVP)). Improvement in LVEF (from 28 ± 8 to 42 ± 10 percent vs 28 ± 9 to 36 ± 12 percent, LBBP vs BVP, p = 0.078) was similar. Improvement in NYHA function class (from 2.4 to 1.5 and from 2.3 to 1.5 (LBBP vs BVP)), hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality were comparable in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging is an appropriate way to gain a better insight into activation patterns of LBBP and BVP. LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization (e-DYS and QRS duration) with comparable improvement in LVEF, NYHA functional class, hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality at one year of follow up.

• Keywords
• Biventricular pacing, Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Left bundle branch pacing, Ventricular activation mapping,
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

Biventricular pacing (Biv) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are methods of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Currently, little is known about how they differ in terms of ventricular activation. This study compared ventricular activation patterns in left bundle branch block (LBBB) heart failure patients using an ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG). This was a retrospective analysis including 80 CRT patients from two centres. UHF-ECG data were obtained during LBBB, LBBAP, and Biv. Left bundle branch area pacing patients were divided into non-selective left bundle branch pacing (NSLBBP) or left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) and into groups with V6 R-wave peak times (V6RWPT) < 90 ms and ≥ 90 ms. Calculated parameters were: e-DYS (time difference between the first and last activation in V1-V8 leads) and Vdmean (average of V1-V8 local depolarization durations). In LBBB patients (n = 80) indicated for CRT, spontaneous rhythms were compared with Biv (39) and LBBAP rhythms (64). Although both Biv and LBBAP significantly reduced QRS duration (QRSd) compared with LBBB (from 172 to 148 and 152 ms, respectively, both P < 0.001), the difference between them was not significant (P = 0.2). Left bundle branch area pacing led to shorter e-DYS (24 ms) than Biv (33 ms; P = 0.008) and shorter Vdmean (53 vs. 59 ms; P = 0.003). No differences in QRSd, e-DYS, or Vdmean were found between NSLBBP, LVSP, and LBBAP with paced V6RWPTs < 90 and ≥ 90 ms. Both Biv CRT and LBBAP significantly reduce ventricular dyssynchrony in CRT patients with LBBB. Left bundle branch area pacing is associated with more physiological ventricular activation.

• Keywords
• Biv CRT, Heart failure, LBBAP, UHF-ECG, Ventricular synchrony,
• Publication type
• Journal Article 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
• Geographicals
• Canada MeSH
• Latin America 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
• Geographicals
• Asia MeSH
• Canada MeSH

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging technique to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its feasibility and safety in elderly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block is hardly investigated. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for CRT comparing pacing parameters and complication rates of LBBAP-CRT in elderly patients (≥ 75 years) versus younger patients (< 75 years) over a 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: LBBAP was successful in 55/60 enrolled patients (92%), among which 25(45%) were elderly. In both groups, LBBAP significantly reduced the QRS duration (elderly group: 168 ± 15 ms to 136 ± 12 ms, p < 0.0001; younger group: 166 ± 14 ms to 134 ± 11 ms, p < 0.0001) and improved LVEF (elderly group: 28 ± 5% to 40 ± 7%, p < 0.0001; younger group: 29 ± 5% to 41 ± 8%, p < 0.0001). The pacing threshold was 0.9 ± 0.8 V in the elderly group vs. 0.7 ± 0.5 V in the younger group (p = 0.350). The R wave was 9.5 ± 3.9 mV in elderly patients vs. 10.7 ± 2.7 mV in younger patients (p = 0.341). The fluoroscopic (elderly: 13 ± 7 min vs. younger: 11 ± 7 min, p = 0.153) and procedural time (elderly: 80 ± 20 min vs. younger: 78 ± 16 min, p = 0.749) were comparable between groups. Lead dislodgement occurred in 2(4%) patients, 1 in each group (p = 1.000). Intraprocedural septal perforation occurred in three patients (5%), 2(8%) in the elderly group (p = 0.585). One patient (2%) in the elderly group had a pocket infection. CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP is a feasible and safe technique for delivering physiological pacing in elderly patients who are candidates for CRT with suitable pacing parameters and low complication rates.

• Keywords
• Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Conduction system pacing, Elderly patients, Heart failure, Left bundle branch area pacing,
• MeSH
• Electrocardiography methods   MeSH
• Bundle of His MeSH
• Cardiac Pacing, Artificial adverse effects   methods   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy * methods   MeSH
• Feasibility Studies MeSH
• Stroke Volume MeSH
• Treatment Outcome MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH

AIMS: Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.

• Keywords
• Complications, Conduction system pacing, Distal capture, Left bundle branch pacing, Left bundle fascicular pacing, Left ventricular septal pacing,
• MeSH
• Bundle-Branch Block therapy   etiology   MeSH
• Bradycardia therapy   etiology   MeSH
• Electrocardiography methods   MeSH
• Bundle of His * MeSH
• Cardiac Pacing, Artificial adverse effects   methods   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Heart Failure * MeSH
• Treatment Outcome MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Aged MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Multicenter Study MeSH
• Observational Study MeSH

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.

• Keywords
• Conduction system pacing, Electrocardiogram, Left bundle branch capture, Left bundle branch pacing, Left ventricular septal capture,
• MeSH
• Electrocardiography methods   MeSH
• Bundle of His * MeSH
• Cardiac Pacing, Artificial methods   MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Ventricular Septum * MeSH
• Heart Conduction System MeSH
• Check Tag
• Humans MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article 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