Xin-Yi Peng1, Yan-Jiang Wang1, Lan-Lan Sun2, Liang Shi1, Chao-Di Cheng1, Li-Hong Huang1, Ying Tian3, Xing-Peng Liu4. 1. Heart Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China. 2. Department of Echocardiography, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China. 3. Heart Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China. doctorty2000@hotmail.com. 4. Heart Center, Beijing Chaoyang Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100020, China. xpliu71@vip.sina.com.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Distinguishing between left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) is challenging. This study aimed to compare the echocardiographic distance from the pacing lead tip to the left ventricular (LV) septal endocardium between patients who underwent LBBP and those who underwent LVSP successfully. METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients (age 71.9 ± 12.0 years, 35.6% male) with traditional indications for permanent cardiac pacing were included (LBBP group, n = 46; LVSP group, n = 13). Unipolar pacing from the final pacing sites generated narrow QRS complexes with a right bundle branch block pattern in all patients. After the procedure, a physician blinded to the group allocation performed echocardiographic measurements of the distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium. RESULTS: The mean paced QRS duration was comparable between the LBBP group and the LVSP group (105.3 ± 15.6 ms vs. 109.2 ± 9.6 ms, P = 0.287). In the LBBP group, the interval from the left bundle branch potential to QRS onset was 28.7 ± 9.0 ms. During diastole, the mean distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium was 0.6 ± 0.9 mm in the LBBP group and 3.0 ± 1.6 mm in the LVSP group (P < 0.001). During systole, the distance was 1.5 ± 1.4 mm in the LBBP group and 4.3 ± 2.6 mm in the LVSP group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The landing zone of the lead tip was closer to the LV septal endocardium in the patients who underwent LBBP. There is a need for real-time intraprocedural monitoring of the distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium when performing LBBP.
PURPOSE: Distinguishing between left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) is challenging. This study aimed to compare the echocardiographic distance from the pacing lead tip to the left ventricular (LV) septal endocardium between patients who underwent LBBP and those who underwent LVSP successfully. METHODS: Fifty-nine consecutive patients (age 71.9 ± 12.0 years, 35.6% male) with traditional indications for permanent cardiac pacing were included (LBBP group, n = 46; LVSP group, n = 13). Unipolar pacing from the final pacing sites generated narrow QRS complexes with a right bundle branch block pattern in all patients. After the procedure, a physician blinded to the group allocation performed echocardiographic measurements of the distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium. RESULTS: The mean paced QRS duration was comparable between the LBBP group and the LVSP group (105.3 ± 15.6 ms vs. 109.2 ± 9.6 ms, P = 0.287). In the LBBP group, the interval from the left bundle branch potential to QRS onset was 28.7 ± 9.0 ms. During diastole, the mean distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium was 0.6 ± 0.9 mm in the LBBP group and 3.0 ± 1.6 mm in the LVSP group (P < 0.001). During systole, the distance was 1.5 ± 1.4 mm in the LBBP group and 4.3 ± 2.6 mm in the LVSP group (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The landing zone of the lead tip was closer to the LV septal endocardium in the patients who underwent LBBP. There is a need for real-time intraprocedural monitoring of the distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium when performing LBBP.
Authors: Carol Mitchell; Peter S Rahko; Lori A Blauwet; Barry Canaday; Joshua A Finstuen; Michael C Foster; Kenneth Horton; Kofo O Ogunyankin; Richard A Palma; Eric J Velazquez Journal: J Am Soc Echocardiogr Date: 2018-10-01 Impact factor: 5.251
Authors: Floor C W M Salden; Justin G L M Luermans; Sjoerd W Westra; Bob Weijs; Elien B Engels; Luuk I B Heckman; Léon J M Lamerichs; Michel H G Janssen; Kristof J H Clerx; Richard Cornelussen; Subham Ghosh; Frits W Prinzen; Kevin Vernooy Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-02-04 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Jeremy P Moore; Roberto G Gallotti; Kevin M Shannon; Benjamin A Blais; Elizabeth S DeWitt; Shuenn-Nan Chiu; David S Spar; Frank A Fish; Maully J Shah; Sabine Ernst; Paul Khairy; Ronald J Kanter; Philip M Chang; Thomas Pilcher; Ian H Law; Eric S Silver; Mei-Hwan Wu Journal: JACC Clin Electrophysiol Date: 2021-09-29
Authors: Karol Curila; Pavel Jurak; Marek Jastrzebski; Frits Prinzen; Petr Waldauf; Josef Halamek; Kevin Vernooy; Radovan Smisek; Jakub Karch; Filip Plesinger; Pawel Moskal; Marketa Susankova; Lucie Znojilova; Luuk Heckman; Ivo Viscor; Vlastimil Vondra; Pavel Leinveber; Pavel Osmancik Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2021-04-28 Impact factor: 6.343