A single-centre prospective evaluation of left bundle branch area pacemaker implantation characteristics

L I B Heckman; J G L M Luermans; M Jastrzębski; B Weijs; A M W Van Stipdonk; S Westra; D den Uijl; D Linz; M Mafi-Rad; F W Prinzen; K Vernooy

doi:10.1007/s12471-022-01679-7

A single-centre prospective evaluation of left bundle branch area pacemaker implantation characteristics

L I B Heckman^*, J G L M Luermans, M Jastrzębski, B Weijs, A M W Van Stipdonk, S Westra, D den Uijl, D Linz, M Mafi-Rad, F W Prinzen, K Vernooy

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been introduced as a physiological pacing technique with synchronous left ventricular activation. It was our aim to evaluate the feasibility and learning curve of the technique, as well as the electrical characteristics of LBBAP.

METHODS AND RESULTS: LBBAP was attempted in 80 consecutive patients and electrocardiographic characteristics were evaluated during intrinsic rhythm, right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) and LBBAP. Permanent lead implantation was successful in 77 of 80 patients (96%). LBBAP lead implantation time and fluoroscopy time shortened significantly from 33 ± 16 and 21 ± 13 min to 17 ± 5 and 12 ± 7 min, respectively, from the first 20 to the last 20 patients. Left bundle branch (LBB) capture was achieved in 54 of 80 patients (68%). In 36 of 45 patients (80%) with intact atrioventricular conduction and narrow QRS, an LBB potential (LBBpot) was present with an LBBpot to onset of QRS interval of 22 ± 6 ms. QRS duration increased significantly more during RVSP (141 ± 20 ms) than during LBBAP (125 ± 19 ms), compared to 130 ± 30 ms without pacing. An even clearer difference was observed for QRS area, which increased significantly more during RVSP (from 32 ± 16 µVs to 73 ± 20 µVs) than during LBBAP (41 ± 15 µVs). QRS area was significantly smaller in patients with LBB capture compared to patients without LBB capture (43 ± 18 µVs vs 54 ± 21 µVs, respectively). In patients with LBB capture (n = 54), the interval from the pacing stimulus to R‑wave peak time in lead V6 was significantly shorter than in patients without LBB capture (75 ± 14 vs 88 ± 9 ms, respectively).

CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a safe and feasible technique, with a clear learning curve that seems to flatten after 40-60 implantations. LBB capture is achieved in two-thirds of patients. Compared to RVSP, LBBAP largely maintains ventricular electrical synchrony at a level close to intrinsic (narrow QRS) rhythm.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	249-257
Number of pages	9
Journal	Netherlands Heart Journal
Volume	30
Issue number	5
Early online date	5 Apr 2022
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-022-01679-7
Publication status	Published - May 2022

Keywords

ATRIAL
Bradycardia pacing
Cardiac resynchronisation therapy
Left bundle branch pacing
THERAPY
VECTORCARDIOGRAM

Access to Document

10.1007/s12471-022-01679-7Licence: CC BY

Cite this

Heckman, L. I. B., Luermans, J. G. L. M., Jastrzębski, M., Weijs, B., Van Stipdonk, A. M. W., Westra, S., den Uijl, D., Linz, D., Mafi-Rad, M., Prinzen, F. W., & Vernooy, K. (2022). A single-centre prospective evaluation of left bundle branch area pacemaker implantation characteristics. Netherlands Heart Journal, 30(5), 249-257. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12471-022-01679-7

@article{8c00c665c04b409aa3ab67c323fb3250,

title = "A single-centre prospective evaluation of left bundle branch area pacemaker implantation characteristics",

abstract = "BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been introduced as a physiological pacing technique with synchronous left ventricular activation. It was our aim to evaluate the feasibility and learning curve of the technique, as well as the electrical characteristics of LBBAP.METHODS AND RESULTS: LBBAP was attempted in 80 consecutive patients and electrocardiographic characteristics were evaluated during intrinsic rhythm, right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) and LBBAP. Permanent lead implantation was successful in 77 of 80 patients (96%). LBBAP lead implantation time and fluoroscopy time shortened significantly from 33 ± 16 and 21 ± 13 min to 17 ± 5 and 12 ± 7 min, respectively, from the first 20 to the last 20 patients. Left bundle branch (LBB) capture was achieved in 54 of 80 patients (68%). In 36 of 45 patients (80%) with intact atrioventricular conduction and narrow QRS, an LBB potential (LBBpot) was present with an LBBpot to onset of QRS interval of 22 ± 6 ms. QRS duration increased significantly more during RVSP (141 ± 20 ms) than during LBBAP (125 ± 19 ms), compared to 130 ± 30 ms without pacing. An even clearer difference was observed for QRS area, which increased significantly more during RVSP (from 32 ± 16 µVs to 73 ± 20 µVs) than during LBBAP (41 ± 15 µVs). QRS area was significantly smaller in patients with LBB capture compared to patients without LBB capture (43 ± 18 µVs vs 54 ± 21 µVs, respectively). In patients with LBB capture (n = 54), the interval from the pacing stimulus to R‑wave peak time in lead V6 was significantly shorter than in patients without LBB capture (75 ± 14 vs 88 ± 9 ms, respectively).CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a safe and feasible technique, with a clear learning curve that seems to flatten after 40-60 implantations. LBB capture is achieved in two-thirds of patients. Compared to RVSP, LBBAP largely maintains ventricular electrical synchrony at a level close to intrinsic (narrow QRS) rhythm.",

keywords = "ATRIAL, Bradycardia pacing, Cardiac resynchronisation therapy, Left bundle branch pacing, THERAPY, VECTORCARDIOGRAM",

author = "Heckman, {L I B} and Luermans, {J G L M} and M Jastrz{\c e}bski and B Weijs and {Van Stipdonk}, {A M W} and S Westra and {den Uijl}, D and D Linz and M Mafi-Rad and Prinzen, {F W} and K Vernooy",

note = "{\textcopyright} 2022. The Author(s).",

year = "2022",

month = may,

doi = "10.1007/s12471-022-01679-7",

language = "English",

volume = "30",

pages = "249--257",

journal = "Netherlands Heart Journal",

issn = "1568-5888",

publisher = "Bohn Stafleu van Loghum",

number = "5",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A single-centre prospective evaluation of left bundle branch area pacemaker implantation characteristics

AU - Heckman, L I B

AU - Luermans, J G L M

AU - Jastrzębski, M

AU - Weijs, B

AU - Van Stipdonk, A M W

AU - Westra, S

AU - den Uijl, D

AU - Linz, D

AU - Mafi-Rad, M

AU - Prinzen, F W

AU - Vernooy, K

PY - 2022/5

Y1 - 2022/5

N2 - BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been introduced as a physiological pacing technique with synchronous left ventricular activation. It was our aim to evaluate the feasibility and learning curve of the technique, as well as the electrical characteristics of LBBAP.METHODS AND RESULTS: LBBAP was attempted in 80 consecutive patients and electrocardiographic characteristics were evaluated during intrinsic rhythm, right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) and LBBAP. Permanent lead implantation was successful in 77 of 80 patients (96%). LBBAP lead implantation time and fluoroscopy time shortened significantly from 33 ± 16 and 21 ± 13 min to 17 ± 5 and 12 ± 7 min, respectively, from the first 20 to the last 20 patients. Left bundle branch (LBB) capture was achieved in 54 of 80 patients (68%). In 36 of 45 patients (80%) with intact atrioventricular conduction and narrow QRS, an LBB potential (LBBpot) was present with an LBBpot to onset of QRS interval of 22 ± 6 ms. QRS duration increased significantly more during RVSP (141 ± 20 ms) than during LBBAP (125 ± 19 ms), compared to 130 ± 30 ms without pacing. An even clearer difference was observed for QRS area, which increased significantly more during RVSP (from 32 ± 16 µVs to 73 ± 20 µVs) than during LBBAP (41 ± 15 µVs). QRS area was significantly smaller in patients with LBB capture compared to patients without LBB capture (43 ± 18 µVs vs 54 ± 21 µVs, respectively). In patients with LBB capture (n = 54), the interval from the pacing stimulus to R‑wave peak time in lead V6 was significantly shorter than in patients without LBB capture (75 ± 14 vs 88 ± 9 ms, respectively).CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a safe and feasible technique, with a clear learning curve that seems to flatten after 40-60 implantations. LBB capture is achieved in two-thirds of patients. Compared to RVSP, LBBAP largely maintains ventricular electrical synchrony at a level close to intrinsic (narrow QRS) rhythm.

AB - BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been introduced as a physiological pacing technique with synchronous left ventricular activation. It was our aim to evaluate the feasibility and learning curve of the technique, as well as the electrical characteristics of LBBAP.METHODS AND RESULTS: LBBAP was attempted in 80 consecutive patients and electrocardiographic characteristics were evaluated during intrinsic rhythm, right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP) and LBBAP. Permanent lead implantation was successful in 77 of 80 patients (96%). LBBAP lead implantation time and fluoroscopy time shortened significantly from 33 ± 16 and 21 ± 13 min to 17 ± 5 and 12 ± 7 min, respectively, from the first 20 to the last 20 patients. Left bundle branch (LBB) capture was achieved in 54 of 80 patients (68%). In 36 of 45 patients (80%) with intact atrioventricular conduction and narrow QRS, an LBB potential (LBBpot) was present with an LBBpot to onset of QRS interval of 22 ± 6 ms. QRS duration increased significantly more during RVSP (141 ± 20 ms) than during LBBAP (125 ± 19 ms), compared to 130 ± 30 ms without pacing. An even clearer difference was observed for QRS area, which increased significantly more during RVSP (from 32 ± 16 µVs to 73 ± 20 µVs) than during LBBAP (41 ± 15 µVs). QRS area was significantly smaller in patients with LBB capture compared to patients without LBB capture (43 ± 18 µVs vs 54 ± 21 µVs, respectively). In patients with LBB capture (n = 54), the interval from the pacing stimulus to R‑wave peak time in lead V6 was significantly shorter than in patients without LBB capture (75 ± 14 vs 88 ± 9 ms, respectively).CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a safe and feasible technique, with a clear learning curve that seems to flatten after 40-60 implantations. LBB capture is achieved in two-thirds of patients. Compared to RVSP, LBBAP largely maintains ventricular electrical synchrony at a level close to intrinsic (narrow QRS) rhythm.

KW - ATRIAL

KW - Bradycardia pacing

KW - Cardiac resynchronisation therapy

KW - Left bundle branch pacing

KW - THERAPY

KW - VECTORCARDIOGRAM

U2 - 10.1007/s12471-022-01679-7

DO - 10.1007/s12471-022-01679-7

M3 - Article

C2 - 35380414

SN - 1568-5888

VL - 30

SP - 249

EP - 257

JO - Netherlands Heart Journal

JF - Netherlands Heart Journal

IS - 5

ER -