Cardiac pacing is the only effective therapy for patients with symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Traditional right ventricular apical pacing causes electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony resulting in left ventricular dysfunction, recurrent heart failure, and atrial arrhythmias. Physiological pacing activates the normal cardiac conduction, thereby providing synchronized contraction of ventricles. Though His bundle pacing (HBP) acts as an ideal physiological pacing modality, it is technically challenging and associated with troubleshooting issues during follow-up. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an effective alternative to overcome the limitations of HBP as it provides low and stable pacing threshold, lead stability, and correction of distal conduction system disease. This paper will focus on the implantation technique, troubleshooting, clinical implications, and a review of published literature of LBBP.

Left bundle branch pacing: A comprehensive review.

Evaluation of the Criteria to Distinguish Left Bundle Branch Pacing From Left Ventricular Septal Pacing.

Physiology-based electrocardiographic criteria for left bundle branch capture

Abstract 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.

https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehac445

Sudip Nanda

Papers

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Results From the International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group.

His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Feasibility and Safety