Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been introduced as a novel physiological pacing strategy. Within LBBAP, distinction is made between left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP, no left bundle capture). Objective: To investigate acute electrophysiological effects of LBBP and LVSP as compared to intrinsic ventricular conduction. Methods: Fifty patients with normal cardiac function and pacemaker indication for bradycardia underwent LBBAP. Electrocardiography (ECG) characteristics were evaluated during pacing at various depths within the septum: starting at the right ventricular (RV) side of the septum: the last position with QS morphology, the first position with r’ morphology, LVSP and—in patients where left bundle branch (LBB) capture was achieved—LBBP. From the ECG’s QRS duration and QRS morphology in lead V1, the stimulus- left ventricular activation time left ventricular activation time (LVAT) interval were measured. After conversion of the ECG into vectorcardiogram (VCG) (Kors conversion matrix), QRS area and QRS vector in transverse plane (Azimuth) were determined. Results: QRS area significantly decreased from 82 ± 29 µVs during RV septal pacing (RVSP) to 46 ± 12 µVs during LVSP. In the subgroup where LBB capture was achieved (n = 31), QRS area significantly decreased from 46 ± 17 µVs during LVSP to 38 ± 15 µVs during LBBP, while LVAT was not significantly different between LVSP and LBBP. In patients with normal ventricular activation and narrow QRS, QRS area during LBBP was not significantly different from that during intrinsic activation (37 ± 16 vs. 35 ± 19 µVs, respectively). The Azimuth significantly changed from RVSP (−46 ± 33°) to LVSP (19 ± 16°) and LBBP (−22 ± 14°). The Azimuth during both LVSP and LBBP were not significantly different from normal ventricular activation. QRS area and LVAT correlated moderately (Spearman’s R = 0.58). Conclusions: ECG and VCG indices demonstrate that both LVSP and LBBP improve ventricular dyssynchrony considerably as compared to RVSP, to values close to normal ventricular activation. LBBP seems to result in a small, but significant, improvement in ventricular synchrony as compared to LVSP.

The adverse effects of ventricular dyssynchrony induced by right ventricular (RV) pacing has led to alternative pacing strategies, such as biventricular, His bundle (HBP), LV septal (LVSP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Given the overlap, LVSP and LBBP are also collectively referred to as left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Although among these alternative pacing sites HBP is theoretically the ideal strategy as it maintains a physiological ventricular activation, its application requires more skills and is associated with the most complications. LBBAP, where the ventricular pacing lead is advanced through the interventricular septum to its left side, creates ventricular activation that is only slightly more dyssynchronous. Preliminary studies have shown that LBBAP is feasible, safe and encounters less limitations than HBP. Further studies are needed to differentiate between LVSP and LBBP with regard to acute functional and long-term clinical outcome.

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 (LBB_pot) was present with an LBB_pot 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.

Multisite pacing strategies that improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) have been proposed. Current available options are pacing 2 electrodes in a multipolar lead in a single vein (multipoint pacing [MPP]) and pacing using 2 leads in separate veins (multizone pacing [MZP]). The purpose of this study was to compare in a systematic manner the acute hemodynamic response (AHR) and electrophysiological effects of MPP and MZP and compare them with conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). Hemodynamic and electrophysiological effects were evaluated in a porcine model of acute left bundle branch block (LBBB) (n = 8). AHR was assessed as LVdP/dtmax. Activation times were measured using >100 electrodes around the epicardium, measuring total activation time (TAT) and left ventricular activation time (LVAT). Compared to LBBB, BiVP, MZP, and MPP reduced TAT by 26% ± 10%, 32% ± 13%, and 32% ± 14%, respectively (P = NS between modes) and LVAT by 4% ± 5%, 11% ± 5%, and 12% ± 5%, respectively (P <.05 BiVP vs MPP and MZP). On average, BiVP increased LVdP/dtmax by 8% ± 4%, and optimal BiVP increased LVdP/dtmax by 13% ± 4%. The additional improvement in LVdP/dtmax by MZP and MPP was significant only when its increase during BiVP and decrease in TAT were poor (lower 25% of all sites in 1 subject). The increase in LVdP/dtmax was larger when large interelectrode distances (>5 cm vs <2.2 cm) were used. In this animal model of acute LBBB, MPP and MZP create similar degrees of electrical resynchronization and hemodynamic effect, which are larger if interelectrode distance is large. MPP and MZP increase the benefit of CRT only if the left ventricular lead used for BiVP provides poor response.