Background— Studies in canine hearts with acute left bundle branch block (LBBB) showed that endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing improves the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) compared with conventional epicardial LV pacing. The present study explores the efficacy of endocardial CRT in more compromised hearts and the mechanisms of such beneficial effects. Methods and Results— Measurements were performed in 22 dogs, 9 with acute LBBB, 7 with chronic LBBB combined with infarction (embolization; LBBB plus myocardial infarction, and concentric remodeling), and 6 with chronic LBBB and heart failure (rapid pacing, LBBB+HF, and eccentric remodeling). A head-to-head comparison was performed of the effects of endocardial and epicardial LV pacing at 8 sites. LV activation times were measured using ≈100 endocardial and epicardial electrodes and noncontact mapping. Pump function was assessed from right ventricular and LV pressures. Endocardial CRT resulted in better electric resynchronization than epicardial CRT in all models, although the benefit was larger in concentrically remodeled LBBB plus myocardial infarction than in eccentrically remodeled LBBB+HF hearts (19% versus 10%). In LBBB and LBBB+HF animals, endocardial conduction was ≈50% faster than epicardial conduction; in all models, transmural impulse conduction was ≈25% faster when pacing from the endocardium than from the epicardium. Hemodynamic effects were congruent with electric effects. Conclusions— Endocardial CRT improves electric synchrony of activation and LV pump function compared with conventional epicardial CRT in compromised canine LBBB hearts. This benefit can be explained by a shorter path length along the endocardium and by faster circumferential and transmural impulse conduction during endocardial LV pacing.

Aims: The diagnostic accuracy of proprietary smartwatch algorithms and the interpretability of smartwatch ECG tracings may differ between available models. We compared the diagnostic potential for detecting atrial fibrillation (AF) of three commercially available smartwatches.Methods: We performed a prospective, non-randomized, and adjudicator-blinded clinical study of 100 patients in AF and 100 patients in sinus rhythm, patients with atrial flutter were excluded. All patients underwent 4 ECG recordings: a conventional 12-lead ECG, Apple Watch Series 5®, Samsung Galaxy Watch Active 3®, and Withings Move ECG® in random order. All smartwatch ECGs were analyzed using their respective automated proprietary software and by clinical experts who also graded the quality of the tracings.Results: The accuracy of automated AF diagnoses by Apple and Samsung outperformed that of Withings, which was attributable to a higher proportion of inconclusive ECGs with the latter (sensitivity/specificity: 87%/86% and 88%/81% vs. 78%/80%, respectively, p < 0.05). Expert interpretation was more accurate for Withings and Apple than for Samsung (sensitivity/specificity: 96%/86% and 94%/84% vs. 86%/76%, p < 0.05), driven by the high proportion of uninterpretable tracings with the latter (2 and 4% vs. 15%, p < 0.05).Conclusion: Diagnosing AF is possible using various smartwatch models. However, the diagnostic accuracy of their automated interpretations varies between models as does the quality of ECG tracings recorded for manual interpretation.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) aims to treat selected heart failure patients suffering from conduction abnormalities with left bundle branch block (LBBB) as the culprit disease. LBBB remained largely underinvestigated until it became apparent that the amount of response to CRT was heterogeneous and that the therapy and underlying pathology were thus incompletely understood. In this review, current knowledge concerning activation in LBBB and during biventricular pacing will be explored and applied to current CRT practice, highlighting novel ways to better measure and treat the electrical substrate.