LOCAlizaTion and clinical corrElation of Left Bundle Branch Pacing lead: Insights from a computed tomographic angiography (LOCATE LBBP) study.

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provides physiological activation with stable pacing parameters. However, there is a paucity of data on direct assessment of lead stability.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to assess the stability of an LBBP lead using computed tomographic angiography (CTA) during medium-term follow-up and to correlate the anatomic location of the lead and electrophysiological characteristics of LBBP.

Electrophysiologic characteristics and clinical correlation of right ventricular activation during left bundle branch area pacing (RV-LBBAP study).

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) results in a right bundle branch (RBB) delay pattern because of preexcitation of the left bundle. The mechanism of right ventricular (RV) activation during LBBAP is largely unknown.

Objective: The aim of the study was to analyze the electrophysiologic characteristics of RV activation by mapping the RBB during LBBAP and its clinical correlation.

Left Bundle Branch Block-associated Cardiomyopathy: A New Approach.

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is frequently associated with structural heart disease, and predicts higher rates of morbidity and mortality. In patients with cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction <35%) and LBBB, current guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) after 3 months of medical therapy. However, studies have suggested that medical therapy alone would be less effective, and the majority of patients would still need CRT at the end of 3 months.

Conduction system pacing compared with biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure and mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: Results from International Collaborative LBBAP Study (I-CLAS) Group.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a guideline-recommended therapy in patients with heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF, 36%-50%) and left bundle branch block or indication for ventricular pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using left bundle branch area pacing or His bundle pacing has been shown to be a safe and physiologic alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP).

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and CSP for patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT.

New-Onset Left Ventricular Dysfunction After Left Bundle Branch Pacing.

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provides stable pacing parameters and has been suggested as an alternative for right ventricular pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the incidence and etiology of new-onset left ventricular dysfunction (NOLVD) following LBBP in patients with baseline normal left ventricular (LV) function and cardiomyopathy patients with normalized LV function.

Methods: Patients undergoing successful LBBP for symptomatic bradyarrhythmia or as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy were included.

Retrograde Conduction in Left Bundle Branch Block: Insights From Left Bundle Branch Pacing.

Background: Biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the retrograde conduction properties of the left bundle branch in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB during LBBP and its clinical implications.

Transvenous extraction of conduction system pacing leads: An international multicenter (TECSPAM) study.

Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP) by His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is incorporated into Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for the management of bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Despite increasing adoption with both lumenless leads and stylet-driven leads, concerns regarding the feasibility and safety of the extraction of CSP leads remain.

Objective: The aim of the study was to report on the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of the extraction of CSP leads.

Left bundle branch pacing lead for sensing ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A pilot study (LBBP-ICD study).

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative modality for biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-eligible patients. As it provides stable R-wave sensing, LBBP has been recently used to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT.

Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term safety and efficacy of the LBBP lead for appropriate detection of ventricular arrhythmia and delivery of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients requiring defibrillator therapy with CRT.

Right sided approach for left bundle branch pacing using lumen-less lead: Technical considerations and follow-up outcome.

Introduction: Left bundle branch pacing has gained significant momentum in the last few years. The procedure involves deploying the lead deep inside the interventricular septum through left subclavian vein. We aimed at analyzing the feasibility, efficacy and long-term outcome of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) using lumen-less lead through the right subclavian vein.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study.

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP.

Methods: The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers.

Observations of interventricular septal behavior during left bundle branch pacing.

Introduction: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) involves the deployment of the lead deep inside the septum. Penetration of the septum by the lead depends on the texture of the septum, rapidity of rotations, operator experience, and implantation tools.

Objectives: The aim of our study was to assess the behavior of the lumenless lead during rapid rotations and the physiological property of the interventricular septum(IVS) during LBBP.

Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT.

MAgnetic resonance imaging based DUal lead cardiac Resynchronization therapy: A prospectIve Left Bundle Branch Pacing study (MADURAI LBBP study).

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a class I indication for left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and heart failure (HF). Left bundle branch block (LBBB)-associated nonischemic cardiomyopathy (LB-NICM) with minimal or no scar by cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging may be associated with excellent prognosis following CRT. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can achieve excellent resynchronization in LBBB patients.

Pacing induced cardiomyopathy: recognition and management.

Right ventricle (RV) apex continues to remain as the standard pacing site in the ventricle due to ease of implantation, procedural safety and lack of convincing evidence of better clinical outcomes from non-apical pacing sites. Electrical dyssynchrony resulting in abnormal ventricular activation and mechanical dyssynchrony resulting in abnormal ventricular contraction during RV pacing can result in adverse LV remodelling predisposing some patients for recurrent heart failure (HF) hospitalisation, atrial arrhythmias and increased mortality. While there are significant variations in the definition of pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PIC), combining both echocardiographic and clinical features, the most acceptable definition for PIC would be left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of <50%, absolute decline of LVEF by ≥10% and/or new-onset HF symptoms or atrial fibrillation (AF) after pacemaker implantation.

Predictors of procedural failure of left bundle branch pacing in scarred left ventricle.

Introduction: Presence of scar at the implantation-site is considered as a major factor in determining the success of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). We aimed at analyzing the predictors of procedural failure in patients with scarred-left ventricle (LV) as demonstrated by cardiac-magnetic resonance-imaging (CMR).

Methods: This was a retrospective, observational single-center-study that included consecutive cardiomyopathy patients with LV-scar as demonstrated by late-gadolinium-enhancement (LGE) in CMR requiring LBBP.