Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Abstract Introduction Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has become, in the last years, the preferred method for physiological pacing due to a wider target area, optimal pacing and sensing thresholds, and stable parameters over time. LBBAP ensures rapid and synchronous left ventricular (LV) activation through the left-sided conduction system. On the other hand, there is little data on right ventricular (RV) activation in LBBAP. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of LBBAP on the right heart anatomy and function over a mid-term follow-up period. Material and methods All consecutive patients with successful LBBAP for bradyarrhythmic indications between February 2021 and July 2022 at our institution were eligible for this study. Left bundle branch capture was defined as a paced QRS complex of right bundle branch block morphology, and proof of transition from non-selective to selective capture with differential pacing maneuvers. To avoid confounders, patients with LV ejection fraction below 40% and with severe valvular disease were excluded. In the end, 57 patients were prospectively evaluated. Patient and procedural characteristics were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Also, right atrial (RA) volume, RV basal diameter, tricuspid annulus peak systolic elevation (TAPSE), RV S` wave (RVS`W), and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) were evaluated before the procedure and at the end of the follow-up period. Results The mean age of the patients was 68.9± 10 years, and 70% were males. 29.8% had a baseline right bundle branch block, and 22.8% had a left bundle branch block morphology. The baseline LV ejection fraction was 54.3 ± 9.9 %. The paced QRS duration was similar to the baseline values (128.5 ± 16.3 vs. 134.4 ± 30.4 msec, p=0.119). The pacing and sensing thresholds were 0.7 ± 0.3 V at 0.4 ms pulse duration and 9.7 ± 4.2 mV, respectively. The mean LV activation time (measured as the R wave peak time in V6) was 80.9 ± 12 msec, and the mean RV activation time (measured as the difference between QRS duration and LV activation time) was 51.9 ± 24.2 msec. The patients were followed over a mean period of 591.2 ± 150.3 days. There were no complications over the follow-up period that led to pacing interruption. The follow-up pacing (0.6 ± 0.2 V, p=0.003) and sensing (11.7 ± 6 mV, p= 0.023) thresholds showed significant improvement compared to the procedural values. The right heart echocardiographic evaluation showed non-statistically significant changes between the follow-up and the baseline values for RA volumes (57.9 ± 33.7 vs. 51.5 ± 28.4 ml, p=0.122), RV basal diameter (32.8 ± 5.4 vs. 31.8 ± 6.4 mm, p=0.31), RVS`W (12.8 ± 3.2 vs. 12.85 ± 2.7 cm/sec, p=0.933), and TR (1.8±0.8 vs. 2±1, p=0.07). On the other hand, there was a significant improvement in the TAPSE (22.2±4.3 vs. 20.7±3.6 mm, p=0.021). Conclusions LBBAP was associated with preserved dimensions and function of the right cardiac chambers over a medium-term follow-up period.
Pestrea et al. (Wed,) studied this question.