Key result
Right bundle branch pacing was observed in 19.6% of patients targeted for His bundle pacing and was accurately diagnosed when the stimulus-V6 R-wave peak time exceeded the native potential-V6 R-wave peak time by at least 10 ms.
Why the study?
ECG patterns, diagnostic criteria, and clinical outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) were not known.
Does right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) have distinct electrocardiographic characteristics and comparable clinical outcomes to His bundle pacing (HBP) in patients requiring conduction system pacing?
Observational (n=326)
No
Does right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) have distinct electrocardiographic characteristics and comparable clinical outcomes to His bundle pacing (HBP) in patients requiring conduction system pacing?
Right bundle branch pacing is a distinct and frequently observed conduction system pacing modality with identifiable ECG criteria and comparable mid-term clinical outcomes to His bundle pacing.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
RBBP should be recognized as distinct from HBP by ECG criteria in CSP; leaves open whether intentional targeting improves outcomes.
Background Targets for right-sided conduction system pacing (CSP) include His bundle and right bundle branch. ECG patterns, diagnostic criteria and outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) are not known. Objective Our aims were to delineate electrocardiographic and electrophysiological characteristics of RBBP and to compare outcomes between RBBP and His bundle pacing (HBP). Methods Patients with confirmed right CSP were divided according to the conduction system potential to QRS interval at the pacing lead implantation site. Six hypothesized RBBP criteria as well as pacing parameters, echocardiographic outcomes and all-cause mortality were analyzed. Results All analyzed criteria discriminated between HBP and LBBP: double QRS transition during threshold test, selective paced QRS different from conducted QRS, stimulus to selective QRS > potential-QRS, small increase in V 6 RWPT during QRS transition, equal capture thresholds of CSP and myocardium, and stimulus-V 6 R-wave peak time (V 6 RWPT) > potential-V 6 RWPT (adopted as diagnostic standard). Per this last criterion, RBBP was observed in 19.2% (64/326) patients who had been targeted for HBP, present mainly among patients with potential to QRS < 35 ms (90.6%, 48/53) and occasionally in the remaining patients (5.6%, 16/273). RBBP was characterized by longer QRS (by 10.5 ms), longer V 6 RWPT (by 11.6 ms) and better sensing (by 2.6 mV) compared to HBP. During median follow-up of 29 months, no differences in capture threshold, echocardiographic outcomes or mortality were found. Conclusions RBBP is a distinct CSP modality that is frequently observed when the pacing lead is positioned more distally along the right conduction system.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Jastrzębski et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Bradycardia and/or heart failure indications requiring conduction system pacing (n=326). Right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) vs. His bundle pacing (HBP) was evaluated on Difference between paced and native V6 R-wave peak time (V6RWPT). Right bundle branch pacing was observed in 19.6% of patients targeted for His bundle pacing and was accurately diagnosed when the stimulus-V6 R-wave peak time exceeded the native potential-V6 R-wave peak time by at least 10 ms.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: