Why the study?
CRT delivered via LV epicardial pacing may increase arrhythmic risk by adversely affecting ventricular repolarization, whereas leadless LV endocardial CRT and leadless LBBAP might preserve more physiological transmural activation.
Does leadless LV endocardial pacing and LBBAP improve ventricular repolarization metrics compared to baseline in patients with leadless endocardial CRT systems?
Does leadless LV endocardial pacing and LBBAP improve ventricular repolarization metrics compared to baseline in patients with leadless endocardial CRT systems?
Optimized leadless LV endocardial lateral wall pacing and LBBAP acutely improve ECGi-derived ventricular repolarization metrics, with LV-only pacing appearing superior to endocardial BiVP.
May support optimized leadless LV pacing for repolarization metrics; hypothesis-generating and should not yet change practice.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivered with left ventricular (LV) epicardial pacing may increase arrhythmic risk through detrimental effects on ventricular repolarization. Leadless LV endocardial CRT including leadless left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may mitigate this by preserving a more physiological transmural activation pattern. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of leadless LV endocardial and leadless LBBAP on repolarization metrics derived from electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi). METHODS: Ten patients with leadless endocardial CRT systems underwent a temporary pacing plus ECGi study, testing right ventricular, LV, and biventricular pacing (BiVP) settings, as well as atrioventricular-optimized LV pacing. Epicardial electrograms were used to derive metrics of repolarization and activation-recovery interval dispersion. The primary outcome measurements were acute improvement (ie, reduction) from baseline (right ventricular pacing or underlying rhythm) of these repolarization metrics. RESULTS: Ten patients were studied; 5 had received LV lateral wall endocardial pacing, and 5 had received LBBAP with leadless septal wall pacing. The optimal leadless pacing setting significantly improved biventricular dispersion of repolarization by 23.7% ± 14% (P < .01), and this effect was more pronounced with LBBAP (29.3% ± 15%, P = .01) vs lateral wall pacing (18% ± 12%, P = .03). Similar results were observed for activation-recovery interval dispersion and biventricular repolarization gradients. The most pronounced improvements were observed where LV-only pacing as opposed to BiVP was used, either through LBBAP or atrioventricular-optimized LV pacing from any endocardial location. CONCLUSION: Optimized leadless LV endocardial lateral wall pacing and LBBAP improve ECGi-derived ventricular repolarization metrics. LV-only pacing seemed superior to endocardial BiVP, potentially reflecting repolarization heterogeneity caused by a collision of 2 paced wavefronts.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wijesuriya et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: