Advertisement

Feasibility of RA–LV pacing in patients with symptomatic left bundle branch block: a pilot study

  • Asit DasEmail author
  • Suman Chatterjee
Original Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

Several studies have reported the adverse effects of right ventricular apical pacing. Permanent His bundle pacing is proved to be the most physiological. But it can be technically difficult sometimes. One recent large multicenter randomized trial showed that pacing from left ventricular apex or mid-lateral wall has the greatest potential to prevent pacing-induced reduction of cardiac pump function (by maintaining left ventricular mechanical synchrony) and, therefore, can be considered as physiological site. In our study, we have wanted to see the outcome of left ventricular pacing through coronary sinus branch with active fixation bipolar lead as a routine pacing technique in patients with symptomatic left bundle branch block. In our study we have recruited 27 patients for left ventricular pacing through coronary sinus branch (as done in cardiac resynchronization therapy) with active fixation bipolar lead and 33 patients for right ventricular apical pacing (control) and compared left ventricular pacing with right ventricular apical pacing in patients with history of syncope with left bundle branch block in baseline electrocardiography who presented with atrio-ventricular block or prolonged HV interval (≥ 70 ms) on electrophysiology study in term of procedure and fluoroscopy time and short-term lead performance and left ventricular function. The results of our study showed that left ventricular pacing through a tributary of coronary sinus is associated with shortened QRS duration (21.10 ± 3.92 ms) and better LV function (higher left ventricular ejection fraction 64.00 ± 3.03 vs. 59.73 ± 6.73 and lower left ventricular diastolic internal diameter 4.58 ± 0.32 vs. 5.23 ± 0.40 cm) in comparison to right ventricular apical pacing. However, the total procedure time and fluoroscopy time was significantly higher (73.75 ± 11.02 vs. 63.32 ± 6.06 min and 7.08 ± 1.48 vs. 5.02 ± 1.39 min, respectively) in left ventricular pacing group. The results of this study indicate that transvenous left ventricular epicardial pacing may be an option for physiological pacing in patients with symptomatic left bundle branch block.

Keywords

Left bundle branch block Coronary sinus Physiological pacing Epicardial pacing 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Thambo JB, Bordachar P, Garrigue S, Lafitte S, Sanders P, Reuter S, Girardot R, Crepin D, Reant P, Roudaut R, Jaïs P, Haïssaguerre M, Clementy J, Jimenez M (2004) Detrimental ventricular remodeling in patients with congenital complete heart block and chronic right ventricular apical pacing. Circulation 110:3766–3772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Tops LF, Schalij MJ, Bax JJ (2009) The effects of right ventricular apical pacing on ventricular function and dyssynchrony. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:764–776CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lamas GA, Lee KL, Sweeney MO, Silverman R, Leon A, Yee R, Marinchak RA, Flaker G, Schron E, Orav EJ, Hellkamp AS, Greer S, McAnulty J, Ellenbogen K, Ehlert F, Freedman RA, Estes NA 3rd, Greenspon A, Goldman L (2002) Mode selection trial in sinus-node dysfunction. Ventricular pacing or dual chamber pacing for sinus node dysfunction. N Engl J Med 346:1854–1862CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mazza A, Bendini MG, De Cristofaro R, Lovecchio M, Valsecchi S, Leggio M, Boriani G (2017) Prevalence and clinical significance of left bundle branch block according to classical or strict definition criteria in permanent pacemaker patients. Clin Cardiol. 40(6):377–382CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Catanzariti D, Maines M, Cemin C, Broso G, Marotta T, Vergara G (2006) Permanent direct his bundle pacing does not induce ventricular dyssynchrony unlike conventional right ventricular apical pacing. An intrapatient acute comparison study. J Interv Card Electrophysiol. 16(2): 81-92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Barba-Pichardo R, Moriña-Vázquez P, Fernández-Gómez JM, Venegas-Gamero J, Herrera-Carranza M (2010) Permanent His-bundle pacing: seeking physiological ventricular pacing. Europace 12(4):527–533CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lustgarten DL, Crespo EM, Arkhipova-Jenkins I, Lobel R, Winget J, Koehler J, Liberman E, Sheldon T (2015) His-bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients: a crossover design comparison. Heart Rhythm 12(7):1548–1557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kawashima T, Sasaki H (2005) A macroscopic anatomical investigation of atrio-ventricular bundle locational variation relative to the membranous part of the ventricular septum in elderly human heart. Surg Radiol Anat 27:206–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shimony A, Eisenberg MJ, Filion KB, Amit G (2012) Beneficial effects of right ventricular non-apical vs. apical pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Europace 14(1): 81–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kypta A, Steinwender C, Kammler J, Leisch F, Hofmann R (2008) Long-term outcomes in patients with atrioventricular block undergoing septal ventricular lead implantation compared with standard apical pacing. Europace 10(5):574–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thambo JB, Bordachar P, Garrigue S, Lafitte S, Sanders P, Reuter S, Girardot R, Crepin D, Reant P, Roudaut R, Jaïs P, Haïssaguerre M, Clementy J, Jimenez M (2004) Detrimental ventricular remodeling in patients with congenital complete heart block and chronic right ventricular apical pacing. Circulation 110(25):3766–3772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Janoušek J, van Geldorp IE, Krupičková S, Rosenthal E, Nugent K, Tomaske M, Früh A, Elders J, Hiippala A, Kerst G, Gebauer RA, Kubuš P, Frias P, Gabbarini F, Clur SA, Nagel B, Ganame J, Papagiannis J, Marek J, Tisma-Dupanovic S, Tsao S, Nürnberg JH, Wren C, Friedberg M, de Guillebon M, Volaufova J, Prinzen FW, Delhaas T, and for the Working Group for Cardiac Dysrhythmias and Electrophysiology of the Association for European Pediatric Cardiology (2013) Permanent cardiac pacing in children: choosing the optimal pacing site: a multicenter study. Circulation 127:613–623CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Auricchio A, Lumens J, Prinzen FW (2014) Does cardiac resynchronization therapy benefit patients with right bundle branch block. Circ Arrhythm Electrophysiol. 7:532–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Surawicz B, Childers R, Deal BJ, Gettes LS, Bailey JJ, Gorgels A, Hancock EW, Josephson M, Kligfield P, Kors JA, Macfarlane P, Mason JW, Mirvis DM, Okin P, Pahlm O, Rautaharju PM, van Herpen G, Wagner GS, Wellens H (2009) American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; American College of Cardiology Foundation; Heart Rhythm Society. AHA/ACCF/HRS recommendations for the standardization and interpretation of the electrocardiogram: part III: intraventricular conduction disturbances: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association Electrocardiography and Arrhythmias Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology; the American College of Cardiology Foundation; and the Heart Rhythm Society. Endorsed by the International Society for Computerized Electrocardiology. J Am Coll Cardiol. 53(11): 976-981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Strauss DG, Selvester RH, Wagner GS (2011) Defining left bundle branch block in the era of cardiac resynchronization therapy. Am J. cardiology 107:927–934CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Martí-Almor J, Cladellas M, Bazán V, Delclós J, Altaba C, Guijo MA, Vila J, Mojal S, Bruguera J (2010) Nuevos predictores de evolución a bloqueo auriculoventricular en pacientes con bloqueo bifascicular. Rev Esp Cardiol. 63:400–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strik M, Regoli F, Auricchio A, Prinzen F (2012) Electrical and mechanical ventricular activation during left bundle branch block and resynchronization. J Cardiovasc Transl Res. 5(2):117–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Geldorp IE, Delhaas T, Gebauer RA, Frias P, Tomaske M, Friedberg MK, Tisma-Dupanovic S, Elders J, Früh A, Gabbarini F, Kubus P, Illikova V, Tsao S, Blank AC, Hiippala A, Sluysmans T, Karpawich P, Clur SA, Ganame X, Collins KK, Dann G, Thambo JB, Trigo C, Nagel B, Papagiannis J, Rackowitz A, Marek J, Nürnberg JH, Vanagt WY, Prinzen FW, Janousek J; Working Group for Cardiac Dysrhythmias and Electrophysiology of the Association for European Paediatric Cardiology (2011) Impact of the permanent ventricular pacing site on left ventricular function in children: a retrospective multicentre survey. Heart 97(24):2051–2055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Van Geldorp IE, Vanagt WY, Bauersfeld U, Tomaske M, Prinzen FW, Delhaas T (2009) Chronic left ventricular pacing preserves left ventricular function in children. Pediatr Cardiol 30(2):125–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    León AR, Abraham WT, Curtis AB, Daubert JP, Fisher WG, Gurley J, Hayes DL, Lieberman R, Petersen-Stejskal S, Wheelan K; MIRACLE Study Program (2005) Safety of transvenous cardiac resynchronization system implantation in patients with chronic heart failure: combined results of over 2000 patients from a multicenter study program. J Am Coll Cardiol. 46(12):2348–2356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Crossley GH, Exner D, Mead RH, Sorrentino RA, Hokanson R, Li S, Adler S, Medtronic 4195 Study Investigators (2010) Chronic performance of an active fixation coronary sinus lead. Heart Rhythm 7(4):472–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Faris OP, Evans FJ, Dick AJ, Raman VK, Ennis DB, Kass DA, McVeigh ER (2003) Endocardial versus epicardial electrical synchrony during LV free-wall pacing. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol. 285(5):H1864–H1870CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of CardiologyIPGME&R and SSKM HospitalKolkataIndia

Personalised recommendations