Publication Details
Overview
 
 
Ivan Eltsov, Ivan Eltsov, Alvise Del Monte, Alvise Del Monte, Luigi Pannone, Luigi Pannone, Ingrid Overeinder, Ingrid Overeinder, Domenico Della Rocca, Domenico Della Rocca, Roberto Scacciavillani, Roberto Scacciavillani, Frederik H. Verbrugge, Frederik H. Verbrugge, Qingguo Zeng, Qingguo Zeng, Gezim Bala, Gezim Bala, Andrea Maria Paparella, Andrea Maria Paparella, Giacomo Talevi, Giacomo Talevi, Erwin Stroker, Erwin Stroker, Juan Sieira, Juan Sieira, Ali Gharaviri, Ali Gharaviri, Andrea Sarkozy, Andrea Sarkozy, Gian Battista Chierchia, Gian Battista Chierchia, Mark La Meir, Mark La Meir, Carlo de Asmundis, Carlo de Asmundis, Alexandre Almorad, Alexandre Almorad
 

Contribution to journal

Abstract 

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has become the procedure of choice for various indications including atrioventricular block and considered to be physiologic modality of pacing compared with right ventricular apex pacing. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess ventricular activation and synchrony in patients with an LBBAP device using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI). Methods: A total of 25 consecutive patients underwent an LBBAP device implantation were included in the study. Electrocardiography (ECG) and ECGI analyses have been performed the day after implantation. Native and paced QRS, left ventricular activation time, right ventricular activation time, and V1–V6 activation delay were calculated using ECG. Total ventricular activation time, left ventricular activation time, intrinsic left ventricular activation time, right ventricular activation time, intrinsic right ventricular activation time, and intraventricular dyssynchrony were calculated based on ECGI. All patients have been followed up to 12 months. Results: All patients were divided in 2 groups (wide and narrow QRS) based on intrinsic ECG and then based on paced ECG parameters. The study showed that for initially narrow QRS group activation time and synchrony during pacing was comparable to native. In wide QRS group these parameters were significantly improved. For paced rhythm analysis classic ECG LBBAP parameters (paced QRS and left ventricular activation time) were not sufficient to properly evaluate the ventricular activation for paced rhythm. Discordance between classic ECG parameters and ECGI analysis was identified. Two additional 12-lead ECG parameters predicting the ECGI measurements were found. Follow-up did not show any worsening of ejection fraction, paced QRS, or pacing parameters. Conclusion: ECG imaging can bring a significant value into assessing the efficacy of new pacing modalities and provide much more data for precise determination of implantation outcome including detailed activation assessment and comparison with intrinsic conduction. Key ECGI values confirming proper ventricular activation have been defined, and corresponding 12-lead parameters were also identified, which allows to predict ventricular activation by using 12-lead ECG only.

Reference