loading page

Evaluation of electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony: An Intra-patient-controlled Study during His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) versus right ventricular pacing(RVP)
  • +10
  • Xueying Chen,
  • QINCHUN JIN,
  • Yanan Wang,
  • XIAOLAN ZHOU,
  • YUFEI CHEN,
  • Jing-Feng Wang,
  • Sheng-Mei Qin,
  • Jin Bai,
  • Wei Wang,
  • Yixiu Liang,
  • Haiyan Chen,
  • YANGANG SU,
  • JUN-BO GE
Xueying Chen
Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University
Author Profile
QINCHUN JIN
Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University
Author Profile
Yanan Wang
Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University
Author Profile
XIAOLAN ZHOU
Huashan Hospital Fudan University
Author Profile
YUFEI CHEN
Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University
Author Profile
Jing-Feng Wang
Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University
Author Profile
Sheng-Mei Qin
Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University
Author Profile
Jin Bai
Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University
Author Profile
Wei Wang
Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University
Author Profile
Yixiu Liang
Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University
Author Profile
Haiyan Chen
Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University
Author Profile
YANGANG SU
Zhongshan Hospital Fudan University

Corresponding Author:[email protected]

Author Profile
JUN-BO GE
Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, Zhongshan Hospital, Shanghai Medical College of Fudan University
Author Profile

Abstract

Objectives: To compare electromechanical ventricular synchrony when pacing from different sites including right ventricular apex pacing (RVAP), right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP), His Bundle pacing (HBP), left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and RVSP during unipolar pacing from the ring electrode of LBBP lead (RVSPring ) in each patient. Methods: Twenty patients with complete atrioventricular block (AVB) indicated for dual-chamber pacemaker implantation were included. Unipolar pacing at different sites including RVAP, RVSP,HBP,LBBP and RVSPring were successively performed. Pacing characteristics and echocardiogram parameters were compared among intrinsic rhythm and pacing at different sites. Results: Similar to HBP(114.84 ±18.67ms), narrower paced QRSd was found in LBBP(116.15±11.60ms) versus RVSPring(135.11±13.68ms), RVSP(141.75±14.08ms) and RVAP(158.15±21.41ms)(p<0.001). LBBP showed comparable pacing parameters to RVAP or RVSP and were significantly better than HBP, with maintained cardiac function. TS-12-SD was significantly improved in LBBP(27.00±21.53ms) than RVAP(54.05±34.21ms, p=0.004) and RVSP(47.56±33.26ms, p=0.029) but similar to HBP(37.05±26.24ms, p=0.283) or RVSPring(42.16±26.19ms, p=0.107). Negative values of interventricular mechanical delay(IVMD) were only identified in LBBP(-20.16±18.47ms), significantly different from RVAP(33.68±30.98ms), RVSP (21.68±22.02ms), HBP (4.74±19.04ms) and RVSPring(14.56±26.76ms(all p<0.001). Using Pearson’s analysis, Sti-LVAT was positively corelated with QRS, IVMD, TS-12-SD, LVEDV and LVESV while a negative relationship was identified for LVEF. Conclusions: Similar to HBP, LBBP achieved better electrical and mechanical left ventricular synchrony than conventional RV pacing. For interventricular synchrony, only LBBP initiated earlier LV activation than RV among these pacing strategies, in consistent with the RBBB pattern of paced QRS during LBBP.