Search

Introduction: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is characterized with a low and stable pacing capture threshold, relatively narrow QRS duration due to fast left ventricular activation, and direct excitation of the diseased left bundle branch. This report aims to describe the methods, procedural skills, and clinical implications of performing LBBP implantation. Methods and Results: LBBP is achieved by transventricular‐septal approach. There are two methods to identify the location for LBBP lead placement: the single‐lead method and the dual‐lead method. During implantation, the unique transition of the paced QRS morphology and pacing parameter changes are important for guiding the lead ‐ advancement to the left side of the interventricular septum. In our experience, LBBP can be safely performed in most patients requiring pacemaker therapy. Conclusion: Clinical development of LBBP is at an early but encouraging phase with increasing clinical use, and a standardized procedure with improved delivery tools and pacing leads is needed, as well as long‐term efficacy and safety. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A 57‐year‐old male presented with symptomatic systolic heart failure and complete left bundle branch block (LBBB). Left bundle branch pacing corrected LBBB at a low capture threshold (0.5V @0.4ms) with right bundle branch conduction delay and paced QRS morphology changed to near‐normal by adjusting AV delay with diminished RBBD. At 1‐year follow‐up, the patient had a significant improvement in heart failure and LBBB automatically resolved with a rate‐dependent pattern. LBBP may be an alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy with the likelihood of recovery of LBBB. More research is needed to evaluate the potential use of this pacing strategy in patients with LBBB and heart failure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preventive Effectiveness of Implantable Cardioverter. Introduction: This prospective and multicenter trial of the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) aimed to evaluate the mortality rate (including sudden cardiac death [SCD]) and the efficacy of ICD in Chinese patients with high risk of sudden death. Methods and Results : This trial was conducted in 31 centers in China. We enrolled 497 patients who fulfilled Class I indication for ICD (2002 ACC/AHA/NASPE guideline). All patients were followed-up at 3, 6, and 12 months. Clinical characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were collected at baseline and follow-up; Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed. Among 497 enrolled patients with Class I indication of ICD therapy, 112 (22.5%) agreed to and received ICD implantation (ICD group). The remaining 385 patients who were not available for ICD therapy were designated as the non-ICD group. During a mean follow-up of 11 ± 3 months, there were a total of 38 deaths, 2 in the ICD group with a mortality of 1.8% and 36 in the non-ICD group, with a mortality of 9.4% and 26 due to SCD. The overall survival rate was 93% at 3 months of follow-up, 91% at 6 months, and 89% at 12 months, with an incidence of SCD of 5%, 7%, and 8% at 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Conclusions : In patients with Class I indication of ICD implantation, the total mortality and incidence of SCD were high. ICD therapy can effectively reduce the mortality in such patients. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 23, pp. S5-S9, November 2012) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]