Jastrzębski Marek, Kiełbasa Grzegorz, Moskal Paweł, Bednarek Agnieszka, Rajzer Marek, Curila Karol, Burri Haran, Vijayaraman Pugazhendhi
First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Krakow, Poland; Electrophysiology Laboratory, University Hospital in Krakow, Krakow, Poland.
First Department of Cardiology, Interventional Electrocardiology and Hypertension, Jagiellonian University, Medical College, Krakow, Poland.
Heart Rhythm. 2023 Apr;20(4):492-500. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.01.017. Epub 2023 Jan 23.
Targets for right-sided conduction system pacing (CSP) include His bundle and right bundle branch. Electrocardiographic patterns, diagnostic criteria, and outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) are not known.
Our aims were to delineate electrocardiographic and electrophysiological characteristics of RBBP and to compare outcomes between RBBP and His bundle pacing (HBP).
Patients with confirmed right CSP were divided according to the conduction system potential to QRS complex interval at the pacing lead implantation site. Six hypothesized RBBP criteria as well as pacing parameters, echocardiographic outcomes, and all-cause mortality were analyzed.
All analyzed criteria discriminated between HBP and RBBP: double QRS complex transition during the threshold test, selective paced QRS complex different from conducted QRS complex, stimulus to selective-QRS complex > potential-QRS complex, small increase in V R-wave peak time (VRWPT) during QRS complex transition, equal capture thresholds of CSP and myocardium, and stimulus-VRWPT > potential-VRWPT (adopted as the diagnostic standard). According to the last criterion, RBBP was observed in 19.2% of patients (64 of 326) who had been targeted for HBP, present mainly among patients with potential to QRS complex interval <35 ms (90.6% [48 of 53]) and occasionally among the remaining patients (5.6% [16 of 273]). RBBP was characterized by longer QRS complex (by 10.5 ms), longer VRWPT (by 11.6 ms), and better sensing (by 2.6 mV) compared with HBP. During a median follow-up duration of 29 months, no differences in capture threshold, echocardiographic outcomes, or mortality were found.
RBBP has distinct features that separate it from HBP and is observed in approximately a fifth of patients in whom HBP is intended.
右侧传导系统起搏(CSP)的靶点包括希氏束和右束支。右束支起搏(RBBP)的心电图模式、诊断标准和结果尚不清楚。
我们的目的是描述RBBP的心电图和电生理特征,并比较RBBP和希氏束起搏(HBP)的结果。
根据起搏导线植入部位的传导系统电位至QRS波群间期,将确诊为右侧CSP的患者进行分组。分析了六种假设的RBBP标准以及起搏参数、超声心动图结果和全因死亡率。
所有分析标准均能区分HBP和RBBP:阈值测试期间QRS波群双过渡、选择性起搏QRS波群不同于传导的QRS波群、刺激至选择性QRS波群>电位至QRS波群、QRS波群过渡期间V波R波峰值时间(VRWPT)小幅增加、CSP和心肌的夺获阈值相等以及刺激-VRWPT>电位-VRWPT(作为诊断标准采用)。根据最后一项标准,在以HBP为目标的患者中,19.2%(326例中的64例)观察到RBBP,主要出现在电位至QRS波群间期<35 ms的患者中(90.6%[53例中的48例]),偶尔出现在其余患者中(5.6%[273例中的16例])。与HBP相比,RBBP的特征是QRS波群更长(长10.5 ms)、VRWPT更长(长11.6 ms)和感知更好(高2.6 mV)。在中位随访期29个月期间,未发现夺获阈值、超声心动图结果或死亡率有差异。
RBBP具有与HBP不同的独特特征,在约五分之一旨在进行HBP的患者中观察到。