Ponnusamy Shunmuga Sundaram, Ganesan Vithiya, Ramalingam Vadivelu, Kumar Saravana, Ramamoorthy Ramvivek, Ramu Kishore, Bhuvaneshwari Vaishnavi Nagarajan, Selvaraj Devisree, Alagar Avanthika Swisi, Dhanapal Jananie, Selvaraj Ranjitha, Diana Mariann, Mariappan Selvaganesh, Murugan Senthil, Kumar Mahesh, Vijayaraman Pugazhendhi
Department of Cardiology, Velammal Medical College, Madurai, India.
Department of Microbiology, Velammal Medical College, Madurai, India.
Heart Rhythm. 2025 Aug;22(8):e407-e415. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2024.10.049. Epub 2024 Oct 25.
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) results in a right bundle branch (RBB) delay pattern because of preexcitation of the left bundle. The mechanism of right ventricular (RV) activation during LBBAP is largely unknown.
The aim of the study was to analyze the electrophysiologic characteristics of RV activation by mapping the RBB during LBBAP and its clinical correlation.
Consecutive patients who underwent successful LBBAP were included. RBB block, RV paced rhythm, and suboptimal intracardiac electrograms were excluded. LBBAP was performed with continuous recording of His bundle (HB) and RBB electrograms. RV activation was classified into 3 types based on the intracardiac electrogram: type I, RBB mediated; type II, transseptal activation; and type III, fusion pattern.
Overall, 86 patients (94% left bundle branch pacing [LBBP]; 6% left ventricular septal pacing) were included. The mean age was 59.6 ± 12.8 years. Nonselective to selective capture transition was noted in 85% (n = 73). In patients with baseline normal QRS (n = 47), during selective LBBP (S-LBBP; n = 39), the most common pattern was type I (n = 34 [87%]), whereas during nonselective LBBP (NS-LBBP; n = 44), type III pattern (n = 40 [91%]) was common. In patients with left bundle branch block (n = 39), type III pattern was common during both S-LBBP and NS-LBBP. Type I pattern was noted only in patients with retrograde HB activation during S-LBBP. Left ventricular septal pacing showed type II activation in both groups. Patients without retrograde HB activation had higher left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, lower left ventricular ejection fraction, and prolonged HV interval compared with those with retrograde HB activation.
Physiologic RBB-mediated (type I) activation of the right ventricle was the most common pattern observed during S-LBBP in patients with intact retrograde HB activation. Type III pattern was the most common pattern observed during NS-LBBP with fusion of multiple wavefronts from anterograde RBB activation, myocardial, and transverse interbundle connections.
由于左束支的预激,左束支区域起搏(LBBAP)导致右束支(RBB)延迟模式。LBBAP期间右心室(RV)激活的机制在很大程度上尚不清楚。
本研究的目的是通过在LBBAP期间标测RBB来分析RV激活的电生理特征及其临床相关性。
纳入连续成功接受LBBAP的患者。排除RBB阻滞、RV起搏心律和不理想的心内电图。进行LBBAP时连续记录希氏束(HB)和RBB电图。根据心内电图将RV激活分为3种类型:I型,由RBB介导;II型,经房间隔激活;III型,融合模式。
总共纳入86例患者(94%为左束支起搏[LBBP];6%为左心室间隔起搏)。平均年龄为59.6±12.8岁。85%(n = 73)的患者出现非选择性到选择性夺获转换。在基线QRS正常的患者(n = 47)中,在选择性LBBP(S-LBBP;n = 39)期间,最常见的模式是I型(n = 34 [87%]),而在非选择性LBBP(NS-LBBP;n = 44)期间,III型模式(n = 40 [91%])常见。在左束支传导阻滞患者(n = 39)中,S-LBBP和NS-LBBP期间III型模式均常见。I型模式仅在S-LBBP期间出现逆行HB激活的患者中观察到。左心室间隔起搏在两组中均显示II型激活。与具有逆行HB激活的患者相比,没有逆行HB激活的患者左心室舒张末期直径更大,左心室射血分数更低,HV间期延长。
在具有完整逆行HB激活的患者的S-LBBP期间,生理性RBB介导的(I型)右心室激活是最常见的模式。III型模式是在NS-LBBP期间观察到的最常见模式,由来自顺行RBB激活、心肌和横向束间连接的多个波前融合而成。