Painful Left Bundle Branch Block Syndrome Successfully Treated With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Garg A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8298553 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Painful Left Bundle Branch Block Syndrome Successfully Treated With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing.
Garg Aatish A Master Vivak V Ellenbogen Kenneth A KA Padala Santosh K SK
JACC. Case reports 20200304 4
Chest pain may be rarely associated with left bundle branch block (LBBB)-mediated ventricular dys-synchrony has been reported. This article reports 2 such cases, where left bundle branch area pacing resulted in resolution of the LBBB and associated symptoms. By adjusting the atrioventricular delays, the QRS duration was narrowed further by achieving fusion with the intrinsic activation wavefront. (<b>Level of Difficulty: Beginner.</b>). ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimTo evaluate ventricular synchronization and function in patients with right bundle-branch block after left bundle-branch-area pacing (LBBAP) by echocardiography.MethodsForty patients who successfully received LBBAP were selected and divided into the right bundle-branch block group (RBBB group) and the non-RBBB group by pre-operation ECG. Echocardiography and follow-up were performed 1 month after operation. Interventricular synchronization was evaluated by tissue Doppler (TDI), tissue mitral annular displacement (TMAD), and interventricular mechanical delay. The tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE), right ventricular fractional area change (RVFAC), tricuspid annulus sidewall systolic velocity (TV-s'), left ventricular global ventricular longitudinal strain (GLS), right ventricular free wall longitudinal strain (LS-RV), standard deviation of left ventricular 18 segments peak time difference (SDt-L) and standard deviation of right ventricular free wall 3 segments peak time difference (SDt-R) were applied to evaluate intraventricular synchronization and ventricular function.ResultsThe difference of displacement peak time of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔPTTV-MV measured by TMAD, the difference of systolic time to peak of the tricuspid and mitral valves, namely ΔTsTV-MV measured by TDI, were statistically different between the two groups (P < 0.05). Compared with the non-RBBB group, there were no statistically significant differences in the GLS, RVFAC, LS-RV, TAPSE, TV-s', SDt-L, SDt-R (P > 0.05).ConclusionEchocardiography technology including two-dimensional speckle tracking imaging (2D-STI), TDI, and TMAD can effectively analyze interventricular synchronization, intraventricular synchronization, and ventricular function. Although the movement of the right ventricular myocardium in the RBBB group was slightly later than that of the left ventricular myocardium after LBBAP, LBBAP could still be applied in RBBB patients with pacing indication.
| S-EPMC9394046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A 70-year-old male with prior orthotopic heart transplant developed left bundle branch block followed by new-onset left ventricular systolic dysfunction. He underwent His bundle pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy with complete normalization of his ejection fraction. This is the first reported case of left bundle branch block-induced cardiomyopathy in a transplanted heart. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).
| S-EPMC8299132 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPainful left bundle branch block (LBBB) syndrome is an uncommon disease that is defined as intermittent episodes of angina associated with simultaneous LBBB changes on an electrocardiogram (ECG) with the absence of flow-limiting coronary artery disease or ischemia on functional testing. Vasovagal syncope (VVS) is the most common cause of syncope and can be provoked by sublingual nitroglycerin (NTG). Herein, we report a case of painful LBBB syndrome complicated with VVS, which was misdiagnosed as acute coronary syndrome and cardiogenic shock.Case summaryA 62-year-old woman presented with intermittent exertional chest pain for 3 years and deteriorated for 2 weeks. An ECG, transthoracic echocardiography, and laboratory test results were all normal. Exercise treadmill testing induced chest pain, accompanied by new-onset LBBB. She fainted after finishing the test and receiving sublingual NTG, with a rapid decline in heart rate and blood pressure, which was relieved by 0.5 mg of atropine administered intravenously. Coronary angiography showed no evidence of obstructive lesions. Isoprenaline stress echocardiography induced chest pain and rate-dependent LBBB and showed interventricular/intraventricular desynchrony simultaneously. A head-up tilt test verified mixed VVS in the provocative phase. A diagnosis of painful LBBB syndrome complicated with VVS induced by sublingual NTG was made. The patient received an extended-release metoprolol succinate tablet and had no symptoms at a 1-year follow-up.ConclusionPainful LBBB syndrome is an uncommon cause of chest pain and is often overlooked by physicians. Misdiagnosis and mistreatment of painful LBBB syndrome may even cause secondary damage, such as VVS induced by sublingual NTG, which is usually used to alleviate angina.
| S-EPMC11750814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundQRS transition criteria during dynamic manoeuvers are the gold-standard for non-invasive confirmation of left bundle branch (LBB) capture, but they are seen in <50% of LBB area pacing (LBBAP) procedures.ObjectiveWe hypothesized that transition from left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) to LBB pacing (LBBP), when observed during lead penetration into the deep interventricular septum (IVS) with interrupted pacemapping, can suggest LBB capture.MethodsQRS transition during lead screwing-in was defined as shortening of paced V6-R wave peak time (RWPT) by ≥10 ms from LVSP to non-selective LBBP (ns-LBBP) obtained during mid to deep septal lead progression at the same target area, between two consecutive pacing manoeuvres. ECG-based criteria were used to compared LVSP and ns-LBBP morphologies obtained by interrupted pacemapping.ResultsSixty patients with demonstrated transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP during dynamic manoeuvers were compared to 44 patients with the same transition during lead screwing-in. Average shortening in paced V6-RWPT was similar among study groups (17.3 ± 6.8 ms vs. 18.8 ± 4.9 ms for transition during dynamic manoeuvres and lead screwing-in, respectively; p = 0.719). Paced V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, V6-V1 interpeak interval and the recently described LBBP score, were also similar for ns-LBBP morphologies in both groups. LVSP morphologies showed longer V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, shorter V6-V1 interpeak interval and lower LBBP score punctuation, without differences among the two QRS transition groups. V6-RWPT < 75 ms or V6-V1 interpeak interval > 44 ms criterion was more frequently achieved in ns-LBBP morphologies obtained during lead screwing-in compared to those obtained during dynamic manoeuvres (70.5% vs. 50%, respectively p = 0.036).ConclusionsDuring LBBAP procedure, QRS transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP can be observed as the lead penetrates deep into the IVS with interrupted pacemapping. Shortening of at least 10 ms in paced V6-RWPT may serve as marker of LBB capture.
| S-EPMC10375013 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsThe present study aimed to compare the effects of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) on cardiac function and clinical outcomes in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >35 vs. ≤35%.Methods and resultsThirty-six consecutive patients with LBBB and LVEF <50% were enrolled. All patients were followed up for a mean of 6 months. The successful LBBAP was defined as a paced QRS complex presented as right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology and QRSd < 130 ms. Echocardiography parameters, pacing parameters and clinical outcomes were collected. The successful LBBAP was achieved in 77.8% of all cases (28/36). In LVEF > 35% group (70 ± 8 years, 9 male), the success rate was 81.0% (17/21). QRSd significantly decreased from 174 ± 23 ms to 108 ± 13 ms (P < 0.001). The pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude were 0.6 ± 0.2 V @ 0.5 ms and 12 ± 7 mV, respectively. In LVEF ≤ 35% group (69 ± 5 years, 9 male), the success rate was 73.3% (11/15) with QRSd decreasing from 188 ± 25 ms to 107 ± 11 ms (P < 0.001). The hyperresponders to LBBAP (functional recovery and LVEF ≥ 50%) in LVEF > 35% group was 52.9%, which were almost twice of that in LVEF ≤ 35% group (33.3%). Whether patients had LBBAP or left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), patients in the LVEF > 35% group showed significantly lower incidence of heart failure hospitalizations or death from any cause (hazard ratio in LVEF > 35% group, 0.22; 95%CI, 0.06 to 0.75, P = 0.011).ConclusionsLBBAP can significantly shorten the QRSd and improve cardiac function in LBBB patients with either LVEF > 35 or ≤ 35%. LBBAP should be considered as an effective therapy for preventing the deterioration of cardiac function in early-stage heart failure patients with LBBB and LVEF > 35%.
| S-EPMC8968131 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing modality with stable pacing parameters and a narrow-paced QRS duration. We compared heart failure (HF) hospitalization events and echocardiographic measures between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). Methods and Results: This multicenter observational study prospectively recruited consecutive AVB patients requiring ventricular pacing in five centers if they received LBBAP or RVP and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%. Data on electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, echocardiographic measurements, device complications, and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary outcome was first episode hospitalization for HF or upgrade to biventricular pacing. LBBAP was successful in 235 of 246 patients (95.5%), while 120 patients received RVP. During a mean of 11.4 ± 2.7 months of follow-up, the ventricular pacing burden was comparable (83.9 ± 35.1 vs. 85.7 ± 30.0%), while the mean LVEF differed significantly (62.6 ± 4.6 vs. 57.8 ± 11.4%) between the LBBAP and RVP groups. Patients with LBBAP had significantly lower occurrences of HF hospitalization and upgrading to biventricular pacing than patients with RVP (2.6 vs. 10.8%, P <0.001), and differences in primary outcome between LBBAP and RVP were mainly observed in patients with ventricular pacing >40% or with baseline LVEF <60%. The primary outcome was independently associated with LBBAP (adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04-0.55), previous myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 6.82, 95% CI: 1.23-37.5), and baseline LVEF (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86-0.96). Conclusion: Permanent LBBAP might reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or upgrade to biventricular pacing compared with RVP in AVB patients requiring a high burden of ventricular pacing. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03851315; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique Identifier: ChiCTR2100043296.
| S-EPMC8297826 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Biventricular endocardial (BIV-endo) pacing and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Both pacing methods can be delivered through leadless pacing, to avoid risks associated with endocardial or transvenous leads. We used computational modelling to quantify synchrony induced by BIV-endo pacing and LBP through a leadless pacing system, and to investigate how the right-left ventricle (RV-LV) delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect response. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of His-Purkinje networks with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Leadless biventricular (BIV) pacing was simulated by adding an RV apical stimulus and an LV lateral wall stimulus (BIV-endo lateral) or targeting the left bundle (BIV-LBP), with an RV-LV delay set to 5 ms. To test effect of prolonged RV-LV delays and RV pacing location, the RV-LV delay was increased to 35 ms and/or the RV stimulus was moved to the RV septum. BIV-endo lateral pacing was less sensitive to increased RV-LV delays, while RV septal pacing worsened response compared to RV apical pacing, especially for long RV-LV delays. To investigate how left bundle capture affects response, we computed 90% BIV activation times (BIVAT-90) during BIV-LBP with selective and non-selective capture, and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), simulated by pacing 1 cm below the left bundle. Non-selective LBP was comparable to selective LBP. LBBAP was worse than selective LBP (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 62.7 ± 6.5, p < 0.01), but it still significantly reduced activation times from baseline. Finally, we compared leadless LBP with RV pacing against optimal LBP delivery through a standard lead system by simulating BIV-LBP and selective LBP alone with and without optimized atrioventricular delay (AVD). Although LBP alone with optimized AVD was better than BIV-LBP, when AVD optimization was not possible BIV-LBP outperformed LBP alone, because the RV pacing stimulus shortened RV activation (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 66.9 ± 5.1 ms, p < 0.01). BIV-endo lateral pacing or LBP delivered through a leadless system could potentially become an alternative to standard CRT. RV-LV delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect leadless pacing efficacy and should be considered in future trial designs.
| S-EPMC9794756 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be effective and safe. Limited data are available on LBBAP in the congenital heart disease (CHD) population. This study aims to describe the feasibility and safety of LBBAP in CHD patients compared with non-CHD patients.Methods and resultsThis is a single-centre, non-randomized observational study recruiting consecutive patients with bradycardia indication. Demographic data, ECGs, imaging, and procedural data including lead parameters were recorded. A total of 39 patients were included: CHD group (n = 13) and non-CHD group (n = 26). Congenital heart disease patients were younger (55 ± 14.5 years vs. 73.2 ± 13.1, P < 0.001). Acute success was achieved in all CHD patients and 96% (25/26) of non-CHD patients. No complications were encountered in either group. The procedural time for CHD patients was comparable (96.4 ± 54 vs. 82.1 ± 37.9 min, P = 0.356). Sheath reshaping was required in 7 of 13 CHD patients but only in 1 of 26 non-CHD patients, reflecting the complex and distorted anatomy of the patients in this group. Lead parameters were similar in both groups; R wave (11 ± 7 mV vs. 11.5 ± 7.5, P = 0.881) and pacing threshold (0.6 ± 0.3 V vs. 0.7 ± 0.3, P = 0.392). Baseline QRS duration was longer in the CHD group (150 ± 28.2 vs. 118.6 ± 26.6 ms, P = 0.002). Despite a numerically greater reduction in QRS and a similar left ventricular activation time (65.9 ± 6.2 vs. 67 ± 16.8 ms, P = 0.840), the QRS remained longer in the CHD group (135.5 ± 22.4 vs. 106.9 ± 24.7 ms, P = 0.005).ConclusionLeft bundle branch area pacing is feasible and safe in CHD patients as compared to that in non-CHD patients. Procedural and fluoroscopy times did not differ between both groups. Lead parameters were satisfactory and stable over a short-term follow-up.
| S-EPMC9935007 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC9043084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveWe aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) regimens for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).MethodsThis observational cohort study included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for AVB indications from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, lead failure, or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). The secondary outcome included periprocedure complication, cardiac death, or recurrent unexplained syncope. A 1 : 1 propensity score-matched cohort was conducted for left ventricular (LV) function analysis.ResultsA total of 903 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed clinical follow-up. After adjusting for the possible confounders, LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009), including a lower risk of all-cause mortality and HFH. No significant difference in the secondary outcome was detected between the groups except that LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of recurrent unexplained syncope. In the propensity-score matching cohort of echocardiographic analysis, the LV systolic dyssynchrony index was lower in LBBAP compared with that in RVP (5.68 ± 1.92 vs. 6.50 ± 2.28%, p = 0.012).ConclusionsCompared to conventional RVP, LBBAP is a feasible novel pacing model associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome. Moreover, LBBAP significantly reduces the risk of recurrent unexplained syncope and improves LV systolic synchrony. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05722379.
| S-EPMC10462439 | biostudies-literature