Assessing cardiac mechanical dyssynchrony in left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular septal pacing using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in the acute phase of pacemaker implantation

• Published in: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology 2022-08, Vol.33 (8), p.1826-1836
• Main Authors: Miyajima, Keisuke, Urushida, Tsuyoshi, Tamura, Takumi, Masuda, Sakito, Okazaki, Ayako, Takashima, Yasuyo, Watanabe, Tomoyuki, Kawaguchi, Yoshitaka, Wakabayashi, Yasushi, Maekawa, Yuichiro
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Computed tomography; Entropy; Heart; left bundle branch area pacing; mechanical dyssynchrony; Pacemakers; physiological ventricular activation; Physiology; right ventricular septal pacing; Scintigraphy; Standard deviation; Ventricle
• ISSN: 1045-3873; 1540-8167
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.15609

Introduction Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new, clinically feasible and safe physiological pacing strategy. The present study aims to investigate the usefulness of LBBAP in reducing mechanical dyssynchrony compared with right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP). Methods and Results A total of 39 LBBAP patients, 42 RVSP patients, and 93 healthy control participants were retrospectively evaluated. We compared phase analysis‐ (bandwidth, phase standard deviation [PSD], entropy) and regional wall motion analysis parameters. Wall motion analysis parameters included the time to the end‐systolic frame (TES) assessed using single‐photon emission computed tomography analysis. The maximum differences between segmental TES (MDTES), the standard deviation of TES (SDTES), and the TES difference between the lateral and septal segments (DTES‐LS) were obtained. All phase analysis parameters were significantly smaller in the LBBAP group than in the RVSP group (bandwidth: LBBAP, 74 ± 31° vs. RVSP, 102 ± 59°, p = .009; PSD: LBBAP, 19 ± 6.7° vs. RVSP, 26 ± 15°, p = .007; entropy: LBBAP, 0.57 ± 0.07 vs. RVSP, 0.62 ± 0.11 p = .009). The regional wall motion analysis parameters were also smaller in the LBBAP group than in the RVSP group (MDTES:LBBAP, 17 ± 7.1% vs. RVSP, 25 ± 14%, p = .004; SDTES:LBBAP, 4.5 ± 1.7% vs. RVSP, 6.0 ± 3.5%, p = .015; DTES‐LS: LBBAP, 4.1 ± 3.4% vs. RVSP, 7.1 ± 5.4%, p = .004). All phase analysis and wall motion analysis parameters were same in the LBBAP and control groups. Conclusion LBBAP may reduce mechanical dyssynchrony and achieve greater physiological ventricular activation than RVSP.