Efficacy Comparison Between Conventional and Probe Methods for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing technique, but its relatively complex procedure limits its widespread clinical application. To compare the clinical efficacy of probe-LBBAP (p-LBBAP, a method involving pre-positioning a ventricular lead guidewire to the optimal physiological pacing site in the interventricular septum before guiding ventricular lead implantation) and conventional LBBAP (c-LBBAP) in patients undergoing physiological cardiac pacing. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 20 patients who received physiological pacing. Based on the LBBAP lead implantation technique, patients were divided into the p-LBBAP group (n = 10) and the c-LBBAP group (n = 10). Baseline clinical data, including medical history, QRS duration, and echocardiographic parameters, were collected. Procedural reports were reviewed to compare intraoperative LBBAP lead implantation time, fluoroscopy time, stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT), postoperative paced QRS duration, pacemaker parameters, and echocardiographic outcomes. A total of 20 patients were included, with a mean age of (69.50 ± 10.76) years, including 11 males (55%, 11/20). The cohort was divided into the c-LBBAP group (n = 10) and the p-LBBAP group (n = 10). Compared with the c-LBBAP group, the p-LBBAP group showed significantly reduced LBBAP lead implantation time ([288.70 ± 59.99] s vs. [370.6 ± 59.11] s, p = 0.007) and fluoroscopy time ([330.80 ± 52.67] s vs. [383.2 ± 49.04] s, p = 0.034). Regarding pacemaker parameters, no statistically significant differences were observed between the p-LBBAP and c-LBBAP groups in postoperative ventricular lead threshold (p = 0.721) or impedance (p = 0.725). Similarly, no significant differences were found in Postoperative paced QRS duration (p = 0.783) and paced QRS narrowing rate (p = 0.869). At the 6-month follow-up, LBBAP lead thresholds and impedance remained stable in both groups. Echocardiographic follow-up revealed no significant difference in the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p = 0.692). No procedure-related complications occurred in either group. In physiological pacing procedures, the p-LBBAP technique significantly reduces LBBAP lead implantation time and fluoroscopy time while maintaining stable lead thresholds and impedance during follow-up, demonstrating its reliability as a physiological pacing approach.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Published
2026-03-08
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/jce.70282
Primary Topic
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Efficacy Comparison Between Conventional and Probe Methods for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing

Siting Hong, Haoran Jing, Z. -K. Wang, Jiaoyue Zhong et al.
Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
article

Efficacy Comparison Between Conventional and Probe Methods for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing

Siting Hong, Haoran Jing, Z. -K. Wang, Jiaoyue Zhong, Songqing Yang, Yuran Chen, Chunlin Gong, Xiaodi Yu, Haoruo Zhang, Yanfeng Tian, Geer Sheng
article en

Abstract

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing technique, but its relatively complex procedure limits its widespread clinical application. To compare the clinical efficacy of probe-LBBAP (p-LBBAP, a method involving pre-positioning a ventricular lead guidewire to the optimal physiological pacing site in the interventricular septum before guiding ventricular lead implantation) and conventional LBBAP (c-LBBAP) in patients undergoing physiological cardiac pacing. A retrospective analysis was conducted on 20 patients who received physiological pacing. Based on the LBBAP lead implantation technique, patients were divided into the p-LBBAP group (n = 10) and the c-LBBAP group (n = 10). Baseline clinical data, including medical history, QRS duration, and echocardiographic parameters, were collected. Procedural reports were reviewed to compare intraoperative LBBAP lead implantation time, fluoroscopy time, stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT), postoperative paced QRS duration, pacemaker parameters, and echocardiographic outcomes. A total of 20 patients were included, with a mean age of (69.50 ± 10.76) years, including 11 males (55%, 11/20). The cohort was divided into the c-LBBAP group (n = 10) and the p-LBBAP group (n = 10). Compared with the c-LBBAP group, the p-LBBAP group showed significantly reduced LBBAP lead implantation time ([288.70 ± 59.99] s vs. [370.6 ± 59.11] s, p = 0.007) and fluoroscopy time ([330.80 ± 52.67] s vs. [383.2 ± 49.04] s, p = 0.034). Regarding pacemaker parameters, no statistically significant differences were observed between the p-LBBAP and c-LBBAP groups in postoperative ventricular lead threshold (p = 0.721) or impedance (p = 0.725). Similarly, no significant differences were found in Postoperative paced QRS duration (p = 0.783) and paced QRS narrowing rate (p = 0.869). At the 6-month follow-up, LBBAP lead thresholds and impedance remained stable in both groups. Echocardiographic follow-up revealed no significant difference in the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p = 0.692). No procedure-related complications occurred in either group. In physiological pacing procedures, the p-LBBAP technique significantly reduces LBBAP lead implantation time and fluoroscopy time while maintaining stable lead thresholds and impedance during follow-up, demonstrating its reliability as a physiological pacing approach.

Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology
Harbin Medical University (CN), First Affiliated Hospital of Harbin Medical University (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 36%
Cardiac pacing and defibrillation studies
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.