Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing: Reduced repolarization heterogeneity in addition to improved depolarization. (21st December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Gupta, Anshul; Pavri, Behzad B.
• Is Part Of: Journal of cardiovascular electrophysiology. Volume 33:Number 2(2022)
• Page Start: 287
• Page End: 295
• Publication Date: 2021-12-21
• Subjects: biventricular pacing -- conduction system pacing -- his bundle pacing -- left bundle area pacing -- Tpeak‐Tend -- ventricular repolarization; Blood vessels -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; 612.1
• DOI: 10.1111/jce.15329
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1045-3873

Abstract

Abstract: Introduction: His‐bundle pacing (HBP) and left‐bundle‐area pacing (LBAP) are conduction system pacing (CSP) modalities increasingly used as alternatives to conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). While effects of CSP on ventricular depolarization have been reported, effects on ventricular repolarization have not. Methods: QRS duration (QRSd) and validated ECG parameters of ventricular repolarization associated with arrhythmic risk (T‐peak‐to‐T‐endTransmural, T‐peak‐to‐T‐endTotal, T‐peak dispersion, QTc, QTc dispersion) were analyzed post‐implant in 107 patients: 60 with CSP (HBP: n = 35, LBAP: n = 25) and 47 with BiVP. T‐wave memory resolution and QTc shortening were analyzed on ECGs obtained ≥25 days post‐implant. Twenty blinded measurements were obtained by both authors to assess Interobserver variability. Results: Although QRSd was shorter with HBP versus LBAP (119 ± 7 ms vs. 132 ± 9 ms, p = .02), there were no significant differences in any repolarization parameters between these methods of CSP. However, when comparing CSP (HBP + LBAP) to BiVP, both QRSd (125 ± 5 ms vs. 147 ± 7 ms, p < .0001) and repolarization parameters (T‐peak‐to‐T‐endTransmural : 83 ± 5 ms vs. 107 ± 8 ms; T‐peak‐to‐T‐endTotal : 110 ± 7 ms vs. 137 ± 10 ms; QTc: 470 ± 12 ms vs. 506 ± 12 ms; all p ≤ .0001) were significantly shorter with CSP. Improved T‐peak‐to‐T‐end values were unrelated to pre‐implant QRSd or LV function. Interobserver variability was 4.6 ± 1.9 ms. Frontal QRS‐T angle narrowing (132° to 104°, p = .001) and QTc shortening (483 ± 13 ms to 464 ± 12 ms, p = .008) were seen only with CSP. Conclusions: In addition to improved depolarization, CSP reduced repolarization heterogeneity and provided greater T‐wave memory resolution as compared to BiVP. Both modalities of CSP (HBP + LBAP) resulted in comparably reduced repolarization heterogeneity regardless of baseline QRSd and LV function. These observations may confer lower arrhythmogenic risk and warrant further study.