Conduction time from left bundle branch pacing to the left ventricular lateral wall in two patients in whom cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker was implanted

{"title":"Conduction time from left bundle branch pacing to the left ventricular lateral wall in two patients in whom cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemaker was implanted","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.jccase.2024.04.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>The efficacy of left bundle branch<span><span> pacing (LBBP) as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been reported, but LBBP may not always improve </span>conduction disturbance<span> in the left ventricle (LV). To evaluate LV </span></span></span>electrical conduction<span> delay during LBBP, we measured conduction time from the pacing at left bundle branch to LV lead sensing (LBBP-LV) in two patients in whom left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) was attempted. Case 1 was a 77-year-old female with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and left bundle branch block<span><span>. The QRS duration during LBBP was 160 ms and the interval between the stimulus artifact and peak of the </span>R wave<span> in lead V6 (Stim-V6RWPT) was 74 ms. LBBP-LV at the LV mid-lateral wall and LV mid-posterolateral wall were 112 ms and 102 ms, respectively. Case 2 was a 75-year-old female with DCM and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay. The QRS duration during LBBP was 156 ms and Stim-V6RWPT was 66 ms. LBBP-LV at the LV mid-anterolateral wall, LV mid-lateral wall, and LV mid-posterolateral wall were 96 ms, 107 ms, and 121 ms, respectively. In conclusion, LBBP-LV at the LV mid-lateral area was relatively long. If LBBP does not improve LV conduction disturbances, LOT-CRT may be more effective.</span></span></span></p></div><div><h3>Learning objective</h3><p>The efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been reported. However, if the conduction time from pacing to the left ventricular (LV) lateral area during LBBP is long, LBBP may not improve LV conduction disturbance, resulting in ineffective CRT. In such cases, more effective CRT would be expected with LV lead implantation at the area of the LV conduction delay during LBBP.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":52092,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cardiology Cases","volume":"30 2","pages":"Pages 35-38"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cardiology Cases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878540924000343","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been reported, but LBBP may not always improve conduction disturbance in the left ventricle (LV). To evaluate LV electrical conduction delay during LBBP, we measured conduction time from the pacing at left bundle branch to LV lead sensing (LBBP-LV) in two patients in whom left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) was attempted. Case 1 was a 77-year-old female with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and left bundle branch block. The QRS duration during LBBP was 160 ms and the interval between the stimulus artifact and peak of the R wave in lead V6 (Stim-V6RWPT) was 74 ms. LBBP-LV at the LV mid-lateral wall and LV mid-posterolateral wall were 112 ms and 102 ms, respectively. Case 2 was a 75-year-old female with DCM and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay. The QRS duration during LBBP was 156 ms and Stim-V6RWPT was 66 ms. LBBP-LV at the LV mid-anterolateral wall, LV mid-lateral wall, and LV mid-posterolateral wall were 96 ms, 107 ms, and 121 ms, respectively. In conclusion, LBBP-LV at the LV mid-lateral area was relatively long. If LBBP does not improve LV conduction disturbances, LOT-CRT may be more effective.

Learning objective

The efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been reported. However, if the conduction time from pacing to the left ventricular (LV) lateral area during LBBP is long, LBBP may not improve LV conduction disturbance, resulting in ineffective CRT. In such cases, more effective CRT would be expected with LV lead implantation at the area of the LV conduction delay during LBBP.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两名植入心脏再同步治疗起搏器的患者从左束支起搏到左心室侧壁的传导时间
左束支起搏(LBBP)作为心脏再同步化疗法(CRT)的疗效已有报道,但 LBBP 并不总能改善左心室(LV)的传导障碍。为了评估 LBBP 期间的左心室电传导延迟,我们测量了两名尝试过左束支优化心脏再同步化疗法(LOT-CRT)的患者从左束支起搏到左心室导联感应(LBBP-LV)的传导时间。病例 1 是一名 77 岁的女性,患有扩张型心肌病(DCM)和左束支传导阻滞。LBBP 期间的 QRS 持续时间为 160 毫秒,刺激假象与 V6 导联 R 波峰值(Stim-V6RWPT)之间的间隔为 74 毫秒。左心室中外侧壁和左心室中柱外侧壁的 LBBP-LV 分别为 112 ms 和 102 ms。病例 2 是一名 75 岁的女性,患有 DCM 和非特异性室内传导延迟。LBBP 期间的 QRS 持续时间为 156 ms,Stim-V6RWPT 为 66 ms。左心室中外侧壁、左心室中侧壁和左心室中柱外侧壁的 LBBP-LV 分别为 96 ms、107 ms 和 121 ms。总之,左心室中外侧区域的 LBBP-LV 相对较长。如果 LBBP 不能改善左心室传导障碍,LOT-CRT 可能会更有效。但是,如果 LBBP 期间起搏到左心室外侧区域的传导时间较长,则 LBBP 可能无法改善左心室传导障碍,导致 CRT 无效。在这种情况下,如果在 LBBP 期间左心室传导延迟的区域植入左心室导联,则 CRT 效果会更好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Cardiology Cases
Journal of Cardiology Cases Medicine-Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
177
审稿时长
59 days
期刊最新文献
Rescue from sudden ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation using wearable cardioverter-defibrillator in male late-onset Fabry disease patient Pemafibrate and cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with systolic heart failure receiving guideline-directed medical therapy Advanced retrieval technique using pacemaker lead extraction methods for a long-term implanted inferior vena cava filter with caval penetration of the pancreas Effectiveness of surgery and chemotherapy with immune checkpoint inhibitor for cardiac metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of unknown primary Late stent thrombosis six months after ultrathin-strut covered stent implantation in lesion with calcified nodule
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1