Introduction: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has recently been reported to maintain left ventricular electrical synchrony with a low and stable threshold. However, the electrocardiogram (ECG) definitions of LBBP have not been well established. We report four cases to show the characteristics of the ECG and the intracardiac electrogram (EGM) in LBBP. Methods and Results: Four patients, two with an atrioventricular block (AVB) and two with left bundle branch block (LBBB), were included in the study. LBBP was performed and the ECGs and EGMs were collected and compared at different pacing outputs. Selective LBBP (S-LBBP) was defined as only capturing the LBB with a typical RBBB morphology and a discrete component between the pacing stimulus and ventricular activation in the EGMs. While nonselective LBBP (NS-LBBP) captured both the LBB and the local myocardium, resulting in a narrow right bundle branch block (RBBB) morphology without the discrete component. The left bundle branch (LBB) potential was recorded in two cases during narrow QRS complex or LBBB correction by selective His bundle pacing and SLBBP (n = 3) was achieved. A constant and shortest stimulus to left ventricular activation time (LVAT) in LBBP was obtained at different pacing outputs. Conclusion: The ECG and EGM characteristics of LBBP can be summarized as: 1) RBBB pattern; 2) usually with the LBB potential; 3) SLBBP with specific ECG changes and a discrete component in EGM; and 4) with a constant and shortest stimulus to LVAT at different pacing outputs. Further studies are necessary to confirm these observations. K E Y W O R D S His bundle pacing, left bundle branch pacing, left bundle branch potential, selective left bundle branch pacing, stimulus to peak left ventricular activation time Xueying Chen and Shengjie Wu contributed as co-first authors. The characteristics of the electrocardiogram and the intracardiac electrogram in left bundle branch pacing.

Aims The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Methods and results One hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P < 0.001). Higher absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and △LVEF was also achieved in LBBP-CRT than BVP-aCRT at 6-month (47.58 ± 12.02% vs. 41.24 ± 10.56%, P = 0.008; 18.52 ± 13.19% vs. 12.89 ± 9.73%, P = 0.020) and 1-year follow-up (49.10 ± 10.43% vs. 43.62 ± 11.33%, P = 0.021; 20.90 ± 11.80% vs. 15.20 ± 9.98%, P = 0.015, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in response rate between two groups while higher super-response rate was observed in LBBP-CRT as compared to BVP-aCRT at 6 months (53.06% vs. 36.59%, P = 0.016) and 12 months (61.22% vs. 39.22%, P = 0.028) during follow-up. The pacing threshold was lower in LBBP-CRT at implant and during 1-year follow-up (both P < 0.001). Procedure-related complications and adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different in two groups. Conclusions The feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.