Comparison of the left ventricular dyssynchrony between stylet-driven and lumen-less lead technique in left bundle branch area pacing using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Abstract

Background Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing method to reduce left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony due to ventricular pacing. Only lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with fixed helixes could achieve LBBAP previously, but recently, LBBAP has been performed using stylet-driven leads (SDLs). This study aimed to evaluate the LV dyssynchrony between SDLs and LLLs techniques in LBBAP. Methods We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent LBBAP with either SDLs or LLLs. We compared both groups’ electrocardiogram (ECG) findings and LV dyssynchrony parameters derived from myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. LV dyssynchrony parameters consisted of phase analysis and regional wall motion analysis. We evaluated bandwidth, phase standard deviation (PSD), and entropy in the phase analysis. The time to the end-systolic frame (TES) was calculated in regional wall motion analysis using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). We also evaluated the maximum differences between segmental TES (MDTES), the standard deviation of TES (SDTES), and the difference in the TES between the lateral wall and septum (DTES-LS). Results In total, 97 patients were enrolled. The success rate of LBBAP did not differ between the groups [SDLs: 47/48 patients (98%) vs. LLLs: 47/51 patients (92%), P=0.36]. The paced QRS duration and the stimulus to the peak LV activation time (stim-LVAT) also did not differ between SDL and LLL groups (122±10 vs. 119±12 ms, P=0.206; 69±12 vs. 66±13 ms, P=0.31, respectively). There were no differences in bandwidth, PSD, and entropy between SDL and LLL groups (73°±37° vs. 86°±47°, P=0.18; 19°±8.5° vs. 21°±9.7°, P=0.19; 0.57±0.08 vs. 0.59±0.08, P=0.17, respectively). The regional wall motion analysis parameters MDTES, SDTES, and DTES-LS also did not differ between SDL and LLL groups (19%±10% vs. 20%±10%, P=0.885; 5.0%±2.5% vs. 5.0%±2.5%, P=0.995; 5.0%±3.7% vs. 4.8%±4.2%, P=0.78, respectively). Conclusions LBBAP using SDLs was comparable to LV electrical and mechanical synchrony with LLLs.