Right bundle branch pacing: criteria, characteristics and outcomes
The result's identifiers
Result code in IS VaVaI
<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F00064173%3A_____%2F23%3A43925091" target="_blank" >RIV/00064173:_____/23:43925091 - isvavai.cz</a>
Alternative codes found
RIV/00216208:11120/23:43925091
Result on the web
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.01.017" target="_blank" >https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.01.017</a>
DOI - Digital Object Identifier
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.01.017" target="_blank" >10.1016/j.hrthm.2023.01.017</a>
Alternative languages
Result language
angličtina
Original language name
Right bundle branch pacing: criteria, characteristics and outcomes
Original language description
BACKGROUND: Targets for right-sided conduction system pacing (CSP) include His bundle and right bundle branch. ECG patterns, diagnostic criteria and outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) are not known. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to delineate electrocardiographic and electrophysiological characteristics of RBBP and to compare outcomes between RBBP and His bundle pacing (HBP). METHODS: Patients with confirmed right CSP were divided according to the conduction system potential to QRS interval at the pacing lead implantation site. Six hypothesized RBBP criteria as well as pacing parameters, echocardiographic outcomes and all-cause mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: All analyzed criteria discriminated between HBP and RBBP: double QRS transition during threshold test, selective paced QRS different from conducted QRS, stimulus to selective QRS > potential-QRS, small increase in V(6)RWPT during QRS transition, equal capture thresholds of CSP and myocardium, and stimulus-V(6) R-wave peak time (V(6)RWPT) > potential-V(6)RWPT (adopted as diagnostic standard). Per this last criterion, RBBP was observed in 19.2% (64/326) patients who had been targeted for HBP, present mainly among patients with potential to QRS < 35 ms (90.6%, 48/53) and occasionally in the remaining patients (5.6%, 16/273). RBBP was characterized by longer QRS (by 10.5 ms), longer V(6)RWPT (by 11.6 ms) and better sensing (by 2.6 mV) compared to HBP. During median follow-up of 29 months, no differences in capture threshold, echocardiographic outcomes or mortality were found. CONCLUSIONS: RBBP has distinct features that separate it from HBP and is observed in approximately a fifth of patients in whom HBP is intended.
Czech name
—
Czech description
—
Classification
Type
J<sub>imp</sub> - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database
CEP classification
—
OECD FORD branch
30201 - Cardiac and Cardiovascular systems
Result continuities
Project
—
Continuities
I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace
Others
Publication year
2023
Confidentiality
S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů
Data specific for result type
Name of the periodical
Heart Rhythm
ISSN
1547-5271
e-ISSN
1556-3871
Volume of the periodical
20
Issue of the periodical within the volume
4
Country of publishing house
US - UNITED STATES
Number of pages
9
Pages from-to
492-500
UT code for WoS article
000967131000001
EID of the result in the Scopus database
2-s2.0-85148112490