Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 5, 2025
Optocardiography and Electrophysiology Studies of Ex Vivo Langendorff-perfused Hearts
Published on: November 7, 2019
Comparison of Depolarization and Repolarization Parameters in Left vs. Right Ventricular Septal Pacing-An
Catalin Pestrea1,2,3, Ecaterina Cicala1, Madalina Ivascu1
1Department of Interventional Cardiology, Brasov County Clinical Emergency Hospital, 500326 Brasov, Romania.
Abstract:
Compared with conventional right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), several studies have shown a net clinical benefit of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in terms of ejection fraction preservation and reduced hospitalizations for heart failure. The purpose of this study was to compare acute depolarization and repolarization electrocardiographic parameters between LBBAP and RVSP in the same patients during the LBBAP implant procedure. We prospectively included 74 consecutive patients subjected to LBBAP from 1 January to 31 December 2021 at our institution in the study. After the lead was placed deep into the ventricular septum, unipolar pacing was performed and 12-lead ECGs were recorded from the distal (LBBAP) and proximal (RVSP) electrodes. QRS duration (QRSd), left ventricular activation time (LVAT), right ventricular activation time (RVAT), QT and JT intervals, QT dispersion (QTd), T-wave peak-to-end interval (Tpe), and Tpe/QT were measured for both instances. The final LBBAP threshold was a 0.7 ± 0.31 V at 0.4 ms duration with a sensing threshold of 10.7 ± 4.1 mV. RVSP produced a significantly larger QRS complex than the baseline QRS (194.88 ± 17.29 ms vs. 141.89 ± 35.41 ms, p < 0.001), while LBBAP did not significantly change the mean QRSd (148.10 ± 11.52 ms vs. 141.89 ± 35.41 ms, p = 0.135). LVAT (67.63 ± 8.79 ms vs. 95.89 ± 12.02 ms, p < 0.001) and RVAT (80.54 ± 10.94 ms vs. 98.99 ± 13.80 ms, p < 0.001) were significantly shorter with LBBAP than with RVSP. Moreover, all the repolarization parameters studied were significantly shorter in LBBAP than in RVSP (QT-425.95 ± 47.54 vs. 487.30 ± 52.32; JT-281.85 ± 53.66 vs. 297.69 ± 59.02; QTd-41.62 ± 20.07 vs. 58.38 ± 24.44; Tpe-67.03 ± 11.19 vs. 80.27 ± 10.72; and Tpe/QT-0.158 ± 0.028 vs. 0.165 ± 0.021, p < 0.05 for all), irrespective of the baseline QRS morphology. LBBAP was associated with significantly better acute depolarization and repolarization electrocardiographic parameters compared with RVSP.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:30Cardiac Action Potential
The cardiac action potential process involves a series of phases characterized by the movement of ions across the cardiac cell membranes, leading to the depolarization and repolarization of the cardiac myocytes.
Ionic Basis of Cardiac Action Potentials
01:28Electrocardiogram Fundamentals
An electrocardiogram (ECG) is a diagnostic tool for identifying cardiac conditions such as arrhythmias, conduction abnormalities, and myocardial ischemia.
Definition
An electrocardiogram (ECG) visualizes the heart's electrical activity by tracing the electrical movement associated with each heartbeat on a graph or monitor. As the heart beats, an electrical wave passes through it, correlating with the cardiac cycle events.
Parts of an ECG
An ECG utilizes electrodes on the skin...
01:25Correlation between ECG and Cardiac Cycle
A cardiac action potential originates in the SA node and spreads throughout the atria and the AV node in approximately 0.03 seconds. This results in the P wave in an ECG and triggers atrial contraction. The action potential is then briefly slowed at the AV node, allowing the atria to contract and fill the ventricles with blood before...
01:19Electrophysiology of Normal Cardiac Rhythm
01:29Electrocardiogram
Three major waveforms are present in a typical ECG recording: the P wave, the QRS complex, and...