1430 Novel aspects of anti bradycardia pacing pressure- and lipid lowering treatment. Risk factors for receiving an ICD were elevated HbA1c and blood pressure- and lipid lowering treatment. Cumulative incidence of receiving PM/ICD Conclusion: Patients with T2DM are at a substantially increased risk for the need of PM and ICD treatment compared to matched controls. This should be acknowl- edged when assessing their cardiovascular risk. P6650 Comparision of transjugular versus transfemoral approach for temporary pacemaker implantation K.J. Chun 1 , H.B. Gwag 2 , S.J. Park 2 , K.M. Park 2 , Y.K. On 2 , J.S. Kim 2 . 1 Kangnam Sacred Heart Hospital, Seoul, Korea Republic of; 2 Samsung Medical Center, Seoul, Korea Republic of Background: Temporary pacemakers (TPM) are usually inserted in an emer- gency situation. There are several routes of access for temporary transvenous pacing, and transfemoral approach is preferred in terms of procedure time or level of difficulty. However, the patients with TPM via femoral vein have to be lying down while the pacemaker is on. Purpose: This study aimed to compare the procedure time, complication rate, and indication of temporary cardiac pacing between transjugular and transfemoral approach. Methods: We analyzed consecutive patients who had inserted a TPM. A total of 472 patients from 2011 to 2016 were included. The patients with TPM via subcla- vian vein were excluded. The complication included localized infection, any bleed- ing required to intervention, pericardial effusion, and reposition of pacemaker. Results: Among 472 patients (mean age, 66.6±15.2 years; male, 54.0%) who had inserted a TPM, 254 patients (53.8%) had inserted TPM via internal jugu- lar vein (group A) and 218 patients (46.2%) had inserted TPM via femoral vein (group B). There were no difference between group A and group B in in terms of male sex (P=0.249), age (P=0.413), TPM indication (P=0.667), and propor- tion of permanent pacemaker implantation (P=0.258). The Procedure time was not significantly different between the two groups (7.7±8.6 minutes vs. 9.6±9.4 minutes, P=0.058). However, the pacemaker reposition rate was higher (5.9% vs. 0.9%, P=0.004) in group A. The duration of TPM was also longer (5.9±4.8 days vs. 2.7±4.2 days, P<0.001) in group A. Conclusion: TPM implantation through the internal jugular vein allows the patient to ambulate and have similar procedure time. But it has higher reposition rate than transfemoral approach. P6651 Paced corrected QT interval is associated with LV diastolic dysfunction in patients with permanent pacemakers and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction O. Kaypakli. Mustafa Kemal University, Faculty of Medicine, Cardiology, Hatay, Turkey Objective: We aimed to detect the relationship between paced QRS, paced QTc duration and echocardiographic parameters of LV diastolic dysfunction. Methods: We included 74 patients with LVEF>50% and DDD (R) pacemakers implanted for AV block (45 male, 29 female; mean age 64.9±11.6 years) at least 6 months after implantation. Patients with RVA pacing rate < %70 were excluded from the study. Patients were classified into two groups according to the LA vol- ume index. Results: Paced QTc was associated with LA volume index, LA volume, LA end- diastolic diameter, deceleration time, septal annular e’ velocity and mitral E/e’ ratio in bivariate analysis. The cutoff value of pQTc obtained by ROC curve anal- ysis was 512 ms for prediction of increased (>34ml/m 2 ) LA volume index (sen- sitivity: 88.0%, specificity: 79.6%). The area under the curve (AUC) was 0.848 (p<0.001). Table 1. Comparison of the baseline electrocardiographic and echocardiographic features Variable Normal LA volume index Increased LA volume index P (≤34ml/ m 2 ) (>34ml/ m 2 ) n=49 n=25 Paced QRS width (ms) 164,3±21,1 173,0±19,0 0,092 Paced QTc (ms) 491,4±35,3 536,1±23,3 <0,001 LV end-diastolic diameter (mm) 50,1±5,4 51,8±6,8 0,254 LV end-systolic diameter (mm) 34,7±4,4 35,4±4,4 0,511 LVEF (%) 56,9±4,9 55,5±4,5 0,225 LVEDV (ml) 109,0±23,4 108,9±26,3 0,992 LVESV (ml) 46,3±8,8 48,0±11,0 0,467 Peak E-wave velocity (cm/s) 53,5±17,9 48,2±16,3 0,219 Peak A-wave velocity (cm/s) 41,1±11,4 41,8±15,0 0,832 MV E/A ratio 1,31±0,25 1,18±0,33 0,066 Lateral annular e’ velocity (cm/s) 11,9±2,0 10,0±2,8 0,004 Septal annular e’ velocity (cm/s) 9,1±1,4 7,4±2,4 0,003 Mitral E/e’ ratio 5,1±1,5 6,0±3,0 0,094 MV deceleration time (ms) 183,0±33,6 203,4±39,4 0,033 IVRT (ms) 80,0±9,8 74,2±13,6 0,066 LA end-diastolic diameter (mm) 34,7±2,6 39,1±3,1 <0,001 LA volume (mL) 44,6±4,8 53,4±7,7 <0,001 LA volume index (mL/m 2 ) 30,8±1,9 35,9±2,0 <0,001 Conclusion: We suggest that pQTc may be used as a marker to predict the risk of diastolic dysfunction after permanent pacemaker implantation in patients with preserved LVEF. P6652 Comparison of electrocardiogram characteristics between left bundle branch pacing and right ventricular septal pacing in patients receiving pacemaker therapy K. Chen, Y. Dai, Y. Li, B. Luo, Q. Sun, C. Li, S. Zhang. Fuwai Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Arrhythmia Center, Beijing, China People’s Republic of Background: Cardiac pacing is an effective therapy in patients with bradycardia. Conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing is the source of ventricular dyssyn- chrony, leading to undesired clinical outcome. Purpose: This study compared the electrocardiogram (ECG) characteristics dur- ing left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) with that during RV septal pacing (RVSP) which has been thought to be better than RV apical pacing. Methods: 16 Patients who underwent pacemaker implantation for sinus node dysfunction, bundle branch block, or AV conduction block were prospectively en- rolled. Eight patients received permanent LBBP (the LBBP group) and 8 patients received conventional RVSP (the RVSP group). LBBP was achieved by placing the Select Secure™ lead (model 3830) at the basal ventricular septum while RVSP was achieved by placing the pacing lead in ventricular septum in a con- ventional way. Body surface ECG characteristics, pacing parameters, pacing sites and safety events were assessed. Results: In the LBBP group, the pacing lead was successfully placed near the endocardium of the left side of the basal septum, which was confirmed by 3- D echocardiographic assessment. ECG during LBBP was manifested withright bundle branch delay (Figure 1B) compared to during intrinsic rhythm (Figure 1A). In one patient with left bundle branch block (LBBB, Figure 1C), LBBP corrected LBBB (Figure 1D). ECG during RVSPwas manifested with left bundle branch block (Figure 1E). Left bundle brunch potential was frequently observed prior to the beginning of QRS complex in intracardiac electrograms during intrinsic rhythm in LBBP group but not in RVSP group.In the LBBP group, ECG QRS du- ration was 109.00±12.51 ms during pacing and 110.00±39.57 ms during intrinsic rhythm (P=0.931). In the RVSP group, ECG QRS duration was 149.50±23.22 12-Lead ECG during LBBP and RVSP Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/39/suppl_1/ehy566.P6652/5084411 by guest on 04 June 2020