AbstractIntroductionIn patients receiving conduction system pacing (CSP), it is not well established how to program the sensed atrioventricular delay (sAVD), with respect to the type of capture obtained (selective, nonselective His‐bundle [HB] capture or left bundle branch [LBB] capture). The aim of this study was to acutely assess the effectiveness of an electrophysiology (EP)‐guided method for sAVD optimization by comparing it with the echocardiogram‐guided optimization.Methods and ResultsConsecutive patients undergoing HB or LBB pacing were enrolled. The EP‐guided sAVD was defined as the sAVD leading to a PR interval of 150 ms on surface electrocardiogram (ECG). In HB pacing patients, EP‐guided sAVD was obtained subtracting the time from the onset of the P wave on ECG to the local atrial electrogram (EGM) recorded by the atrial lead (right atrial sensing latency, RASL) and the His‐ventricular interval from 150 ms; in LBB pacing patients, subtracting RASL from 150 ms. Transmitral flow assessment by pulsed wave Doppler was used to find the echo‐optimized sAVD by a modified iterative method. The discordance between the EP‐guided and the echo‐optimized sAVD was recorded.ResultsSeventy‐one patients were enrolled: 12 with selective, 32 nonselective HB capture, and 27 LBB capture. Overall, the rate of concordance between the EP‐guided and the echo‐optimized sAVD was 71.8%, with no significant differences between the three groups.ConclusionIn CSP patients, an optimal sAVD can be programmed, in more than 70% of cases, considering only simple EGM intervals to obtain a physiological PR interval on surface ECG.