Mid-term feasibility, safety and outcomes of left bundle branch pacing-single center experience

Effectiveness of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) is ineffective in approximately one-third of patients. CRT with Conduction system pacing (CSP-CRT) may achieve greater synchronization. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CRT with His pacing (His-CRT) or left bundle branch pacing (LBB-CRT) in lieu of biventricular CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched until August 19, 2023, for original studies including patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who received His- or LBB-CRT, that reported either CSP-CRT success, LVEF, QRS duration (QRSd), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Effect measures were compared with frequentist network meta-analysis. Thirty-seven publications, including 20 comparative studies, were included. Success rates were 73.5% (95% CI: 61.2-83.0) for His-CRT and 91.5% (95% CI: 88.0-94.1) for LBB-CRT. Compared to BiV-CRT, greater improvements were observed for LVEF (mean difference [MD] for His-CRT +3.4%; 95% CI [1.0; 5.7], and LBB-CRT: +4.4%; [2.5; 6.2]), LV end-systolic volume (His-CRT:17.2mL [29.7; 4.8]; LBB-CRT:15.3mL [28.3; 2.2]), QRSd (His-CRT: -17.1ms [-25.0; -9.2]; LBB-CRT: -17.4ms [-23.2; -11.6]), and NYHA (Standardized MD [SMD]: His-CRT:0.4 [0.8; 0.1]; LBB-CRT:0.4 [-0.7; -0.2]). Pacing thresholds at baseline and follow-up were significantly lower with LBB-CRT versus both His-CRT and BiV-CRT. CSP-CRT was associated with reduced mortality (R = 0.75 [0.61-0.91]) and hospitalizations risk (RR = 0.63 [0.42-0.96]).

CONCLUSION

This study found that CSP-CRT is associated with greater improvements in QRSd, echocardiographic, and clinical response. LBB-CRT was associated with lower pacing thresholds. Future randomized trials are needed to determine CSP-CRT efficacy.

Observations of interventricular septal behavior during left bundle branch pacing

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) involves the deployment of the lead deep inside the septum. Penetration of the septum by the lead depends on the texture of the septum, rapidity of rotations, operator experience, and implantation tools.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of our study was to assess the behavior of the lumenless lead during rapid rotations and the physiological property of the interventricular septum(IVS) during LBBP.

METHODS

Patients undergoing LBBP between January 2021 and December 2022 were retrospectively included in the study.

RESULTS

Among 255 attempted patients, 20 (7.9%) had procedural failure(no LBB capture-four, inability to penetrate septum-seven, and dislodgements after sheath removal-nine). Septal penetration achieved in 248/255 patients (97.2%). Lead movement inside the IVS was assessed by lead traverse time. Based on the behavior of the IVS (n = 255), three different responses were noted. Type-I response(normal/firm septum) in 93.7% (n = 239) characterized by constant and progressive movement of lead. Neither perforation nor further change in premature-ventricular-complex morphology beyond M-beat were observed despite additional few unintentional rotations indicating the protective mechanism of LV-endocardium. Type-II response(soft/cheesy septum) in 3.5% (n = 9) characterized by hyper-movement of lead without resistance due to altered texture of septum and poor LV subendocardial barrier resulting in perforation. No patients in this group had LV dysfunction or associated coronary artery disease. In type-III response, seen in 2.8% (n = 7), lead could not be penetrated due to scar in IVS.

CONCLUSION

Three different patterns of responses were observed during LBBP. The most distinct type-ll response was associated with soft/cheesy septum with hyper-movement of the lead predisposing for future dislodgments in patients without structural heart disease.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Approach to Left Bundle Branch Pacing

Cardiac pacing refers to the implantation tool serving as a treatment modality for various indications, the most common of which is symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Left bundle branch pacing has been noted in the literature to be safer than biventricular pacing or His-bundle pacing in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure, thereby becoming the focus of further research on cardiac pacing. A review of the literature was conducted using a combination of keywords, including "Left Bundle Branch Block," "Procedural techniques," "Left Bundle Capture," and "Complications." The following factors have been investigated as key criteria for direct capture: paced QRS morphology, peak left ventricular activation time, left bundle potential, nonselective and selective left bundle capture, and programmed deep septal stimulation protocol. In addition, complications of LBBP, inclusive of septal perforation, thromboembolism, right bundle branch injury, septal artery injury, lead dislodgement, lead fracture, and lead extraction, have also been elaborated on. Despite clinical implications based on clinical research comparing the use of LBBP with other forms such as right ventricular apex pacing, His-bundle pacing, biventricular pacing, and left ventricular septal pacing, a paucity in the literature on long-term effects and efficacy has been noted. LBBP can thus be considered to have a promising future in patients requiring cardiac pacing, assuming that additional research on clinical outcomes and the limitation of significant complications such as thromboembolism can be established.

Clinical impact of left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure with preserved ejection fraction and mid-range ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Recently, conduction system pacing, including His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as an alternative pacing procedure for right ventricular (RV) pacing. The current study aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP and conventional RV mid-septal pacing (RVMSP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and HF with mid-range ejection (HFmrEF) requiring frequency RV pacing due to atrioventricular block (AVB).

METHODS

A total of 89 patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB were enrolled between September 2018 and April 2021, among whom 43 and 46 underwent LBBAP and RVMSP, respectively.

RESULTS

No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The LBBAP group had a significantly shorter paced-QRS duration and paced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) compared to the RVMSP group (123.4 ± 10.4 ms vs. 152.3 ± 12.3 ms, p < 0.001 and 68.3 ± 10.0 ms vs. 95.2 ± 12.3 ms, p < 0.001, respectively). The LBBAP group had significantly lower N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels at the 6-month follow-up compared to the RVMSP group [459.6 pg/mL (240.4-678.7) vs. 972.7 pg/mL (629.5-1315.9), p = 0.01]. More patients in the LBBAP group exhibited a significant improvement in NT-proBNP, defined as a >50% decreased from baseline levels.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP maintains physiological ventricular activation and contributes to greater improvement in NT-proBNP value 6 months after implantation in patients with HFpEF and HFmrEF compared to RVMSP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Left bundle branch pacing: An evolving site for physiological pacing

For patients with symptomatic bradyarrhythmia, cardiac pacing is the only appropriate treatment option. Electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony caused by traditional right ventricular apical pacing leads to left ventricular dysfunction and atrial arrhythmias. Physiological pacing stimulates natural cardiac conduction, resulting in synchronized ventricular contraction. Even if His bundle pacing (HBP) is an ideal physiological pacing modality, it is technically not always feasible because of high capture thresholds, disease in the distal His bundle, and follow-up troubleshooting issues. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been proposed as a viable alternative to HBP since it provides lead stability, a low and stable pacing threshold, and correction of distal conduction system disease.

A single-center experience with early adoption of physiologic pacing approaches

BACKGROUND

Increasing interest in physiological pacing has been countered with challenges such as accurate lead deployment and increasing pacing thresholds with His-bundle pacing (HBP). More recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative approach to physiologic pacing.

OBJECTIVE

To compare procedural outcomes and pacing parameters at follow-up during initial adoption of HBP and LBBAP at a single center.

METHODS

Retrospective review, from September 2016 to January 2020, identified the first 50 patients each who underwent successful HBP or LBBAP. Pacing parameters were then assessed at first follow-up after implantation and after approximately 1 year, evaluating for acceptable pacing parameters defined as sensing R-wave amplitude >5 mV, threshold <2.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and impedance between 400 and 1200 Ω.

RESULTS

The HBP group was younger with lower ejection fraction compared to LBBAP (73.2 ± 15.3 vs. 78.2 ± 9.2 years, p = .047; 51.0 ± 15.9% vs. 57.0 ± 13.1%, p = .044). Post-procedural QRS widths were similarly narrow (119.8 ± 21.2 vs. 116.7 ± 15.2 ms; p = .443) in both groups. Significantly fewer patients with HBP met the outcome for acceptable pacing parameters at initial follow-up (56.0% vs. 96.4%, p = .001) and most recent follow-up (60.7% vs. 94.9%, p ≤ .001; at 399 ± 259 vs. 228 ± 124 days, p ≤ .001). More HBP patients required lead revision due to early battery depletion or concern for pacing failure (0% vs. 13.3%, at a mean of 664 days).

CONCLUSION

During initial adoption, HBP is associated with a significantly higher frequency of unacceptable pacing parameters, energy consumption, and lead revisions compared with LBBAP.

How to Implant His Bundle and Left Bundle Pacing Leads: Tips and Pearls

Cardiac pacing is the treatment of choice for the management of patients with bradycardia. Although right ventricular apical pacing is the standard therapy, it is associated with an increased risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and heart failure. Physiological pacing using His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing has recently evolved as the preferred alternative pacing option. Both His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing have also demonstrated significant efficacy in correcting left bundle branch block and achieving cardiac resynchronisation therapy. In this article, the authors review the implantation tools and techniques to perform conduction system pacing.

Late dislodgement of left bundle branch pacing lead and successful extraction

A 61-years-old male underwent left bundle branch pacing for nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy with recurrent heart failure. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) resulted in reduction in QRS duration along with improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) to 64% during follow-up. Two years after implantation he had recurrence of symptoms along with decline in LVEF to 51%. Late lead dislodgement was diagnosed and re-do LBBP was planned. The lead was extracted en-masse without complication and a new 3830 lead was positioned deep inside the proximal septum to capture the left bundle. Postprocedure echocardiography showed no ventricular septal defect or damage to tricuspid leaflet.

The electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters of permanent left bundle branch pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Recent advances in conduction system pacing have led to the use of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), which has potential advantages over His bundle pacing (HBP). For example, LBBP engages the electrical activation through the left bundle branch, produces ventricular electrical synchrony, and avoids the weakness of HBP such as lead instability, higher threshold, and early battery depletion. This pacing modality has been considered an attractive mode to achieve normal physiological pacing. However, as a new technology, LBBP is still in the stage of clinical exploration and lacks adequate evaluation. This study aims to investigate the electrocardiogram characteristics, pacing parameters, the safety, and the effectiveness of LBBP.

METHODS

A computerized search of PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library for the effects of LBBP was done. The baseline characteristics of patients, successful rate of implantation, capture threshold, R-wave amplitude, pacing impedance, QRS duration, and follow-up date were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 712 patients were included in this analysis. The overall successful rate for implantation was 92.9%. The main indications for LBBP were atrioventricular block (AVB), sinus node dysfunction (SND), atrial fibrillation (AF) with slow ventricular rate, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates. For patients with QRS duration>120 ms, permanent LBBP resulted in narrower QRS duration compared to that before implantation (P = 0.05). QRS duration and capture threshold of LBBP remained stable during follow-up. Moreover, there was higher R-wave amplitude and lower pacing impedance at follow-up compared to those at implantation (P = 0.01 and P < 0.00001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Permanent LBBP has shown promising results for pacemaker-indicated patients in small observational studies. Good electrical synchronization, high success rates, and stable pacemaker lead parameters suggested significant advantages of LBBP in physiological pacing. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy of LBBP in patients.

Feasibility, safety and outcomes of left bundle branch pacing in octogenarians

OBJECTIVES

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provides physiological pacing at low and stable threshold. The safety and efficacy of LBBP in elderly population is unknown. Our study was designed to assess the safety, efficacy and electrophysiological parameters of LBBP in octogenarian (≥80 years) population.

RESULTS

LBBP was successful in 10 out of 11 patients. Mean age 82.1 ± 2.5 yrs. Follow up duration 7.7 months(range4-10). Indication for pacing included atrioventricular (AV) block 5 patients, Left bundle branch block (LBBB) with low ejection fraction (EF) 4 patients, sinus node dysfunction in 1. QRS duration reduced from 145.9 ± 27.7ms to 107.1 ± 9.5ms (p value0.00001) LV ejection fraction increased from 47.6% to 58.4% after LBBP (p value0.017). Pacing threshold was 0.58 ± 0.22 V and sensed R wave 17.35 ± 6.5 mV and it remained stable during follow up. LBBB with low EF patients also showed similar reduction in QRS duration along with improvement in LVEF.

CONCLUSION

LBBP is a safe and effective strategy (91% acute success) of physiological pacing in elderly patients. LBBP also provided effective resynchronization therapy in our small group of elderly patients. The pacing parameters remained stable over a period of 10 months follow up.

Rapid reversal of heart failure by correcting left bundle branch block induced by transcatheter aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) induced pathological damage in cardiac conduction system leads to symptomatic bradycardia and electric dyssynchrony such as left bundle branch block (LBBB) is associated with an increased risk for heart failure. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative method for delivering physiological pacing to achieve electrical synchrony of the left ventricle. We report a case of heart failure patient with new onset LBBB (NO-LBBB) induced by TAVR, LBBP corrected the NO-LBBB and reversed the heart function with stable capture and correction threshold.