Distance between the lead-implanted site and tricuspid valve annulus in patients with left bundle branch pacing: Effects on postoperative tricuspid regurgitation deterioration

Feasibility, safety, and short-term follow-up of defibrillator lead at left bundle branch area pacing location: A pilot study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been increasingly adopted as an alternative modality to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The feasibility and safety of using an LBBAP lead to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT has been demonstrated recently.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of our study was to analyze the feasibility, safety, and short-term follow-up of a traditional defibrillator lead at the LBBAP location.

METHODS

Patients who underwent successful LBBAP defibrillator using DF-1/DF-4 lead and delivery catheter were included in the study. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed after implantation to assess the ability of the LBBAP defibrillator lead to sense and provide appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmia.

RESULTS

Although the ICD lead could be successfully deployed in the left bundle branch area in 7 of 8 patients, it was repositioned to the right ventricular (RV) apex because of atrial oversensing in 1 patient and cheesy septum in another patient. Acute procedural success was 62.5% (5/8 patients). Mean patient age was 62.6 ± 21.6 years. Mean procedural duration was 115.6 ± 38.1 minutes, with LBBAP defibrillator lead fluoroscopy duration of 10.6 ± 3.5 minutes. Mean capture threshold was 0.58 ± 0.23V/0.4 ms, sensed R-wave amplitude 9.6 ± 2.2 mV, pacing impedance 560 ± 145 Ω, and shock impedance 65.4 ± 5.5 Ω. Defibrillation testing was successful in inducing ventricular fibrillation and could be sensed and reverted promptly by the shock delivered through the lead. During mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 2.2 months, pacing parameters remained stable. No episodes of inappropriate arrhythmia detection or therapy delivery occurred during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP defibrillator is feasible, safe, and effective during short-term follow-up. DFT testing at the time of implantation will help to ensure appropriate sensing and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.

Left bundle branch area pacing improves right ventricular function and synchrony

BACKGROUND

The impact of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) on right ventricular (RV) function and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the long-term effects of LBBAP on RV performance and on TR.

METHODS

RV function was evaluated using RV free wall strain, tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, fractional area changing, and systolic velocity of the lateral tricuspid annulus. The presence of reverse septal flash (RSF) and basal bulge (BB) was used to assess RV motion pattern. The distance between the lead entry site on the interventricular septum and the septal leaflet of the tricuspid annulus (lead-TV distance) was measured.

RESULTS

The analysis included 122 subjects [62 men (50.8%); mean age 76.5 ± 11.4 years] with a median follow-up of 21 months (18-24.5 months). During follow-up, RV free wall strain improved significantly (15.2 ± 5.8 vs 16.4 ± 5.5; P < .001) while tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion, systolic, and fractional area changing remained unchanged. Left ventricular ejection fraction was an independent predictor of improved RV function (B = 3.51; 95% confidence interval 1.39-8.9; P = .01). With LBBAP, RSF disappeared in 22 of 23 patients (96%) and BB in 15 of 22 patients (68%) in whom RSF and BB were present at baseline, respectively. RV function improvement was significantly higher when RSF was present at baseline (14 patients vs 11 patients; P = .02). At follow-up, no significant deterioration in TR occurred for the overall group. However, a lead-TV distance of <24.5 mm was associated with TR progression.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP has a favorable impact on RV function. A basal LBBAP position is associated with worsening TR.

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging, echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing (BVP). This study assessed ventricular activation patterns and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP and compared this to BVP.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients underwent LBBP or BVP for CRT. Ventricular activation mapping was obtained by ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG). Functional and echocardiographic outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality after one year from implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization vs BVP (QRS width: 170 ± 16 ms to 128 ± 20 ms vs 174 ± 15 to 144 ± 17 ms, p = 0.002 (LBBP vs BVP); e-DYS 81 ± 17 ms to 0 ± 32 ms vs 77 ± 18 to 16 ± 29 ms, p = 0.016 (LBBP vs BVP)). Improvement in LVEF (from 28 ± 8 to 42 ± 10 percent vs 28 ± 9 to 36 ± 12 percent, LBBP vs BVP, p = 0.078) was similar. Improvement in NYHA function class (from 2.4 to 1.5 and from 2.3 to 1.5 (LBBP vs BVP)), hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging is an appropriate way to gain a better insight into activation patterns of LBBP and BVP. LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization (e-DYS and QRS duration) with comparable improvement in LVEF, NYHA functional class, hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality at one year of follow up.

Tricuspid regurgitation and infective endocarditis as a cause of lead dislodgement in left bundle branch area pacing

BACKGROUND

According to the current literature, there is no difference between left bundle brunch area pacing (LBBAP) and right ventricular apical pacing in terms of lead dislodgement and capture threshold elevation. However, there are no large-scale studies reporting the data about long-term lead stability in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We present a case of lead dislodgement with possible infective endocarditis six months after implantation in a patient with severe tricuspid regurgitation who underwent LBBAP.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that severe preoperative tricuspid regurgitation may cause lead dislodgement, and infective endocarditis may be a facilitator or main reason of lead dislodgement in cases of LBBAP.

Left bundle branch pacing lead for sensing ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A pilot study (LBBP-ICD study)

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative modality for biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-eligible patients. As it provides stable R-wave sensing, LBBP has been recently used to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term safety and efficacy of the LBBP lead for appropriate detection of ventricular arrhythmia and delivery of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients requiring defibrillator therapy with CRT.

METHODS

CRT-eligible patients who underwent successful LBBP-optimized ICD and LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator were enrolled. The LBBP lead was connected to the right ventricular-P/S port after capping the IS-1 connector plug of the DF-1-ICD lead. LBBP-optimized ICD or LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator was decided on the basis of correction of conduction system disease. Documented arrhythmic episodes and therapy delivered were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled. The mean age was 59.7 ± 10.5 years. LBBP resulted in an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction from 29.9% ± 4.6% to 43.9% ± 11.2% (P < .0001). During a mean follow-up of 22.9 ± 12.5 months, 254 ventricular arrhythmic events were documented. Appropriate events (n = 225 [89%]) included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 212 episodes [94%]), VT (n = 8 [3.5%]), and ventricular fibrillation (n = 5 [2.5%]). ATP efficacy in terminating VT was 75%. Eleven percent of episodes (n = 29) were inappropriately detected because of T-wave oversensing. Inappropriate therapy (ATP) was delivered for 14 episodes (5.5%). Three patients (10%) had worsening of tricuspid regurgitation.

CONCLUSION

Sensing from the LBBP lead for arrhythmia detection is safe as ∼90% of the episodes were detected appropriately. Future studies with a dedicated LBBP-defibrillator lead along with algorithms to avoid oversensing can help in combining defibrillation with conduction system pacing.

Tricuspid valve disease and cardiac implantable electronic devices

The role of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is increasingly recognized as an independent clinical entity. Hence, interventional TR treatment options continuously evolve, surgical risk assessment and peri-operative care improve the management of CIED-related TR, and the role of lead extraction is of high interest. Furthermore, novel surgical and interventional tricuspid valve treatment options are increasingly applied to patients suffering from TR associated with or related to CIEDs. This multidisciplinary review article developed with electrophysiologists, interventional cardiologists, imaging specialists, and cardiac surgeons aims to give an overview of the mechanisms of disease, diagnostics, and proposes treatment algorithms of patients suffering from TR associated with CIED lead(s) or leadless pacemakers.

Incidence and Prognostic Implications of Cardiac-Implantable Device-Associated Tricuspid Regurgitation: A Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression Analysis

New-onset or worsening tricuspid regurgitation (TR) is a well-established complication encountered after cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). However, there are limited and conflicting data on the true incidence and prognostic implications of this complication. This study aimed to bridge this current gap in the literature. Electronic databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Web of Science were systematically searched from inception to March 2023, for studies reporting the incidence and/or prognosis of CIED-associated new or worsening TR. Potentially eligible studies were screened and selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. A random effect model meta-analysis and meta-regression analysis were performed, and I-squared statistic was used to assess heterogeneity. A total of 52 eligible studies, with 130,759 patients were included in the final quantitative analysis with a mean follow-up period of 25.5 months. The mean age across included studies was 69.35 years, and women constituted 46.6% of the study population. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 50.15%. The incidence of CIED-associated TR was 24% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20% to 28%, p <0.001) with an odds ratio of 2.44 (95% CI 1.58 to 3.77, p <0.001). CIED-associated TR was independently associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.52, 95% CI 1.36 to 1.69, p <0.001), heart failure (HF) hospitalizations (aHR 1.82, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.78, p = 0.006), and the composite of mortality and HF hospitalizations (aHR 1.96, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.87, p = 0.001) in the follow-up period. In conclusion, CIED-associated TR occurred in nearly one-fourth of patients after device implantation and was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalizations.

The Emerging Role of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of heart failure-related hospitalisations and all-cause mortality, as well as improving quality of life and functional status in patients with persistent heart failure symptoms despite optimal medical treatment and left bundle branch block. CRT has traditionally been delivered by implanting a lead through the coronary sinus to capture the left ventricular epicardium; however, this approach is associated with significant drawbacks, including a high rate of procedural failure, phrenic nerve stimulation, high pacing thresholds and lead dislodgement. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients fail to derive any significant benefit. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a suitable alternative to traditional CRT. By stimulating the cardiac conduction system physiologically, LBBAP can result in a more homogeneous left ventricular contraction and relaxation, thus having the potential to improve outcomes compared with conventional CRT strategies. In this article, the evidence supporting the use of LBBAP in patients with heart failure is reviewed.

A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is the common final pathway of several conditions and is characterized by hyperactivation of numerous neurohumoral pathways. Cardiorenal interaction plays an essential role in the progression of the disease, and the use of diuretics is a cornerstone in the treatment of hypervolemic patients, especially in acute decompensated HF (ADHF). The management of congestion is complex and, to avoid misinterpretations and errors, one must understand the interface between the heart and the kidneys in ADHF. Congestion itself may impair renal function and must be treated aggressively. Transitory elevations in serum creatinine during decongestion is not associated with worse outcomes and diuretics should be maintained in patients with clear hypervolemia. Monitoring urinary sodium after diuretic administration seems to improve the response to diuretics as it allows for adjustments in doses and a personalized approach. Adequate assessment of volemia and the introduction and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy are mandatory before discharge. An early visit after discharge is highly recommended, to assess for residual congestion and thus avoid readmissions.

Lead management in patients undergoing percutaneous tricuspid valve replacement or repair: a 'heart team' approach

Clinically significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has historically been managed with either medical therapy or surgical interventions. More recently, percutaneous trans-catheter tricuspid valve (TV) replacement and tricuspid trans-catheter edge-to-edge repair have emerged as alternative treatment modalities. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have an increased incidence of TR. Severe TR in this population can occur for multiple reasons but most often results from the interactions between the CIED lead and the TV apparatus. Management decisions in patients with CIED leads and clinically significant TR, who are undergoing evaluation for a percutaneous TV intervention, need careful consideration as a trans-venous lead extraction (TLE) may both worsen and improve TR severity. Furthermore, given the potential risks of 'jailing' a CIED lead at the time of a percutaneous TV intervention (lead fracture and risk of subsequent infections), consideration should be given to performing a TLE prior to a percutaneous TV intervention. The purpose of this 'state-of-the-art' review is to provide an overview of the causes of TR in patients with CIEDs, discuss the available therapeutic options for patients with TR and CIED leads, and advocate for including a lead management specialist as a member of the 'heart team' when making treatment decisions in patients TR and CIED leads.

Left bundle branch area pacing too far away from the tricuspid annulus may cause pacing induced cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Physiologic pacing through left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a very promising alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and to avoid pacing induced cardiomyopathy. However, it is not clear whether the position of LABBP lead may affect the clinical outcomes.

CASE REPORT

We here report a case of likely LBBAP induced worsening heart failure and cardiomyopathy reversed by re-positioning of the pacing lead towards a more annular position. A 70-year-old male with a previous history of non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction 40%) who developed intermittent complete heart block and required permanent ventricular pacing. LBBAP was performed with the lead positioned to a position relatively far away from the tricuspid annulus (3.7 cm), due to difficulty in fixating the lead deep into the septum at a more annular position. One month post procedure, the patient's heart failure symptoms worsened, and his EF decreased to 31% despite good heart failure management. He underwent CRT upgrade with successful revision of the originally implanted LBBAP lead to a more annular position, using a deflectable delivery sheath. This resulted in further narrowing of the paced QRS duration from 135 to 106 ms. Two months post procedure, his heart failure symptoms improved by one functional class, and EF improved to 41% by echocardiogram.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP may be harmful when the lead is placed too far away from the annulus and may cause paced induced cardiomyopathy.

Conduction System Pacing versus Conventional Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Where Are We Heading?

Over the last few years, pacing of the conduction system (CSP) has emerged as the new standard pacing modality for bradycardia indications, allowing a more physiological ventricular activation compared to conventional right ventricular pacing. CSP has also emerged as an alternative modality to conventional biventricular pacing for the delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients. However, if the initial clinical data seem to support this new physiological-based approach to CRT, the lack of large randomized studies confirming these preliminary results prevents CSP from being used routinely in clinical practice. Furthermore, concerns are still present regarding the long-term performance of pacing leads when employed for CSP, as well as their extractability. In this review article, we provide the state-of-the-art of CSP as an alternative to biventricular pacing for CRT delivery in heart failure patients. In particular, we describe the physiological concepts supporting this approach and we discuss the future perspectives of CSP in this context according to the implant techniques (His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing) and the clinical data published so far.