Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing as Initial Strategy for Cardiac Resynchronization

[Treatment with cardiac electronic implantable devices]

Cardiac device therapy provides not only treatment options for bradyarrhythmia but also advanced treatment for heart failure and preventive measures against sudden cardiac death. In heart failure treatment it enables synergistic reverse remodelling and reduces pharmacological side effects. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has revolutionized the treatment of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left bundle branch block by decreasing the mortality and morbidity with improvement of the quality of life and resilience. Conduction system pacing (CSP) as an alternative method of physiological stimulation can improve heart function and reduce the risk of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy. Leadless pacers and subcutaneous/extravascular defibrillators offer less invasive options with lower complication rates. The prevention of infections through preoperative and postoperative strategies enhances the safety of these therapies.

A novel method combining gated SPECT and vectorcardiography to guide left ventricular lead placement to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A Proof of Concept study

BACKGROUND

The segment of the latest mechanical contraction (LMC) does not always overlap with the site of the latest electrical activation (LEA). By integrating both mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, this proof-of-concept study aimed to propose a new method for recommending left ventricular (LV) lead placements, with the goal of enhancing response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

The LMC segment was determined by single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) phase analysis. The LEA site was detected by vectorcardiogram. The recommended segments for LV lead placement were as follows: (1) the LMC viable segments that overlapped with the LEA site;(2) the LMC viable segments adjacent to the LEA site;(3) If no segment met either of the above, the LV lateral wall was recommended. The response was defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) 6-months after CRT. Patients with LV lead located in the recommended site were assigned to the recommended group, and those located in the non-recommended site were assigned to the non-recommended group.

RESULTS

The cohort comprised of 76 patients, including 54 (71.1%) in the recommended group and 22 (28.9%) in the non-recommended group. Among the recommended group, 74.1% of the patients responded to CRT, while 36.4% in the non-recommended group were responders (p=.002). Compared to pacing at the non-recommended segments, pacing at the recommended segments showed an independent association with an increased response by univariate and multivariable analysis (odds ratio 5.00, 95% confidence interval 1.73-14.44, p=.003; odds ratio 7.33, 95% confidence interval 1.53-35.14, p=.013). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that pacing at the recommended LV lead position demonstrated a better long-term prognosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that pacing at the recommended segments, by integrating of mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, is significantly associated with an improved CRT response and better long-term prognosis.

Sex-related similarities and differences in responses to heart failure therapies

Although sex-related differences in the epidemiology, risk factors, clinical characteristics and outcomes of heart failure are well known, investigations in the past decade have shed light on an often overlooked aspect of heart failure: the influence of sex on treatment response. Sex-related differences in anatomy, physiology, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and psychosocial factors might influence the response to pharmacological agents, device therapy and cardiac rehabilitation in patients with heart failure. In this Review, we discuss the similarities between men and women in their response to heart failure therapies, as well as the sex-related differences in treatment benefits, dose-response relationships, and tolerability and safety of guideline-directed medical therapy, device therapy and cardiac rehabilitation. We provide insights into the unique challenges faced by men and women with heart failure, highlight potential avenues for tailored therapeutic approaches and call for sex-specific evaluation of treatment efficacy and safety in future research.

[History of cardiac resynchronization therapy : 30 years of electrotherapeutic management for heart failure]

The first permanent biventricular pacing system was implanted more than 30 years ago. In this article, the historical development of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), starting with the pathophysiological concept, followed by the initial "proof of concept" studies and finally the large prospective-randomized studies that led to the implementation of CRT in heart failure guidelines, is outlined. Since the establishment of CRT, both an expansion of indications, e.g., for patients with mild heart failure and atrial fibrillation, but also the return to patients with broad QRS complex and left bundle branch block who benefit most of CRT has evolved. New techniques such as conduction system pacing will have major influence on pacemaker therapy in heart failure, both as an alternative or adjunct to CRT.

Long-term efficacy of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure complicated with left bundle branch block

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can physiologically correct complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB), and has become the best alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP).

Objective

To compare the efficacy of LBBP and BiVP in patients with heart failure (HF) complicated with CLBBB.

Methods

This was a single-center retrospective study. Patients with HF complicated with CLBBB who underwent successful cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in Wuhan Asian Heart Hospital from June 2018 to June 2023 were enrolled and divided into LBBP group and BiVP group according to the pacing method. The primary endpoints were the absolute increase of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and echocardiographic response rate. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), NT-proBNP, paced QRS duration, pacing threshold, and procedural duration.

Results

A total of 120 patients were enrolled in this study, including 60 patients in LBBP group and 60 patients in BiVP group. The median follow-up time was 37 ± 19 months. Compared with BiVP group, LBBP group had a more significant increase in absolute LVEF (ΔLVEF) (14.8 ± 9.9% vs. 10.7 ± 9.0%, P = 0.02), a more significant reduction in LVEDD (56.9 ± 10.9 mm vs. 61.1 ± 10.8 mm, P = 0.03), and a higher echocardiographic super response rate (65% vs. 45%, P = 0.02). There were no significant differences in all-cause mortality (1.7% vs. 10.0%, P = 0.11) and HFH (6.7% vs. 13.3%, P = 0.22). In terms of paced QRS duration (128.7 ± 14.1 ms vs. 137.5 ± 16.5 ms, P = 0.002), pacing threshold (0.72 ± 0.21 V/0.4 ms vs. 1.39 ± 0.51 V/0.4 ms, P < 0.001), procedural duration (134.1 ± 32.2 min vs. 147.7 ± 39.4 min, P = 0.04), the LBBP group was superior to the BiVP group.

Conclusion

In nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients with HF combined with CLBBB and LVEF ≤ 35%, LBBP is better than BiVP.

Complications of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of procedure-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled 668 consecutive patients (mean age 71.2 ± 10.0 years; 52.2% male; 59.4% with New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure symptoms) with left ventricular ejection fraction 33.4% ± 4.3% who underwent BVP (n = 561) or LBBAP (n = 107) for a class I or II indication for CRT. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 93 matched pairs. The rate and nature of intraprocedural and long-term post-procedural complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 18 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 16 patients: 12 in BVP (12.9%) and 4 in LBBAP (4.3%) (P = .036). Compared with patients who underwent LBBAP, those who underwent BVP showed a lower complication-free survival (P = .032). In multivariate analysis, BVP resulted an independent predictive factor associated with a higher risk of complications (hazard ratio 3.234; P = .042). Complications related to the coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in patients who underwent BVP (50.0% of all complications).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT.

Evolving Concepts in Cardiac Physiologic Pacing in the Era of Conduction System Pacing

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP) has become a well-established therapy for patients with cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) in the presence of a left bundle branch block. In addition, CPP can be highly beneficial in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and patients with existing cardiomyopathy expected to have a right ventricular pacing burden of >40%. The benefits of CPP with traditional biventricular pacing are only realized if adequate resynchronization can be achieved. However, left ventricular lead implantation can be limited by individual anatomic variation within the coronary venous system and can be adversely affected by underlying abnormal myocardial substrate (i.e., scar tissue), especially if located within the basal lateral wall. In the last 7 years the investigation of conduction system pacing (CSP) and its potential salutary benefits are being realized and have led to a rapid evolution in the field of cardiac resynchronization pacing. However, supportive evidence for CSP for patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization remains limited compared with data available for biventricular cardiac resynchronization, mostly derived from leading CSP investigative centers. In this review, we perform an up-to-date comprehensive review of the available literature on CPP.

Conventional biventricular pacing is still preferred to conduction system pacing for atrioventricular block in patients with reduced ejection fraction and narrow QRS

It is well established that right ventricular pacing is detrimental in patients with reduced cardiac function who require ventricular pacing (VP), and alternatives nowadays are comprised of biventricular pacing (BiVP) and conduction system pacing (CSP). The latter modality is of particular interest in patients with a narrow baseline QRS as it completely avoids, or minimizes, ventricular desynchronization associated with VP. In this article, experts debate whether BiVP or CSP should be used to treat these patients.

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.

Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Identifies Responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with an Assessment of Septal Scar and Left Ventricular Dyssynchrony

Background: The response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) depends on septal viability and correction of abnormal septal motion. This study investigates if cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) as a single modality can identify CRT responders with combined imaging of pathological septal motion (septal flash) and septal scar. Methods: In a prospective, multicenter, observational study of 136 CRT recipients, septal scar was assessed using late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (n = 127) and septal flash visually from cine CMR sequences. The primary endpoint was CRT response, defined as ≥15% reduction in LV end-systolic volume with echocardiography after 6 months. The secondary endpoint was heart transplantation or death of any cause assessed after 39 ± 13 months. Results: Septal scar and septal flash were independent predictors of CRT response in multivariable analysis (both p < 0.001), while QRS duration and morphology were not. The combined approach of septal scar and septal flash predicted CRT response with an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.78-0.94) and was a strong predictor of long-term survival without heart transplantation (hazard ratio 0.27, 95% CI: 0.10-0.79). The accuracy of the approach was similar in the subgroup with intermediate (130-150 ms) QRS duration. The combined approach was superior to septal scar and septal flash alone (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The combined assessment of septal scar and septal flash using CMR as a single-image modality identifies CRT responders with high accuracy and predicts long-term survival.

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 for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one-third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiple strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged in recent years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP, appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations, and future directions.

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.

Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is observed to produce greater improvements in echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, whether these surrogate endpoints directly translate to improvements in hard clinical outcomes such as death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) with CSP remains uncertain as studies reporting these outcomes are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the existing data to compare the clinical outcomes of CSP versus BiVP.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Embase and PubMed database was performed for studies comparing CSP and BiVP for patients indicated to receive a CRT device. The coprimary endpoints were all-cause mortality and HFH. Other secondary outcomes included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), change in NYHA class, and increase in NYHA class ≥1. A random-effects model was chosen a priori to analyze the composite effects given the anticipated heterogeneity of included trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (4 randomized and 17 observational) were identified reporting either primary outcome and were included in the meta-analysis. In total 1960 patients were assigned to CSP and 2367 to BiVP. Median follow-up time was 10.1 months (ranging 2-33 months). CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.83) and HFH (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.63). Mean improvement in LVEF was also greater with CSP (mean difference 4.26, 95% CI: 3.19-5.33). Reduction in NYHA class was significantly greater with CSP (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.22) and the number of patients with an increase in NYHA class ≥1 was significantly greater with CSP (OR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.70-2.40).

CONCLUSIONS

CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and HFH when compared to conventional BiVP for CRT. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to verify these observations.