His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy vs Biventricular Pacing: HOT-CRT Clinical Trial

Result of the left bundle branch area pacing data collection registry, an international multicenter study of conduction system pacing with a Tendril STS 2088 stylet-driven lead

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area (LBBA) pacing (LBBAP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option in patients indicated for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LBBAP in patients implanted with a Tendril 2088 stylet-driven lead.

METHODS

The international retrospective data collection registry included 11 sites from 5 countries globally. Patients with attempted implants of the Tendril lead in the LBBA were followed for at least 6 months post the implant attempt. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse events and the composite of LBBA capture threshold of ≤2.0 V and R-wave amplitudes ≥5 mV (or ≥value at implant), respectively.

RESULTS

Of 221 patients with attempted implants of the Tendril 2088 lead in the LBBA, 91.4% (202/221) had successful implants for LBBAP. Regardless of the LBBAP implant success, all patients were followed for at least 6 months (8.7 ± 7.3 months). Baseline characteristics: 44% female, 84% ≥65 years old, 34% coronary artery disease, and 86% of primary indications for pacemaker implant. Both primary safety and effectiveness endpoints were met (freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse device effects of 99.5% and electrical performance composite success rate of 93%). The capture thresholds in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms and 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms. The rate of patients with capture threshold rise ≥1 V was 1.5% through 6 months. The R-wave amplitudes in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 9.3 ± 3.2 mV and 10.6 ± 3.0 mV.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study demonstrates that the stylet-driven Tendril™ STS 2088 lead is safe and effective for LBBAP with high success and low complication rates.

Transvenous extraction of conduction system pacing leads: An international multicenter (TECSPAM) study

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) by His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is incorporated into Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for the management of bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Despite increasing adoption with both lumenless leads and stylet-driven leads, concerns regarding the feasibility and safety of the extraction of CSP leads remain.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to report on the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of the extraction of CSP leads.

METHODS

Patients undergoing the extraction of CSP leads from 10 international centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data regarding indications, lead location, lead type, extraction tools, procedural success, complications, and reimplantation in the conduction system were collected.

RESULTS

Overall, 341 patients (age 69 ± 15 years; female 34%; cardiomyopathy 46%; lead dwell time 22 ± 26 months) underwent the extraction of 224 His bundle pacing and 117 LBBAP leads (lumenless leads 321; stylet-driven leads 20). Complete procedural success was achieved in 338 (99%), while clinical success was 100% with retained distal fragments in 3 patients (1%). Among patients with a lead dwell time of >6 months (6-193 months; n = 226), manual extraction was successful in 198 (87%), mechanical tools in 22 (10%), and laser in 6 (3%). Femoral tools were necessary in 3 patients. Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (2.1%). CSP reimplantation was successful in 233 of 244 patients attempted (95%).

CONCLUSION

The overall success rates of the extraction of CSP leads were very high (although the LBBAP lead dwell time was <3 years), with a low need for extraction tools and minimal complication. Reimplantation in the conduction system is feasible and safe.

Non-Pharmacological Treatment of Heart Failure-From Physical Activity to Electrical Therapies: A Literature Review

Heart failure (HF) represents a significant global health challenge that is still responsible for increasing morbidity and mortality despite advancements in pharmacological treatments. This review investigates the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions in the management of HF, examining lifestyle measures, physical activity, and the role of some electrical therapies such as catheter ablation, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and cardiac contractility modulation (CCM). Structured exercise training is a cornerstone in this field, demonstrating terrific improvements in functional status, quality of life, and mortality risk reduction, particularly in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation, premature ventricular beats, and ventricular tachycardia aids in improving left ventricular function by reducing arrhythmic burden. CRT remains a key intervention for selected HF patients, helping achieve left ventricular reverse remodeling and improving symptoms. Additionally, the emerging therapy of CCM provides a novel opportunity for patients who do not meet CRT criteria or are non-responders. Integrating non-pharmacological interventions such as digital health alongside specific medications is key for optimizing outcomes in HF management. It is imperative to tailor approaches to individual patients in this diverse patient population to maximize benefits. Further research is warranted to improve treatment strategies and enhance patient outcomes in HF management.

[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.

Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ventricular dyssynchrony, but its benefits are uncertain. In this study, we aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of CSP vs BVP for cardiac resynchronization in patients with HFrEF. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing CSP to BVP for resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. A random-effects model was used for all outcomes. We included 7 randomized controlled trials with 408 patients, of whom 200 (49%) underwent CSP. Compared to BVP, CSP resulted in a significantly greater reduction in QRS duration (MD -13.34 ms; 95% confidence interval [CI] -24.32 to -2.36, P = .02; I2 = 91%) and New York Heart Association functional class (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.37; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.05; P = .02; I2 = 41%), and a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference [MD] 2.06%; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.97; P = .03; I2 = 0%). No statistical difference was noted for left ventricular end-systolic volume (SMD -0.51 mL; 95% CI -1.26 to 0.24; P = .18; I2 = 83%), lead capture threshold (MD -0.08 V; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.27; P = .66; I2 = 66%), and procedure time (MD 5.99 minutes; 95% CI -15.91 to 27.89; P = .59; I2 = 79%). These findings suggest that CSP may have electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and symptomatic benefits over BVP for patients with HFrEF requiring cardiac resynchronization.

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.

Feasibility study on cardiac resynchronization in the treatment of heart failure by single left bundle branch pacing

To examine the feasibility of single left bundle branch pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by carrying out a frequency adaptive atrioventricular delay (RAAVD) algorithm and automatic optimization of the single left bundle branch pacing atrioventricular interval (AVI) based on the right atrioventricular interval (RAS-RVS). Thirty-six patients with CRT class Ia indications according to the European Society of Cardiology 2016 guidelines and implanted with RAAVD functional three-chamber pacemakers were prospectively enrolled in this study. Patients were divided into a single left bundle branch pacing group (n = 21) and a standard biventricular pacing group (n = 15). The optimization of the two groups was performed under standard cardiac colour Doppler ultrasound, followed by the comparison of the QRS width, cardiac function improvement, and echocardiography indicators. The ratio of AVI to the right atrial-right ventricular interval (RAS-RVS) after single LV pacing optimization was defined as the single left bundle branch pacing coefficient (LUBBPε). In comparison to the BVP, the QRS was significantly narrowed (P = 0.017), accompanied by a significantly increased proportion of patients with NYHA class I and II, as well as the 6MWT. Compared with standard biventricular pacing, LVEDD was significantly shortened (P = 0.045), accompanied by significantly improved LAD, AVVTI, EA distance/RR, IVMD, and TS-SD after the operation. RAS-RVS was 156 ± 33 ms, the optimized AVI was 102 ± 10 ms, and LUBBPε was calculated to be 0.66 ± 0.06. Depending on the LUBBPε, a three-chamber pacemaker with a single left bundle branch pacing system was developed based on RAS-RVS-optimized AVI automatically. A three-chamber pacemaker with single left bundle branch pacing can achieve CRT based on RAS-RVS, reaching the optimal AVI of 66% of RAS-RVS.

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.