The evolution of cardiac resynchronization therapy and an introduction to conduction system pacing: a conceptual review

Effectiveness of upgrading to Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Right Ventricular Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) occurs in some patients requiring high burden of right ventricular pacing (RVP).Whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) might be superior to biventricular pacing delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (BiVP-CRT) remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LBBAP compared with BiVP in patients with PICM.

METHODS

This prospective, two-center observational study enrolled consecutive patients with PICM who underwent upgrading to either LBBAP or BiVP. LBBAP was further classified into left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). The primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6-month follow-up. Other echocardiographic parameters, NT-proBNP levels, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and clinical events (all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, malignant ventricular arrhythmias) were evaluated during follow-up.

RESULTS

Totally 78 patients were included into the final analysis (33% patients with LVEF<35%), including 40 patients with LBBAP (30 with LBBP and 10 with LVSP) and 38 patients with BiVP. At the 6-month follow-up, LVEF improvement was significantly greater in patients with LBBAP than those with BiVP (9.59±7.48% vs 4.91±7.73%; P=0.008), and higher in LBBP than LVSP (10.62±7.28% vs 6.47±7.57). During a mean follow-up duration of 20.5 ± 12.5 months, clinical outcomes did not differ between BiVP and LBBAP groups [26.3% vs 17.5%; adjusted HR=1.57(0.55-4.48), P=0.395] after adjustment for confounders.

CONCLUSION

PICM upgrading to LBBAP or BiVP demonstrated similar clinical outcomes, but upgrading to LBBAP was associated with greater improvement in LVEF.

Cardiac rhythm devices in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction - role, timing, and optimal use in contemporary practice. European Journal of Heart Failure expert consensus document

Guidelines for management of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) emphasize personalized care, patient engagement, and shared decision-making. Medications and cardiac rhythm management (CRM) devices are recommended with a high level of evidence. However, there are significant disparities: patients who could benefit from devices are frequently referred too late or not at all. Misconceptions about device therapy and the notion that the needs of patients (especially the prevention of sudden cardiac death) can now be met by expanding drug therapies may play a role in these disparities. This state-of-the-art review is produced by members of the DIRECT HF initiative, a patient-centred, expert-led educational programme that aims to advance guideline-directed use of CRM devices in patients with HFrEF. This review discusses the latest evidence on the role of CRM devices in reducing HFrEF mortality and morbidity, and provides practical guidance on patient referral, device selection, implant timing and patient-centred follow-up.

Novel Therapies for Patients With Systemic Right Ventricle

Systemic RV dysfunction is a significant prognostic factor in congenital heart disease, particularly affecting patients with transposition of the great arteries post-atrial switch and congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries. These patients often experience chronic pressure loading conditions, leading to structural, mechanical, and electrical adaptations that can result in heart failure. This article reviews novel therapeutic approaches for managing systemic right ventricular failure in patients with adult congenital heart disease, focusing on pharmacologic, device-based, and advanced heart failure therapies. Traditional heart failure medications such as angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin II receptor blockers, β-blockers, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists have shown mixed results in systemic right ventricular failure. However, newer agents like angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors have demonstrated promising outcomes in improving cardiac remodeling and function. Cardiac resynchronization therapy has shown benefits in selected patients, particularly those with prior ventricular pacing. Mechanical circulatory support and heart transplantation remain viable options for advanced heart failure, with recent studies indicating favourable long-term outcomes. The management of systemic right ventricular failure requires a personalized approach, considering the unique anatomic and physiological characteristics of each patient. Although traditional therapies have limited efficacy, novel pharmacologic and device-based treatments might offer new hope for this patient population. Further research is needed to refine these strategies and identify new therapeutic targets.

Biventricular vs. right ventricular pacing devices in patients anticipated to require frequent ventricular pacing (BioPace)

AIMS

Right ventricular (RV) pacing may promote left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Particularly in patients with preserved LV ejection fraction (LVEF), narrow QRS, and anticipated high ventricular pacing burden (HVPB), evidence is missing that biventricular (BiV) pacing can improve clinical outcome. We therefore evaluated whether implantation of a BiV pacing device (BiVPD) compared with a RV pacing device (RVPD) may improve clinical outcome in predominantly this kind of patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In the Biventricular Pacing for atrioventricular Block to Prevent Cardiac Desynchronization (BioPace) trial [multicentre, single-blinded (patients), randomized, parallel group], patients were equally allocated to either receive a BiVPD or a RVPD. Co-primary endpoints were (i) the composite of time to death or first heart failure hospitalization and (ii) survival time. We analysed 1810 randomized patients (median age: 73.5 years; female sex: 31.7%; mean LVEF 55.4%; mean QRS 118.4 ms), 902 to BiV and 908 to RV pacing. During mean follow-up of 68.8 months, the difference in the primary composite endpoint between both groups [346 vs. 363 events, hazard ratio (HR) 0.878; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.756-1.020; P = 0.0882) or in mortality (305 vs. 307 deaths, HR 0.926; 95% CI 0.789-1.088; P = 0.3492) was smaller than 20%.

CONCLUSION

In patients, predominantly with preserved LVEF, narrow QRS, and HVPB, superiority of implanting BiVPDs compared with RVPDs could not be proven. Right ventricular pacing may be less harmful for this kind of patients than often suggested and primary BiV pacing does not clearly improve their clinical outcome.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00187278 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT00187278).

Conduction System Pacing for CRT: A Physiological Alternative

There are many factors contributing to the failure of conventional CRT with biventricular pacing, including coronary anatomy and an inability to stimulate diseased tissue. In this paper, we review evolving conduction system pacing (CSP), a physiological alternative to conventional CRT. CSP allows correction of bundle branch block and provides new opportunities to address multiple limitations of conventional CRT. Further studies are required to determine how the techniques are best applied in specific clinical situations.

Multicenter Hemodynamic Assessment of the LOT-CRT Strategy: When Does Combining Left Bundle Branch Pacing and Coronary Venous Pacing Enhance Resynchronization?: Primary Results of the CSPOT Study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We sought to compare the acute hemodynamic and ECG effects of LBBAP, BVP, and left bundle-optimized therapy CRT (LOT-CRT) in CRT candidates with advanced conduction disease.

METHODS

In this multicenter study, 48 patients with either nonspecific interventricular conduction delay (n=29) or left bundle branch block (n=19) underwent acute hemodynamic testing to determine the change in left ventricular pressure maximal first derivative (LV dP/dtmax) from baseline atrial pacing to BVP, LBBAP, or LOT-CRT.

RESULTS

Atrioventricular-optimized increases in LV dP/dtmax for LOT-CRT (mean, 25.8% [95% CI, 20.9%-30.7%]) and BVP (26.4% [95% CI, 20.2%-32.6%]) were greater than unipolar LBBAP (19.3% [95% CI, 15.0%-23.7%]) or bipolar LBBAP (16.4% [95% CI, 12.7%-20.0%]; P≤0.005). QRS shortening was greater in LOT-CRT (29.5 [95% CI, 23.4-35.6] ms) than unipolar LBBAP (11.9 [95% CI, 6.1-17.7] ms), bipolar LBBAP (11.7 ms [95% CI, 6.4-17.0]), or BVP (18.5 [95% CI, 11.0-25.9] ms), all P≤0.005. Compared with patients with left bundle branch block, patients with interventricular conduction delay experienced less QRS reduction (P=0.026) but similar improvements in LV dP/dtmax (P=0.29). Bipolar LBBAP caused anodal capture in 54% of patients and resulted in less LV dP/dtmax improvement than unipolar LBBAP (18.6% versus 23.7%; P<0.001). Subclassification of LBBAP capture (European Heart Rhythm Association criteria) indicated LBBAP or LV septal pacing in 27 patients (56%) and deep septal pacing in 21 patients (44%). The hemodynamic benefit of adding left ventricular coronary vein pacing to LBBAP depended on baseline QRS duration (P=0.031) and success of LBBAP (P<0.004): LOT-CRT provided 14.5% (5.0%-24.1%) greater LV dP/dtmax improvement and 20.8 (12.8-28.8) ms greater QRS shortening than LBBAP in subjects with QRS ≥171 ms and deep septal pacing capture type.

CONCLUSIONS

In a CRT cohort with advanced conduction disease, LOT-CRT and BVP provided greater acute hemodynamic benefit than LBBAP. Subjects with wider QRS or deep septal pacing are more likely to benefit from the addition of a left ventricular coronary vein lead to implement LOT-CRT.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04905290.

Left ventricular pacing through coronary sinus after tricuspid valve replacement: A case report and review of the literature

In patients with a mechanical tricuspid prosthetic valve, the transvenous position of a ventricular lead through the coronary sinus (CS) is a good alternative option to right ventricular or epicardial lead implantation. In cardiac resynchronization therapy, pacing the left ventricular lateral wall was considered the best site for the CS lead. However, for patients without a left bundle branch block, the best position of CS leads remains controversial. Here, we present a case of placing CS lead in the anterior interventricular vein. Measurements at implantation and 2 years' follow-up reported low pacing thresholds with good sensing thresholds. The electrocardiograph showed narrow QRS complexes (120 ms) and follow-up echocardiography at 2 years presented left ventricular ejection fraction 58.9%.

Is conduction system pacing a panacea for pacemaker therapy?

INTRODUCTION

While supported by robust evidence and decades of clinical experience, right ventricular apical pacing for bradycardia is associated with a risk of progressive left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction can result in limited electrical resynchronization due to anatomical constraints and epicardial stimulation. In both settings, directly stimulating the conduction system below the atrio-ventricular node (either the bundle of His or the left bundle branch area) has potential to overcome these limitations. Conduction system pacing has met with considerable enthusiasm in view of the more physiological electrical conduction pattern, is rapidly becoming the preferred option of pacing for bradycardia, and is gaining momentum as an alternative to conventional biventricular pacing.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a review of the current efficacy and safety data for both people requiring treatment for bradycardia and the management of heart failure with conduction delay and discusses the possible future roles for conduction system pacing in routine clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Conduction system pacing might be the holy grail of pacemaker therapy without the disadvantages of current approaches. However, hypothesis and enthusiasm are no match for robust data, demonstrating at least equivalent efficacy and safety to standard approaches.

A porcine large animal model of radiofrequency ablation-induced left bundle branch block

Background

Electrocardiographic (ECG) features of left bundle branch (LBB) block (LBBB) can be observed in up to 20%-30% of patients suffering from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, predicting which LBBB patients will benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) or conduction system pacing remains challenging. This study aimed to establish a translational model of LBBB to enhance our understanding of its pathophysiology and improve therapeutic approaches.

Methods

Fourteen male pigs underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation of the proximal LBB under fluoroscopy and ECG guidance. Comprehensive clinical assessments (12-lead ECG, bloodsampling, echocardiography, electroanatomical mapping) were conducted before LBBB induction, after 7, and 21 days. Three pigs received CRT pacemakers 7 days after LBB ablation to assess resynchronization feasibility.

Results

Following proximal LBB ablation, ECGs displayed characteristic LBBB features, including QRS widening, slurring in left lateral leads, and QRS axis changes. QRS duration increased from 64.2 ± 4.2 ms to 86.6 ± 12.1 ms, and R wave peak time in V6 extended from 21.3 ± 3.6 ms to 45.7 ± 12.6 ms. Echocardiography confirmed cardiac electromechanical dyssynchrony, with septal flash appearance, prolonged septal-to-posterior-wall motion delay, and extended ventricular electromechanical delays. Electroanatomical mapping revealed a left ventricular breakthrough site shift and significantly prolonged left ventricular activation times. RF-induced LBBB persisted for 3 weeks. CRT reduced QRS duration to 75.9 ± 8.6 ms, demonstrating successful resynchronization.

Conclusion

This porcine model accurately replicates the electrical and electromechanical characteristics of LBBB observed in patients. It provides a practical, cost-effective, and reproducible platform to investigate molecular and translational aspects of cardiac electromechanical dyssynchrony in a controlled and clinically relevant setting.

Electrical therapies in heart failure: Evolving technologies and indications

Device therapy for heart failure has rapidly evolved over 2 decades. The knowledge of indications, assessment lead and device technology has expanded to include CRT, leadless pacing and conduction system pacing such as His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing. But there is still a lack of evidence for these new technologies as well as for common indications such as atrial fibrillation and upgrading from a previous device. The role of personalized medicine will become increasingly important when selecting candidates for CRT, primary preventive ICD ablation procedures and emerging new devices such as cardiac contractility modulation (CCM). Rapidity of therapy is associated with outcome which will be a challenge. If properly implemented devices and drugs will have a large positive affect of HF outcomes.

Conduction system pacing in difficult cardiac anatomies: Systematic approach with the 3D electroanatomic mapping guide

INTRODUCTION

Restoring physiological cardiac electrical activity in patients with conduction disease can be crucial for the survival and quality of life. Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a valuable option, although it is limited by technical challenges in difficult anatomies. 3D electroanatomical mapping (3D-EAM) can support CSP ensuring high electro-anatomical precision and low fluoroscopy.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a systematic 3D-EAM use to guide CSP in difficult anatomical scenarios (highly dilated atria, congenital cardiomyopathies, failed biventricular implants (BiV) and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM)).

METHODS

Forty-three consecutive patients (27 males, 75 ± 10 years old) with standard pacing indications and difficult anatomical scenarios were included. The right atrium, His cloud, and atrio-ventricular septum were reconstructed by 3D-EAM. The His bundle (HB) was the initial target, while left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) was aimed at in case of unsatisfactory parameters, sub-optimally paced QRS, or impossibility of reaching the HB.

RESULTS

CSP was successful in 37 (86%) patients (15 HBP; 22 LBBAP). Mean mapping, fluoroscopy, and procedural times were 18 ± 7 min, 7 ± 5 min, 98 ± 47 min, respectively. The mean pacing threshold, R wave sensing, and pacing impedance of CSP lead were 1.2 ± 0.5V@0.5ms, 11.4 ± 6.2 mV, 736 ± 306 Ω, respectively. Baseline and paced QRS were 139 ± 38 ms and 114 ± 23 ms, respectively. No procedural complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

3D-EAM allowed the accurate definition of the His cloud and high ventricular septum and effectively guided CSP. It facilitated CSP in complex anatomies, with a procedural success rate of 86%. The results were satisfactory and reproducible, with acceptable fluoroscopy and procedural times.

Cardiac Conduction System Pacing: A Comprehensive Update

The field of cardiac pacing has changed rapidly in the last several years. Since the initial description of His bundle pacing targeting the conduction system, recent advances in pacing the left bundle branch and its fascicles have evolved. The field and investigators' knowledge of conduction system pacing including relevant anatomy and physiology has advanced significantly. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on recent advances in conduction system pacing.

A Comparative Assessment of Myocardial Work Performance during Spontaneous Rhythm, His Bundle Pacing, and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Insights from the EMPATHY Study

BACKGROUND

Physiological pacing has gained significant interest due to its potential to achieve optimal hemodynamic response. This study aimed to assess left ventricular performance in terms of electrical parameters, specifically QRS duration and mechanical performance, evaluated as myocardial work. We compared His Bundle Pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) to evaluate their effects.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with class I or IIa indications for pacing were enrolled in this study, with twelve patients undergoing HBP implantation and another twelve undergoing LBBAP implantation. A comprehensive analysis of myocardial work was conducted.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that there were no major differences in terms of spontaneous and HBP activation in myocardial work, except for global wasted work (217 mmHg% vs. 283 mmHg%; p 0.016) and global work efficiency (87 mmHg% vs. 82 mmHg%; p 0.049). No significant differences were observed in myocardial work between spontaneous activation and LBBAP. Similarly, no significant differences in myocardial work were found between HBP and LBBAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Both pacing modalities provide physiological ventricular activation without significant differences when compared to each other. Moreover, there were no significant differences in QRS duration between HBP and LBBAP. However, LBBAP demonstrated advantages in terms of feasibility, as it achieved better lead electrical parameters compared to HBP (threshold@0.4 ms 0.6 V vs. 1 V; p = 0.045-sensing 9.4 mV vs. 2.4 mV; p < 0.001). Additionally, LBBAP required less fluoroscopy time (6 min vs. 13 min; p = 0.010) and procedural time (81 min vs. 125 min; p = 0.004) compared to HBP.

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.

Cardiac Resynchronisation with Conduction System Pacing

To date, biventricular pacing (BiVP) has been the standard pacing modality for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. However, it is non-physiological, with the activation spreading between the left ventricular epicardium and right ventricular endocardium. Up to one-third of patients with heart failure who are eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy do not derive benefit from BiVP. Conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, has emerged as an alternative to BiVP for cardiac resynchronisation. There is mounting evidence supporting the benefits of CSP in achieving synchronous ventricular activation and repolarisation. The aim of this review is to summarise the current options and outcomes of CSP when used for cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure.

The weakest point of cardiac resynchronization therapy: new technologies facing old terminology

Patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) are currently treated with biventricular pacing (BiV) which has a Class IA recommendation. Given the possibility to re-establish the inter and intra-ventricular synchrony, BiV is commonly referred to as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This wording is widely utilized and over time the terms BiV and CRT have become interchangeable. Conduction system pacing (CSP) is emerging as a valid therapeutic opportunity to obtain CRT restoring the native conduction via the Purkinje network. Therefore the acronym CRT is no longer synonymous with BiV only but could also refer to CSP. A terminology update is needed to include the resource of CSP to ensure better communication among all the stakeholders involved in managing recipients of cardiac devices and should be a fundamental step in advancing the quality of patient care. Making use of the NBG code to describe the implantable cardiac device would ease such terminology update, since only the first three positions of the five letters NBG code are commonly utilized, while the last two are rarely used.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay

The efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) is well established with Class I or IIa recommendation according to 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and CRT, whereas non-LBBB morphology is less recommended. There is insufficient evidence that proves patients with NICD could benefit from CRT. As patients with NICD are characterized by heterogeneity, the effect of CRT on these patients is still controversial. Although the proportion of NICD in the population is lower than that of LBBB patients, it is still worth investigating the effects of CRT on patients with NICD in an era of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP).

Advanced heart failure: a contemporary approach

Advanced heart failure (HF) is defined as the persistence of severe symptoms despite the use of optimized medical, surgical, and device therapies. These patients require timely advanced treatments, such as heart transplantation or long-term mechanical circulatory support (MCS). Inotropic agents are often used to reduce congestion and increase cardiac output, while renal replacement therapy may be beneficial if necessary. Cardiac resynchronization therapy has clear benefits in patients with HF with reduced ejection fraction, particularly with left bundle branch block (QRS duration > 130 ms). The role of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in advanced HF patients requires further investigation considering the introduction of novel HF medications. In selected patients with significant secondary mitral regurgitation, transcatheter edge-to-edge repair can help delay heart transplantation or long-term MCS. In later stages, the appropriateness of heart transplantation should be evaluated, and the use of short- or long-term MCS may be considered. A multidisciplinary HF management program is crucial for patients with advanced HF. Recent treatment advances, including drugs, devices, and MCS, have broadened the options available to patients with advanced HF and this trend is expected to continue.

Response rate in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients implanted with a left ventricular quadripolar lead and the MultiPoint™ pacing feature early activated. QUARTO III

BACKGROUND

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is beneficial in most heart failure patients, up to 40% do not respond to CRT. It has been suggested that multipoint left ventricle pacing (MPP) would increase the response rate.

AIM

To assess the CRT response rate at 6 months in patients implanted with a CRT device with the MPP feature activated early after the implant.

METHODS

This was a multicentre, prospective, open-label and non-randomized study. The primary endpoint was response to biventricular pacing defined as >15% relative reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) comparing echocardiography measurements performed at baseline and 6 months by a core laboratory. Among secondary endpoints the combined endpoint of mortality or all-cause hospitalizations was evaluated. Primary study endpoint and clinical outcomes were compared to a Quarto II control cohort.

RESULTS

Totally, 105 patients were included. The response rate was 64.6% (97.5% lower confidence bound 53%). Mean relative reduction in LVESV was 25.3%, and mean absolute increase in LVEF was 9.4%. The subjects with device programmed using anatomical approach showed a trend towards higher responder rate than those using the electrical approach (72% vs. 61.1%, p = 0.32). Finally, the combined incidence of mortality and or all-cause hospitalizations at 6 month was 12.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

Early activation of MPP was not associated to an advantage increasing echocardiography responders to CRT at 6 months of follow-up. Nevertheless, patients programmed using widest pacing cathodes had a numerically higher responder rate. Finally, early activation of MPP was associated to a low incidence of clinical endpoints at 6 months of follow-up.

Conduction system pacing in everyday clinical practice: EHRA physician survey

With the increasing interest in conduction system pacing (CSP) over the last few years and the inclusion of this treatment modality in the current guidelines, our aim was to provide a snapshot of current practice across Europe. An online questionnaire was sent to physicians participating in the European Heart Rhythm Association research network as well as to national societies and over social media. Data on previous experience with CSP, current indications, preferred tools, unmet needs, and perceptions for the future are reported and discussed.

Left bundle branch area pacing: A promising modality for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is recognized as the first-line management for patients with heart failure (HF) and conduction disorders. As a conventional mode for delivering CRT, biventricular pacing (BVP) improves cardiac function and reduces HF hospitalizations and mortality, but there are still limitations given the high incidence of a lack of response rates. Alternative pacing methods are needed either for primary or rescue therapy. In recent years, conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological pacing modality for simultaneous stimulation of the ventricles, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). CSP activates the His-Purkinje system, allowing normal ventricular stimulation. However, HBP is technically challenging with a relatively low success rate, high pacing threshold, and failure to correct distal conduction abnormalities. Therefore, LBBP stands out as a novel ideal physiological pacing modality for CRT. Several non-randomized studies compared the feasibility and safety of LBBP with BVP and concluded that LBBP is superior to BVP for delivering CRT with a narrower QRS and greater improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class. Concurrently, some studies showed lower and stable pacing thresholds and greater improvement of B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) levels, as well as better mechanical synchronization and efficiency. LBBP ensures better ventricular electromechanical resynchronization than BVP. In this review, we discuss current knowledge of LBBP, compare LBBP with BVP, and explore the potential of LBBP to serve as an alternative primary therapy to realize cardiac resynchronization.

ESC-Leitlinien 2021: Conduction System Pacing

Die aktuellen ESC-Leitlinien von 2021 bezüglich des direkten Pacings an den Strukturen des ventrikulären myokardialen Erregungsleitungssystems sind sehr defensiv ausgelegt. Verglichen mit den Leitlinienempfehlungen aus Japan oder USA wird diese Art der „physiologischen Stimulation“ in Europa eher in den Schatten gestellt. Auch wenn randomisierte Studien mit harten Endpunkten zur His-Bündel- und Linksschenkelstimulation fehlen, konnten doch in einer Vielzahl von Untersuchungen die Sicherheit, Effektivität und auch klinische Überlegenheit gegenüber einer klassischen rechtsventrikulären oder biventrikulären Stimulation gezeigt werden. Die vorliegende Leitlinienfassung der ESC zur Herzschrittmachertherapie ist in diesem Punkt daher durchaus diskutabel.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Although conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease, there are limitations to its therapeutic success, resulting in widely variable clinical response. Limitations of conventional biventricular pacing evolve around myocardial scar, fibrosis, and inability to effectively stimulate diseased tissue. Several observational and acute hemodynamic studies have demonstrated improved electrical resynchronization and echocardiographic response with conduction system pacing. This article provides a systematic review of conduction system pacing as a physiologic alternative to conventional CRT, which is currently undergoing rigorous investigation.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a recently proposed method for conduction system pacing. We performed a meta-analysis of controlled studies to compare the clinical outcome in patients who received LBBAP vs. biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane's Library databases were searched for relevant controlled studies. A random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to synthesize the results.

Results: Four non-randomized controlled studies including 249 patients with heart failure (HF) for CRT were included, and the patients were followed for 6–12 months. Compared with BVP, LBBAP was associated with significantly shortened QRS duration [mean difference (MD): −29.18 ms, 95% confidence interval (CI): −33.55–24.80, I² = 0%, P < 0.001], improved left ventricular ejection fraction (MD: 6.93%, 95% CI: 4.69–9.17, I² = 0%, P < 0.001), reduced left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (MD: −2.96 mm, 95% CI: −5.48 to −0.44, I² = 0%, P = 0.02), and improved New York Heart Association class (MD: −0.54, 95% CI: −0.84 to −0.24, I² = 65%, P < 0.001). Moreover, patients who received LBBAP were more likely to achieve echocardiographic [odds ratio (OR): 5.04, 95% CI: 2.17–11.69, I² = 0%, P < 0.001] and clinical (OR: 7.33, 95% CI: 1.62–33.16, I² = 0%, P = 0.01) CRT responses.

Conclusion: Current evidence from non-randomized studies suggests that LBBAP appears to be a promising method for CRT, which is associated with more remarkable improvements of symptoms and cardiac function in HF patients with indication for CRT.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a technique of pacing that involves implantation of permanent pacing leads along different sites of the cardiac conduction system and includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing. There is an emerging role for CSP to achieve cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and inter-ventricular dyssynchrony. In this article, the authors review these strategies for resynchronisation and the available data on the use of CSP in overcoming dyssynchrony.