Early effects of left bundle branch area pacing on ventricular activation by speckle tracking echocardiography

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging cardiac pacing modality that preserves fast electrical activation of the ventricles and provides very good electrical measures. Little is known on mechanical ventricular activation during this pacing modality.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients receiving LBBAP. Electrocardiographic and electrical parameters were evaluated at implantation, < 24 h and 3 months. Transthoracic echocardiography with strain analysis was performed at baseline and after 3 months, when ventricular mechanical activation and synchrony were analyzed by time-to-peak standard deviation (TPSD) of strain curves for both ventricles. Intraventricular left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony was investigated by LV TPSD and interventricular dyssynchrony by left ventricle-right ventricle TPSD (LV-RV TPSD).

RESULTS

We screened 58 patients with permanent pacing indication who attempted LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in 56 patients (97%). Strain data were available in 50 patients. QRS duration was 124.1 ± 30.7 ms at baseline, while paced QRS duration was 107.7 ± 13.6 ms (p < 0.001). At 3 months after LBBAP, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 52.9 ± 10.6% at baseline to 56.9 ± 8.4% (p = 0.004) and both intraventricular LV dyssynchrony and interventricular dyssynchrony significantly improved (LV TPSD reduction from 38.2 (13.6-53.9) to 15.1 (8.3-31.5), p < 0.001; LV-RV TPSD from 27.9 (10.2-41.5) to 13.9 (4.3-28.7), p = 0.001). Ameliorations with LBBAP were consistent in all subgroups, irrespective of baseline QRS duration, types of intraventricular conduction abnormalities, and LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Echocardiographic strain analysis shows that LBBAP determines a fast and synchronous biventricular contraction with a stereotype mechanical activation, regardless of baseline QRS duration, pattern, and LV function.

Effect of His Bundle Pacing on Abnormal Myocardial Fatty Acid and Glucose Metabolism Induced by Right Ventricular Pacing

BACKGROUND

Metabolic disorder is noted for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. The benefits of His bundle pacing over right ventricular (RV) pacing in preventing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy from a metabolic perspective are yet to be fully understood.

METHOD AND RESULTS

Three pig groups were established for this study: sham control, RV pacing (RV pacing for 6 months), and His pacing (RV pacing for 6 months, followed by His bundle pacing for 3 months). Complete atrioventricular block was created in the last 2 groups. Left ventricular function and dyssynchrony were assessed via echocardiography, while proteins linked to metabolism, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and inflammation in left ventricular myocardium were examined. The RV pacing group had significantly more left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony compared with the other groups. The RV pacing group exhibited triglyceride and diacylglycerol accumulation in cardiomyocytes and higher expression of binding immunoglobulin protein and tumor necrosis factor-α than the other groups. Additionally, the expression of CD36 was activated, while the expression of hormone-sensitive lipase was downregulated in the RV pacing group compared with the His pacing and sham control groups. Furthermore, the expressions of GLUT4 and pyruvate dehydrogenase were higher in the RV pacing group than the sham control and His pacing groups. Notably, the abnormal fatty acid and glucose metabolic pathways in the left ventricular myocardium during RV pacing could be corrected by His bundle pacing.

CONCLUSIONS

His bundle pacing can mitigate the abnormal metabolism disorders, endoplasmic reticulum stress, and inflammation induced during RV pacing and may contribute to the superiority of conduction system pacing over RV pacing in reducing heart failure hospitalization.

Conduction system pacing: how far are we from the "electrical" bypass?

Conduction system pacing is an alternative practice to conventional right ventricular apical pacing. It is a method that maintains physiologic ventricular activation, based on a correct pathophysiological basis, in which the pacing lead bypasses the lesion of the electrical fibers and the electrical impulse transmits through the intact adjacent conduction system. For this reason, it might be reasonably characterized by the term "electrical bypass" compared to the coronary artery bypass in revascularization therapy. In this review, reference is made to the sequence of events in which conventional right ventricular pacing may cause adverse outcomes. Furthermore, there is a reference to alternative strategies and pacing sites. Interest focuses on the modalities for which there are data from the literature, namely for the right ventricular (RV) septal pacing, the His bundle pacing (HBP), and the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). A more extensive reference is about the HBP, for which there are the most updated data. We analyze the considerations that limit HBP-wide application in three axes, and we also present the data for the implantation and follow-up of these patients. The indications with their most important studies to date are then described in detail, not only in their undoubtedly positive findings but also in their weak aspects, because of which this pacing mode has not yet received a strong recommendation for implementation. Finally, there is a report on LBBP, focusing mainly on its points of differentiation from HBP.

Utility of a guiding catheter for conduction system pacing: An early multicenter experience

Background

Conduction system pacing (CSP), either as His bundle pacing (HBP) or as left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), may be superior to right ventricular apical or septal pacing.

Objective

The study sought to present acute results for a new guiding catheter (Biotronik Selectra 3D) designed for CSP implantations of a retractable screw-in lead (Biotronik Solia S).

Methods

The primary endpoint of the prospective, international nonrandomized BIO|MASTER.Selectra 3D study was freedom from catheter-related serious adverse device effects (SADEs) within 1 week of lead implantation.

Results

Of 157 enrolled patients, CSP was achieved in 147 (93.6%) patients. No SADEs occurred within 7 days. LBBAP was achieved in 82 patients (45 as crossover from an HBP attempt) and HBP in 65 (44.2%) patients. In centers considering both HBP and LBBAP, the CSP implantation success approached 99%. Successful CSP implantations lasted on average ∼50 minutes (fluoroscopy ∼6 minutes). Most procedures (87.9%) needed only 1 catheter, even after switch from HBP to LBBAP. The catheter's handling was rated largely positive. In patients without bundle branch block, mean QRS duration increased from 106 ms (intrinsic) to 122 ms (CSP) (P = .001). In patients with bundle branch block, mean QRS duration decreased from 151 ms (intrinsic) to 137 ms (CSP) (P = .004).

Conclusion

The Selectra 3D catheter is a valuable tool for HBP and LBBAP implantations of the stylet-supported pacemaker leads. When implanters considered both HBP and LBBAP, the success rate was ∼99%. Flexibility to change between different approaches may be advisable in heterogeneous and challenging areas, such as CSP implantations.

Result of the Physiologic Pacing Registry, an international multicenter prospective observational study of conduction system pacing

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option for patients with indication for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant success, safety, and electrical performances of HBP and LBBAP in the multinational Physiological Pacing Registry.

METHODS

The international prospective observational registry included 44 sites from 16 countries globally between November 2018 and May 2021.

RESULTS

Of 870 subjects enrolled, CSP lead implantation was attempted in 849 patients. Subjects with successful CSP lead implantation were followed for 6 months (5 ± 2 months). CSP lead implantation was successful in 768 patients (90.4%). Implant success was 95.2% (239/251) for LBBAP and 88.5% (529/598) for HBP (P = .002). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy duration were comparable between LBBAP and HBP (P = .537). Capture threshold at implant was 0.69 ± 0.39 V at 0.46 ± 0.15 ms in LBBAP and 1.44 ± 1.03 V at 0.71 ± 0.33 ms in HBP (P <.001). Capture threshold at 6 months was 0.79 ± 0.33 V at 0.44 ± 0.13 ms in LBBAP and 1.59 ± 0.97 V at 0.67 ± 0.31 ms in HBP (P <.001). Pacing threshold rise ≥1 V was observed at 6 months in 3 of 208 (1.4%) of LBBAP and 55 of 418 (13.2%) of HBP (P <.001). Serious adverse events related to implant procedure or CSP lead occurred in 5 of 251 (2.0%) with LBBAP and 25 of 598 (4.2%) with HBP (P = .115).

CONCLUSION

This large prospective multicenter study demonstrates that CSP is technically feasible in most patients with relatively higher implant success and suggests that, with current technology, LBBAP may have better pacing parameters than HBP.

The Zwolle experience with left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven active fixation leads

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing modality and is regarded as a viable alternative to His bundle pacing. LBBAP has mostly been performed with the lumen-less permanent pacing lead (SelectSecure™ Model 3830, Medtronic, Inc.) with a fixed helix. The aim of this study was to compare the non-stylet driven lumen-less lead (LLL) (Medtronic 3830) with a standard stylet-driven active fixation lead (SDL) (Tendril™ STS Model 2088TC-38, Abbott Laboratories) in terms of lead parameters, procedural success and complication rates.

METHODS

Patients receiving a LBBA pacemaker in the Isala Hospital, The Netherlands, were prospectively enrolled. The majority received a standard right ventricular (RV) lead as backup, the implanter chose between LLL and SDL for the LBBAP lead.

RESULTS

The study included 94 patients with a mean follow-up of 30 weeks. 30/31 LLL procedures were successful, compared with 62/63 in the SDL group. Including the participants that lost LBBAP during follow-up resulted in success rates of 90.3% for LLL versus 96.8% for SDL, P = 0.199. Mean number of deployments was significantly lower in the SDL group compared with the LLL group (2 ± 2.3 versus 4 ± 3.4, P = 0.005), implantation and procedural times were comparable. Pacing thresholds were low and remained low in both groups (at last follow-up 0.8 ± 0.30 V for LLL versus 0.6 ± 0.20 V for SDL). Complication rates did not differ significantly between both groups, P = 0.805.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP using SDL is feasible and has comparable success rates with lower number of deployments of the active fixation screw.

Implant, assessment, and management of conduction system pacing

His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing, together referred to as conduction system pacing, have (re)gained considerable interest over the past years as it has the potential to preserve and/or restore a more physiological ventricular activation when compared with right ventricular pacing and may serve as an alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy. This review manuscript dives deeper into the implantation techniques and the relevant anatomy of the conduction system for both pacing strategies. Furthermore, the manuscript elaborates on better understanding of conduction system capture with its various capture patterns, its potential complications as well as appropriate follow-up care. Finally, the limitations and its impact on clinical care for both His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing are being discussed.

Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) is a novel treatment with limited knowledge on long-term outcome. We aimed to assess long-term safety and effectiveness of HBP in patients with atrioventricular block treated with HBP and a back-up right ventricular pacing (RVP) lead.

METHODS

We included 38 patients from a completed single-center, randomized controlled cross-over trial designed to compare left ventricular (LV) function after 12 months of HBP vs. RVP conducted between September 2007 and August 2011. Lead performance beyond the 2-year study period was assessed based on a retrospective review of capture thresholds, sensing, impedance, energy consumption, and rate of HBP interruption.

RESULTS

Patients were followed for a mean of 7 ± 4 years. Both at baseline and during follow-up, HBP leads displayed significantly higher capture thresholds than RVP leads (P < 0.001), multifold higher energy consumption (P < 0.001), and lower sensing amplitudes (P < 0.001). During follow-up, 17 (53%) HBP leads were deactivated or abandoned. The principal cause for HBP interruption was high pacing thresholds in patients with preserved LVEF during RVP. Device longevity was shorter than that of contemporary cohorts treated with dual-chamber pacing or CRT, and time to first device exchange was 6.8 ± 1.5 years. No lead dislodgements occurred, but four patients (10%) developed device-related infections requiring device extraction.

CONCLUSION

HBP was interrupted in > 50% of patients during long-term follow-up. The principal cause was unacceptably high capture thresholds and no significant difference in LV function with HBP compared with RVP. Device longevity was shorter, and infection rates were higher than anticipated.

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.

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.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) Auto Threshold algorithms Evaluation for Conduction System Pacing: The LATECS pilot Trial

BACKGROUND

Automated threshold measurements (ATM) and output adaptation improved safety and follow-up of cardiac implantable devices (CIED) in the last years. These algorithms were validated for conventional cardiac pacing; however, they were not suitable for permanent His Pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging technique to obtain physiologic cardiac stimulation; we tried to assess if ATM could be applied to this setting.

METHODS

Consecutive patients receiving ATM-capable CIED and LBBAP in our hospital were enrolled in this prospective, observational trial; they were evaluated 3 months after implant, comparing pacing thresholds manually assessed and obtained via ATM. Subsequent remote follow-up was carried on when available.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were enrolled. ATM for LBBAP lead provided consistent results in all the patients and was therefore activated; mean value of manually obtained LBBAP capture threshold was 0.66 ± 0.19 V versus ATM of 0.64 ± 0.19 V. TOST analysis showed equivalence of the two measures (p = .66). At subsequent follow-up (mean follow up 7.7 ± 3.2 months), ATM was effective in assessing pacing thresholds and no clinical adverse event was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ATM algorithms proved equivalent to manual testing in determining capture threshold and were reliably employed in patients receiving LBBAP CIED.

Cardiac pacing and lead devices management: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

AIMS

Cardiac pacing represents a key element in the field of electrophysiology and the treatment of conduction diseases. Since the first issue published in 1999, EP Europace has significantly contributed to the development and dissemination of the research in this area.

METHODS

In the last 25 years, there has been a continuous improvement of technologies and a great expansion of clinical indications making the field of cardiac pacing a fertile ground for research still today. Pacemaker technology has rapidly evolved, from the first external devices with limited longevity, passing through conventional transvenous pacemakers to leadless devices. Constant innovations in pacemaker size, longevity, pacing mode, algorithms, and remote monitoring highlight that the fascinating and exciting journey of cardiac pacing is not over yet.

CONCLUSION

The aim of the present review is to provide the current 'state of the art' on cardiac pacing highlighting the most important contributions from the Journal in the field.

Feasibility, safety and effectiveness of mapping system assisted conduction system pacing: a single-center prospective study

To assess pacing and electrophysiological parameters, as well as mid-term outcomes, among patients undergoing His bundle pacing (HBP) guided by KODEX-EPD (a novel mapping system). Consecutive patients undergoing conduction system pacing (CSP) for bradycardia indications were evaluated. Procedural and fluoroscopic times and pacing characteristics were compared between conventional fluoroscopy (the standard group, N = 20 cases) and KODEX-EPD mapping system guided group (the KODEX group, N = 20cases) at CSP implantation and all patients were followed at 6-month. HBP was achieved in all patients (the standard group 20/20 and the KODEX group 20/20). There was no difference in the mean procedure time between the two groups (63.7 ± 9.3 vs. 78.2 ± 25.1 min, p = 0.33). Compared with the standard group, the KODEX group significantly reduced the intraoperative X-ray exposure time (3.8 ± 0.5 vs. 19.3 ± 5.1 min, p < 0.05) and X-ray dose (23.6 ± 5.4 vs. 120.2 ± 38.3 mGy, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in atrial impedance (643.0 ± 98.8 vs. 591.5 ± 92.1 Ω, p = 0.09), atrial sensing (2.9 ± 0.8 vs. 2.5 ± 0.8 mV, p = 0.08), ventricular sensing (12.8 ± 2.4 vs. 13.3 ± 3.3 mV, p = 0.63),atrial pacing threshold (1.0 ± 0.2 vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 V/0.4 ms, p = 0.81) and ventricular pacing threshold (1.0 ± 0.2 vs. 0.9 ± 0.1 V/0.4 ms, p = 0.63) between two groups, There were statistical differences in ventricular impedance (640.0 ± 80.3 vs. 702.0 ± 86.1 Ω, p < 0.05). There was no statistical significance in pacing parameters between the two groups at 6 months after procedure (p > 0.05). During the 6-months follow-up period, no adverse events occurred in the two groups. It can be concluded that KODEX-EPD can safely guide His bundle branch pacing lead implantation with reduced fluoroscopic time and dose without lengthening the procedure time.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Atrioventricular Node Ablation in a Single-Procedure Approach for Elderly Patients with Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Implantation of a permanent pacemaker and atrioventricular (AV) node ablation (pace-and-ablate) is an established approach for rate and symptom control in elderly patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a physiological pacing strategy that might overcome right ventricular pacing-induced dyssynchrony. In this study, the feasibility and safety of performing LBBAP and AV node ablation in a single procedure in the elderly was investigated.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with symptomatic AF referred for pace-and-ablate underwent the treatment in a single procedure. Data on procedure-related complications and lead stability were collected at regular follow-up at one day, ten days and six weeks after the procedure and continued every six months thereafter.

RESULTS

25 patients (mean age 79.2 ± 4.2 years) were included and underwent successful LBBAP. In 22 (88%) patients, AV node ablation and LBBAP were performed in the same procedure. AV node ablation was postponed in two patients due to lead-stability concerns and in one patient on their own request. No complications related to the single-procedure approach were observed with no lead-stability issues at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP combined with AV node ablation in a single procedure is feasible and safe in elderly patients with symptomatic AF.

Feasibility of Permanent His Bundle Pacing in the Elderly vs the Very Elderly. A Single-Center Mid-Term Follow-Up Study

Purpose

Although feasibility studies have included older patients, specific data for His bundle pacing (HBP) in this population is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and mid-term performance of HBP in the elderly (70 to 79 years old) versus the very elderly (80 years old and above) patients with conventional indications for pacing.

Patients and Methods

About 105 patients older than 70 years of age with attempted HBP from the 1st of January 2019 to the 31st of December 2021 were reviewed. Clinical and procedural characteristics were recorded at baseline, and after a mid-term follow-up period.

Results

The procedural success rate was similar in both age groups (68.49% vs 65.62%). There was no significant difference in pacing or sensing thresholds, impedance, and fluoroscopy times. For both age intervals, patients with a baseline narrow QRS maintained a similar QRS duration after pacing, while in patients with a wide QRS, the paced QRS was significantly shorter. Baseline QRS duration, left bundle branch block morphology, and ejection fraction, were significantly associated with HBP procedural failure. The mean follow-up period was 830.34 days for the elderly and 722.76 days for the very elderly. After the follow-up period, both sensing and pacing thresholds were similar between the groups. Compared to the baseline values, there were no significant changes in both pacing and sensing parameters, irrespective of the age interval. During follow-up, no lead dislodgements were recorded. There were two cases of significant pacing threshold rise in the elderly (4%) and three cases in the very elderly group (14.2%) which were managed conservatively, without lead revision.

Conclusion

In elderly and very elderly patients, HBP is a feasible procedure associated with constant pacing and sensing parameters and with low complication rates over mid-term follow-up.

Learning Curve Analyses for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing with Conventional Stylet-Driven Pacing Leads

Background

Physiological conduction system pacing has attracted attention to overcome the dyssynchrony problems of conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), which complements short combing of His bundle pacing (HBP), has emerged and has proven its efficiency and safety. In addition, initial experiences of LBBAP were mainly using lumen-less pacing lead, and the feasibility of stylet-driven pacing lead (SDL) was also established. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the learning curve for LBBAP using SDL.

Methods

The study enrolled 265 patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP performed by operators without previous LBBAP experience at Yonsei University Severance Hospital in Korea between December 2020 and October 2021. LBBAP was performed using SDL with an extendable helix. The learning curve was evaluated by analyzing fluoroscopy and procedure times. And, before and after reaching the learning curve, we evaluated how much the time required for the LBBAP differed from the time required for the RVP.

Results

LBBAP was successful in 50 of 50 (100.0%) patients left bundle branch pacing was successful in 49 of 50 (98.0%). In 50 patients who underwent LBBAP, mean fluoroscopy and procedural times were 15.1 ± 13.5 minutes and 59.9 ± 24.8 minutes, respectively. The plateau of fluoroscopy time reached in the 25th case and the plateau of procedure time reached in the 24th case.

Conclusion

During the initial experience with LBBAP, fluoroscopy and procedural times improved with increasing operator experience. For operators who were experienced in cardiac pacemaker implantation, the steepest part of the learning curve was over the first 24-25 cases. It is shorter than the previously reported learning curves of HBP.

Conduction system pacing: promoting the physiology to prevent heart failure

Cardiac conduction system pacing provides physiological ventricular activation by directly stimulating the conduction system. This review describes the two types of conduction system pacing: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle area pacing (LBAP). The most significant advantage of HB pacing is that it can provide a regular, narrow QRS; however, the disadvantages are challenging implantation and a high risk of re-intervention due to lead dislodgement and the development of high pacing threshold. LBAP provides optimum physiological activation of the left ventricle by engaging the left bundle/fascicular fibers. LBAP is more physiological than traditional RV apical pacing and could be an attractive alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The advantages of LBAP are a relatively more straightforward implantation technique than HBP, better lead stability and pacing thresholds. HBP and LBAP are more physiological than right ventricular pacing and may be used instead of conventional pacemakers. Both HBP and LBBP are being investigated as alternatives to conventional CRT.

Conduction system pacing in pediatric and congenital heart disease

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has evolved rapidly to become the pacing method of choice for many adults with structurally normal hearts. Studies in this population have repeatedly demonstrated superior hemodynamics and outcomes compared to conventional pacing with the recruitment of the native conduction system. Children and patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) are also likely to benefit from CSP but were excluded from original trials. However, very recent studies have begun to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of CSP in these patients, with growing evidence that some outcomes may be superior in comparison to conventional pacing techniques. Concerns regarding the technical challenges and long-term lead parameters of His Bundle Pacing (HBP) have been overcome to many extents with the development of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP), and both techniques are likely to play an important role in pediatric and CHD pacing in the future. This review aims to assimilate the latest developments in CSP and its application in children and CHD patients.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation in treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures: A case report

In patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation refractory to optimal medical therapy, atrioventricular node ablation followed by permanent pacemaker implantation is an effective treatment option. A 66-year-old woman with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures was referred to our institution. After optimal drug therapy, the patient still had obvious symptoms. Sequential His-Purkinje conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation were performed. Left bundle branch pacing was used as a backup pacing method if thresholds of His bundle pacing were too high or loss of His bundle capture occurred in the follow-up. At the 6-month follow-up, the European Heart Rhythm Association classification for AF was improved, the score of the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life was enhanced, and the 6-Minute Walk Test was ameliorated. The present case was subjected to His-Purkinje conduction system pacing in combination with atrioventricular node ablation as treatment for a symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures, and this procedure alleviated symptoms and improved the quality of life in a short-term follow-up.

Results of Using Various Conduction System Pacing Options in Patients with Bradyarrhythmia

Chronic right ventricular myocardial pacing causes an asynchronous pattern of left ventricular activation, reduces left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and may be associated with worsening of clinical outcomes in the long term. Although with the emergence of algorithms that minimize ventricular pacing it became possible to reduce the percentage of paced complexes in patients with sinus node dysfunction, permanent ventricular pacing is still inevitable in patients with high-degree atrioventricular (AV) block. The use of permanent conduction system pacing is a promising method for preserving the physiological activation of the ventricular myocardium and preventing the development of heart failure due to ventricular dyssynchrony. The aim. To analyze the immediate and long-term results of the use of conduction system pacing in patients with indications for permanent ventricular pacing. Materials and methods. This study included 18 patients with indications for permanentventricular pacing who were operated at the National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine in the period from 01/01/2013 to 12/31/2022, in whom permanent conduction system pacing was used. There were 17 patients with bradyarrhythmias, of these 16 (88%) suffered from high-degree AV block (including 1 patient with Frederick’s syndrome and 1 (5%) patient with atrial ϐibrillation with slow ventricular response) and 1 (5%) patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy with left bundle branch block and ϐirstdegree AV block with indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy. The mean age of the patients was 55 ± 16 years (8 men, 10 women), LVEF at the time of the intervention was 56.42 ± 9.13 %, end diastolic volume 130.2 ± 23.8 ml, end systolic volume 55.1 ± 17.7 ml, diameter of the left atrium 4.01 ± 0.6 cm. The average QRS width before implantation was 116.5 ± 27.7 ms. In 6 (33%) patients, a special delivery system (С304-L69, Medtronic in 1 patient [5%], C315HIS in 5 [27%] patients) and 4.1F active ϐixation lead Medtronic 3830 Select Secure (69 or 74 cm) were used; in other cases (66%) standard 6F leads with active ϐixation and a lumen for a stylet without a delivery system were used. Results. The average follow-up period after implantation of pacemaker was 36.35 ± 29.65 months. During the observation period, LVEF was 57.07 ± 5.38 %, end diastolic volume111.5 ± 18.09 ml, end systolic volume 49.5 ± 13.4 ml, diameter of the left ventricle 3.9 ± 0.5 cm. The mean duration of paced QRS was 119.1 ± 10.09 ms. In 6 patients (33%), it was possible to demonstrate a change in the QRS width when the amplitude of ventricular stimulation was reduced, with 2 variants of transitions: 1) 4 (22%) patients with a transition from non-selective His bundle pacing (NSHBP) to selective His bundle pacing (SHBP), in 2 (11%) of these patients with a transition from SHBP with correction of right bundle branch block (RBBB) to SHBP without correction of RBBB, and then loss of capture of the myocardium of the ventricles; 2) 2 patients (11%) with a transition from NSHBP to myocardial septal ventricular pacing and further with a decrease in amplitude to the loss of capture of the myocardium of the ventricles. One (5%) patient with complete heart block had permanent non-selective left bundle branch area pacing. The other 11 (61%) patients met the criteria for parahisian pacing without visible transitions with a change in the amplitude of ventricular pacing. The average global longitudinal strain was -17.6 ± 2.7 %. The average interval from the stimulus to the peak of the R-wave in lead V6, which indicated the time of left ventricular activation, was 73.2 ± 8.7 ms. Pacing parameters were standardly set according to the primary indications, but with correction of the amplitude of ventricular stimulation relative to the thresholds of pacing of the conduction system. AV delay was corrected for the latency from the stimulus to the onset of the QRS in SHBP or for the duration of the “pseudodelta” wave in NSHBP which in both cases was the duration of the H-V interval. There were no complications in the acute or long-term postoperative period. Conclusions. Conduction system pacing is a challenge in the practice of cardiologist for treating life-threatening bradyarrhythmias and heart failure, but at the same time it is a safe method that provides physiological electrical and mechanical activation of the myocardium of the ventricles, that allows to effectively avoid the consequences of dyssynchrony due to permanent myocardial ventricular pacing.

His-bundle pacing and atrioventricular nodal ablation for noncontrolled atrial arrhythmia: A technical challenge with major clinical benefits

BACKGROUND

His-bundle pacing (HBP) is an appealing alternative to right ventricular pacing in patients referred for permanent ventricular pacing and atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) because it preserves physiological ventricular activation. Only limited data regarding HBP combined with AVNA are available in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to provide further evidence on the feasibility and efficacy of this therapeutic approach in patients with uncontrolled atrial arrhythmia.

METHODS

We prospectively included all patients who had undergone AVNA after HBP in 3 different hospitals between 2017 and 2022.

RESULTS

AVNA following HBP lead implantation was performed in 75 patients. Complete atrioventricular (AV) block was obtained in 58 patients (77%), and significant modulation of AV nodal conduction (heart rate <60 bpm) was obtained in 12 patients (16%). AVNA failure was observed in 5 patients (7%). Recording of an atrial signal by the HBP lead was more frequently observed in patients with AVNA modulation/failure than in patients with complete AV block (11/17 vs 5/58; P <.001). No lead dislodgment occurred during the AVNA procedures. Acute His-bundle (HB) capture threshold increase >1 V occurred in 11 patients (15%), with return to baseline value on day 1 in 9 patients. New York Heart Association functional class and left ventricular ejection fraction significantly improved from baseline to last follow-up (3.0 ± 0.7 vs 1.6 ± 0.5; P <.001; and 47% ± 14% vs 60% ± 9%; P <.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

AVNA combined with HBP for noncontrolled atrial arrhythmia was feasible and clinically efficient. Implanting the HB lead on the ventricular aspect of the tricuspid annulus avoiding atrial signal recording can facilitate AVNA.

Advances of Implantation Techniques for Conduction System Pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle and left bundle branch pacing are physiological pacing modalities, but lead deployment is often difficult mainly due to a lack of anatomical landmark for lead tip location. Several implantation techniques for CSP implantation have been developed including 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping, placing a second lead as a reference (dual-lead method technique), and using fluoroscopic imaging (9-partition and visualization techniques). In this review, the authors summarize the implantation techniques for CSP and compare the different methods.

The Impact of Cardiac Chamber Volumes on Permanent His Bundle Pacing Procedural Outcomes-A Single Center Experience

His bundle pacing (HBP) has several pitfalls, such as the inability to identify the His bundle and lack of capture at acceptable thresholds. The majority of data regarding HBP were obtained using a dedicated non-deflectable delivery system. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of cardiac chamber dimensions on permanent HBP procedural outcomes when using this type of fixed-curve catheter. Seventy-two patients subjected to HBP from the 1st of January to the 31st of December 2021 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The baseline clinical characteristics and echocardiographic measurements of all the cardiac chambers were recorded, as well as procedural outcomes (HB electrogram identification and overall procedural success). During the procedure, the HB electrogram was recorded in 59 patients (81.9%) and successful permanent HBP was achieved in 33 patients, representing 45.8% of all the studied patients. Left atrial (LA) and right atrial (RA) volumes were significantly higher in patients without HB electrogram identification. Only LA and RA volumes were statistically associated with HB electrogram localization, while there was no significant association between the echocardiographic parameters and procedural success. LA volumes above 93 mL and RA volumes above 60 mL had an 8.81 times higher chance of failure to localize the HB electrogram compared with patients with lower volumes (p < 0.001). When considering non-deflectable delivery catheters for HBP, careful preprocedural echocardiographic analysis of the atrial volumes could help in the proper selection of implanting tools, thus optimizing the procedural outcomes and costs.

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.

Right-sided approach to left bundle branch area pacing combined with atrioventricular node ablation in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava and left bundle branch block: a case report

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an alternative to right ventricular (RV) and biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients scheduled for pace and ablate treatment strategy. However, current delivery sheaths are designed for left-sided implantation, making the right-sided LBBAP lead implantation challenging.

Case presentation

We report a case of a right-sided LBBAP approach via right subclavian vein in a heart failure patient with a persistent left superior vena cava scheduled for pace and ablate treatment of refractory atrial flutter. To enable adequate lead positioning and support for transseptal screwing, the delivery sheath was manually modified with a 90-degree curve at the right subclavian vein and superior vena cava junction to allow right-sided implantation. The distance between the reshaping point and the presumed septal region was estimated by placing the sheath on the body surface under fluoroscopy. With the reshaping of the delivery sheath, we were able to achieve LBBAP with relatively minimal torque. Radiofrequency ablation of the atrioventricular node was performed the next day and the pacing parameters remained stable in short-term follow-up.

Conclusion

With the modification of currently available tools, LBBAP can be performed with the right-sided approach.

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing left bundle branch pacing, his bundle branch pacing, and right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

Although right ventricular pacing (RVP) is recommended by most of the guidelines for atrioventricular block, it can cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony, impair left ventricular function, and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Recently, the His-Purkinje system pacing, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), has emerged as a physiological pacing modality. However, few studies have compared their efficacy and safety in atrioventricular block (AVB).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for observational studies and randomized trials of patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing, from database inception until 10 January 2022. The primary outcomes were complications and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing parameters, procedure duration, and success rate. After extracting the data at baseline and the longest follow-up duration available, a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, whereas mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs or 95% CrIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Seven studies and 1,069 patients were included. Overall, 43.4% underwent LBBP, 33.5% HBP, and 23.1% RVP. Compared with RVP, LBBP and HBP were associated with a shorter paced QRS duration and a more preserved LVEF. HBP significantly increased the pacing threshold and reduced the R-wave amplitude. There was no difference in the risk of complications or the implant success rate. The pacing threshold remained stable during follow-up for the three pacing modalities. The pacing impedance was significantly reduced in HBP, while a numerical but non-significant pacing impedance decrease was observed in both LBBP and RVP. LBBP was associated with an increased R-wave amplitude during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in paced QRS duration and preservation of LVEF for patients with atrioventricular block. LBBP was associated with a lower pacing threshold and a greater R-wave amplitude than HBP. However, the stability of the pacing output of LBBP may be a concern. Further investigation of the long-term efficacy in left ventricular function and the risk of heart failure hospitalization is needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315046], identifier [CRD42022315046].

Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review

Background

As a novel physiological pacing technique, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can preserve the left ventricular (LV) electrical and mechanical synchronization by directly capturing left bundle branch (LBB). Approximately 60-90% of LBBP were confirmed to have captured LBB during implantation, implying that up to one-third of LBBP is actually left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). LBB capture is critical for distinguishing LBBP from LVSP.

Methods and results

A total of 15 articles were included in the analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database till August 2022. Comparisons of paced QRS duration between LVSP and LBBP have not been uniformly concluded, but the stimulus artifact to LV activation time in lead V5 or V6 (Stim-LVAT) was shorter in LBBP than LVSP in all studies. Stim-LVAT was used to determine LBB capture with a sensitivity of 76-95.2% and specificity of 78.8-100%, which varied across patient populations.

Conclusion

The output-dependent QRS transition from non-selective LBBP to selective LBBP or LVSP is direct evidence of LBB capture. LBB potential combined with short Stim-LVAT can predict LBB capture better. Personalized criteria rather than a fixed value of Stim-LVAT are necessary to confirm LBB capture in different populations, especially in patients with LBB block or heart failure.

Alternative pacing strategies for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) improves morbidity, mortality, and quality of life, especially in subsets of patients with impaired cardiac function and wide QRS. However, the rate of unsuccessful or complicated left ventricular (LV) lead placement through coronary sinus is 5–7%, and the rate of “CRT non-response” is approximately 30%. These reasons have pushed physicians and engineers to collaborate to overcome the challenges of LV lead implantation. Thus, various alternatives to BVP have been proposed to improve CRT effectiveness. His bundle pacing (HBP) has been increasingly used by activating the His–Purkinje system but is constrained by challenging implantation, low success rates, high and often unstable thresholds, and low perception. Therefore, the concept of pacing a specialized conduction system distal to the His bundle to bypass the block region was proposed. Multiple clinical studies have demonstrated that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has comparable electrical resynchronization with HBP but is superior in terms of simpler operation, higher success rates, lower and stable capture thresholds, and higher perception. Despite their well-demonstrated effectiveness, the transvenous lead-related complications remain major limitations. Recently, leadless LV pacing has been developed and demonstrated effective for these challenging patient cohorts. This article focuses on the current state and latest progress in HBP, LBBAP, and leadless LV pacing as alternatives for failed or non-responsive conventional CRT as well as their limits and prospects.

Comparisons of electrophysiological characteristics, pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects in right ventricular septal pacing, right ventricular apical pacing and left bundle branch area pacing

Background

As a near-physiological pacing innovation, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has drawn much attention recently. This study was aimed to investigate the electrophysiological characteristics, unipolar/bipolar pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects and safety of three different pacing methods and identify possible predictors of adverse left ventricular remodeling.

Methods

Ninety-two patients were divided into the LBBAP group, right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) group and right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) group. Baseline information, electrophysiological, pacing and echocardiographic parameters were collected.

Results

The three pacing methods were performed with a similar high success rate. The paced QRSd was significantly different among the LBBAP, RVSP and RVAP groups (105.93 ± 15.85 ms vs. 143.63 ± 14.71 ms vs. 155.39 ± 14.17 ms, p < 0.01). The stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) was the shortest in the LBBAP group, followed by the RVSP and RVAP groups (72.80 ± 12.07 ms vs. 86.29 ± 8.71 ms vs. 94.14 ± 10.14 ms, p < 0.001). LBBAP had a significantly lower tip impedance during the procedure and 3-month follow up as compared to RVSP and RVAP (p < 0.001). Higher bipolar captured thresholds were observed in LBBAP during the procedure (p < 0.001). Compared to the baseline values, there was a greater reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) in the LBBAP group (p = 0.046) and a significant enlargement in LVEDD in the RVAP group (p = 0.008). Multiple regression analysis revealed that the Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of LVEDD at 12 months post-procedure. At the 24-h post-procedure, significant elevations were observed in the cTnI levels in LBBAP (p < 0.001) and RVSP (p < 0.05). More transient RBB injury was observed in LBBAP. But no significant difference was found in cardiac composite endpoints among three groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

LBBAP demonstrated a stable captured threshold, a low tip impedance and a high R-wave amplitude during the 12-month follow-up. Left ventricular remodeling was improved at 12 months post-procedure through LBBAP. The Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of left ventricular remodeling. LBBAP demonstrated its feasibility, effectiveness, safety and some beneficial electrophysiological characteristics during this mid- to long-term follow-up, which should be confirmed by further studies.

A case report of successful physiological pacing in a patient with lamin A/C cardiomyopathy

Background

Lamin A/C (LMNA) mutations account for 5–8% of familial dilated cardiomyopathies, and can manifest with conduction abnormalities and ventricular arrhythmias in 78% of patients. Therefore, when suspected, it is important to implant the correct type of device.

Case summary

A 52-year-old gentleman with a family history of cardiomyopathy, presented with asymptomatic atrial fibrillation and complete atrioventricular block associated with a narrow QRS interval. Investigations confirmed dilated and severely impaired left ventricular systolic function. He underwent successful conduction system pacing in combination with a primary prevention defibrillator. Genetic screening confirmed LMNA cardiomyopathy. During 3 years follow up, his left ventricular function remained unchanged with stable conduction system capture and he received appropriate therapy from his device for ventricular tachycardia.

Discussion

His-bundle pacing promotes rapid and synchronous activation of the ventricles via the intrinsic conduction system of the heart. In selected individuals with LMNA cardiomyopathy, conduction system pacing is viable alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy using coronary sinus tributaries.

His Bundle Pacing: My Experience, Tricks, and Tips

His Bundle Pacing (HBP) is a form of physiologic pacing achieved through implantation of a pacing electrode into the His bundle. HBP began 20 years ago without any dedicated tools. As specific tools became available HBP quickly spread and proved to be a viable alternative to traditional right ventricle pacing. HBP is reliable and effective in preserving the physiologic ventricular synchrony with clinical benefits particularly evident when a high percentage of pacing is required. Unipolar signals from the lead tip guide the implant. 3D electroanatomical mapping could further assist the procedure.

Generating Evidence to Support the Physiologic Promise of Conduction System Pacing: Status and Update on Conduction System Pacing Trials

Conduction system pacing avoids the potential deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and provides an alternative approach to cardiac resynchronization therapy. We focus on the available observational and randomized evidence and review studies supporting the safety, feasibility, and physiologic promise of conduction system approaches. We evaluate the randomized data generated from the available clinical trials of conduction system pacing, which have led to the recent inclusion of CSP in international guidelines. The scope for future randomized trials will building on the physiologic promise of conduction system approaches and offering information on clinical end points is explored.

Preliminary study on left bundle branch area pacing in children:clinical observation of 12 cases

OBJECTIVE

To explore the safety and feasibility of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in children.

METHODS

This study observed 12 children attempted LBBAP from January 2019 to January 2021 in the department of pediatric cardiology of Anzhen Hospital prospectively.Clinical data, pacing parameters, electrocardiograms, intracardiac electrograms, echocardiographic measurements and complications were recorded at implant and during follow-up.

RESULTS

The 12 patients aged between 3 and 14 years old and weighted from 13 to 48kg. Eleven patients were diagnosed with third-degree atrioventricular block and 1 patient (case 4) suffered from cardiac dysfunction due to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP). Left bundle branch area pacing was successfully achieved in all patients with narrow QRS complexes and V₁ lead showed changes like right bundle branch block in the pacing electrocardiogram. Left ventricular ejection fraction in case 4 recovered on the 3rd day after LBBAP. The median of left ventricular end diastolic diameter Z score of the 12 patients decreased from 1.75 to1.05 3 months after implantation (p<0.05). The median of paced QRS duration was 103ms. The median of pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude and impedance were 0.85V, 15mV and 717Ω respectively and remained stable during follow-up. No complications such as loss of capture, lead dislodgement or septal perforation occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Left bundle branch area pacing can be performed safely in children with narrow QRS duration and stable pacing parameters. Cardiac dysfunction caused by long-term RVAP can be corrected by LBBAP quickly. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Preliminary experience of permanent left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-directed pacing lead without delivery sheath

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) aims to capture the cardiac conduction system in area of the left bundle branch. Currently, LBBAP is mainly performed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with pre-shaped sheath. However, the data on LBBAP with stylet-driven leads (SDLs) without sheath is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study presents the feasibility, safety, and pacing characteristics of LBBAP using stylet-driven leads (SDLs) without the support of sheath.

METHODS

A total of 25 patients with bradycardia indications who received LBBAP implantation with an attempt of SDL (FINELINE II 4471 lead, Boston Scientific, MA, US) between August 2020 and April 2021 at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital were included in this retrospective cohort study. Twenty of them finally were paced with SDL in priority (SDL-LBBAP group). Twenty propensity score matching patients who underwent LBBAP with LLL (Select Secure 3830 lead, Medtronic, MN, US) and 20 right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) with regular active fixation lead respectively in the same period (the LLL-LBBAP group and RVSP group) were compared using ECG characteristics, pacing parameters and complications during 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successful with SDL in 23 of 25 patients (92%) and 20 of them were paced with SDL first. In the SDL-LBBAP group, the average age was 70.4 ± 8.2 years, and 55% of patients were male. Paced QRS duration and the stimulus to peak left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) in SDL-LBBAP group were similar with those in LLL-LBBAP group and significantly shorter than those in RVSP group (126.1±14.1ms vs 124.8±10.9ms, P = 1.00; 77.7±11.2ms vs 73.5±9.3ms, P = 0.75; 126.1±14.1ms vs 147.7±22.5ms, P<0.001; 77.7±11.2ms vs 97.0±13.2ms, P<0.001). The pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude of SDL-LBBAP group were 0.53±0.18V and 11.53±3.63mV at baseline respectively, which were comparable with the other two groups. During the 6-month follow-up, the pacing parameters remained stable and no lead-related complication was recorded.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible and safe to use stylet-directed pacing lead for permanent LBBAP without a delivery sheath. Similar to LLL, LBBAP using SDL showed stable parameters and narrower paced QRS duration compared with RVSP, which could be an alternative to LLL in LBBAP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Computed tomography imaging-identified location and electrocardiographic characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing in bradycardia patients

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing modality. The relationship between the pacing lead tip location and paced electrocardiographic (ECG) characteristics remains unclear. The objectives are to determine the lead tip location within the interventricular septum (IVS) and assess the location-based ECG QRS duration (QRSd) and left ventricular activation time (LVAT).

METHODS

This multi-center study enrolled 50 consecutive bradycardia patients who met pacemaker therapy guidelines and received LBBAP implantation via the trans-ventricular septal approach. After at least 3 months post implant, 12-lead ECGs and pacing parameters were obtained. Cardiac computed tomography (CT) imaging was performed to assess the LBBAP lead tip distance from the LV blood pool.

RESULTS

Among the 50 patients, analyzable CT images were obtained in 42. In 23 of the 42 patients, the lead tips were within 2 mm to the LV blood pool (the LV subendocardial (LVSE) group), 13 between 2 mm and 4 mm (the Near-LVSE group), and the remaining 6 beyond 4 mm (the mid-LV septal (Mid-LVS) group). No significant differences in paced QRSd were found among the 3 groups (LVSE, 107±15 ms; Near-LVSE, 106±13 ms; Mid-LVS, 104±15 ms; P=0.87). LVAT in the LVSE (64±7 ms) was significantly shorter than in the Mid-LVS (72±8 ms; P<0.05), but not significantly different from that in the Near-LVSE (69±8 ms; P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

In routine LBBAP practice, paced narrow QRSd and fast LVAT, indicative of physiological pacing, was consistently achieved for lead tip location in the LV subendocardial or near LV subendocardial region. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of clinical safety and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing in comparison with right ventricular septal pacing

ABSTRACT

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has recently emerged as a new physiological pacing strategy. The purpose of this study is to compare LBBaP with right ventricular sepal pacing (RVSP) in terms of their clinical safety and efficacy.From February 2019 to May 2020, consecutive pacing-indicated patients were prospectively enrolled and divided into 2 groups. Ventricular synchrony indexes such as QRS duration (QRSd), interventricular mechanical delay and septal-posterior wall motion delay, left ventricular function such as left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pacing parameters, and complications were evaluated in the perioperative period and during follow-up.LBBaP was successful in 45 patients (88.2%), and finally 46 patients underwent RVSP. With LBBaP, ventricular electricalmechanical synchrony were similar to those of native-conduction system (P = .78). However, the ventricular electrical synchrony (QRSd, 108.47±7.64 vs 130.63±13.63ms, P < .001) and mechanical synchrony (interventricular mechanical delay, 27.68±4.33 vs 39.88±5.83, P < .001; septal-posterior wall motion delay, 40.39±23.21 vs 96.36±11.55, P < .001) in the LBBaP group were significantly better than those in the RVSP group. No significant differences in LVEDD (46 [44-48.5] vs 47 [44-52] mm, P = .49) and LVEF% (66 [62.5-70] vs 64 [61-68], P = .76) was observed between 2 groups at last follow-up. But, in the subgroup analysis, LVEDD was shorter (46 [44-49] vs 50 [47-58] mm, P = .03) and the LVEF% was higher (65 [62-68] vs 63 [58-65], P = .02) in the LBBaP-H (high ventricular pacing ratio >40%) group compared with RVSP-H group at last follow-up. There were lower capture thresholds (0.59±0.18V vs 0.71 ± 0.26 V, P = 0.01) at implantation in the LBBaP group than those in the RVSP group, with R-wave amplitudes and pacing impedances showing no significant difference between 2 groups. No serious complications were found in both 2 groups at implantation and follow-ups.This study confirms the clinical safety and efficacy of LBBaP, and it produces better ventricular electrical-mechanical synchrony than RVSP. The event of pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction is lower in the LBBaP-H group than RVSP-H group.

His Bundle pacing for congenital complete AV block: An attempt to fix a broken heart?

Congenital complete atrioventricular block (CCAVB) is usually due to failure of atrioventricular nodal conduction with preservation of the His‐Purkinje system. Most patients with CCAVB ultimately require pacemaker therapy to restore physiologic heart rates, dealing with the detrimental effects of chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing on cardiac structure and function. The ideal stimulation pattern aims to mimic the normal conduction to restore electromechanical coupling, preventing the harmful effects of lack of atrioventricular and inter‐intraventricular synchrony. This can be done through conduction system pacing. Using His bundle pacing (HBP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy in two complete congenital atrioventricular block patients, we have reported better exercise tolerance and echocardiographic improvements related to reversible left ventricular dysfunction that can be corrected by restoration of the normal activation pathway via the His‐Purkinje network.

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.

Comparative effects of left bundle branch area pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy: A network meta-analysis

Background

The comparative effects of different types of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivered by biventricular pacing (BVP), His bundle pacing (HBP), and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) remain inconclusive.

Hypothesis

HBP and LBBAP may be advantageous over BVP for CRT.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies that reported the effects after BVP, HBP, and LBBAP for CRT. The effects between groups were compared by a frequentist random‐effects network meta‐analysis (NMA), by which the mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

Six articles involving 389 patients remained for the final meta‐analysis. The mean follow‐up of these studies was 8.03 ± 3.15 months. LBBAP resulted in a greater improvement in LVEF% (MD = 7.17, 95% CI = 4.31 to 10.04), followed by HBP (MD = 4.06, 95% CI = 1.09 to 7.03) compared with BVP. HBP resulted in a narrower QRS duration (MD = 31.58 ms, 95% CI = 12.75 to 50.40), followed by LBBAP (MD = 27.40 ms, 95% CI = 10.81 to 43.99) compared with BVP. No significant differences of changes in LVEF improvement and QRS narrowing were observed between LBBAP and HBP. The pacing threshold of LBBAP was significantly lower than those of BVP and HBP.

Conclusion

The NMA first found that LBBAP and HBP resulted in a greater LVEF improvement and a narrower QRS duration compared with BVP. Additionally, LBBAP resulted in similar clinical outcomes but with lower pacing thresholds, and may therefore offer advantages than does HBP for CRT.