Comparison of four LBBB definitions for predicting mortality in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy

Is Conduction System Pacing a Valuable Alternative to Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) significantly improves clinical outcomes in patients with ventricular systolic dysfunction and dyssynchrony. Biventricular pacing (BVP) has a class IA recommendation for patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, approximately 30% of patients have a poor therapeutic response and do not achieve real clinical benefit. Pre-implant imaging, together with tailored programming and dedicated device algorithms, have been proposed as possible tools to improve success rate but have shown inconsistent results. Over the last few years, conduction system pacing (CSP) is becoming a real and attractive alternative to standard BVP as it can restore narrow QRS in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) by stimulating and recruiting the cardiac conduction system, thus ensuring true resynchronization. It includes His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Preliminary data coming from small single-center experiences are very promising and have laid the basis for currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP. The purpose of this review is to delve into the emerging role of CSP as an alternative method of achieving CRT. After framing CSP in a historical perspective, the pathophysiological rationale and available clinical evidence will be examined, and crucial technical aspects will be discussed. Finally, evidence gaps and future perspectives on CSP as a technique of choice to deliver CRT will be summarized.

Current Role of Electrocardiographic Imaging in Patient Selection for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a recognized therapy for heart failure with altered ejection fraction and abnormal left ventricular activation time. Since the introduction of the therapy, a 30% rate of non-responders is observed and unchanged. The 12-lead ECG remains the only recommended tool for patient selection to CRT. The 12-lead ECG is, however, limited in its inability to provide a precise pattern of regional electrical activity. Electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) provides a non-invasive detailed mapping of cardiac activation and therefore appears as a promising tool for CRT candidates. The non-invasive ventricular activation maps acquired by ECGi have been primarily explored for the diagnosis and guidance of therapy in patients with atrial or ventricular tachyarrhythmia. However, the accuracy of the system in this field is lacking and needs further improvement before considering a clinical application. On the other hand, its use for patient selection for CRT is encouraging. In this review, we introduce the technical considerations and we describe how ECGi can precisely characterize ventricular activation, especially in patients with left bundle branch block, thus identifying the electrical substrate responsive to CRT.

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.

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).

Cardiac resynchronization considerations in left bundle branch block

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP) is an established treatment for patients with left ventricular systolic heart failure and intraventricular conduction delay resulting in wide QRS. Seminal trials demonstrating mortality benefit from CRT were conducted in patients with wide left bundle branch block (LBBB) pattern on electrocardiogram (ECG) and evidence of clinical heart failure. The presence of conduction block was assumed to correlate with commonly applied criteria for LBBB. More recent data has challenged this assertion, revealing that LBBB pattern may include distinct underlying pathophysiology, including patients with complete conduction block, either at the left-sided His fibers or the proximal left bundle, intact Purkinje activation with wide LBBB-like QRS, and patients demonstrating both proximal block and distal delay. Currently, BiVP-CRT is indicated for all QRS duration ≥150 ms and may be considered for BBB patterns from 130 to 149 ms with robust clinical data to support its use. Despite this, however, there remains a significant number of non-responders to BVP. Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative approach to deliver CRT and correct QRS in patients with conduction block. Newer hybrid approaches which combine CSP and traditional BiVP-CRT and may hold promise for patients with IP or mixed-level block. As various approaches to CRT continue to be studied, physiologic phenotyping of the LBBB pattern remains an important consideration.

What Intracardiac Tracings Have Taught Us About Left Bundle Branch Block

Current electrocardiogram (ECG) criteria for left bundle branch block (LBBB) are largely based on early work in animal models or on mathematical models of cardiac activation. The resulting criteria have modest specificity, and up to one-third of patients who meet current ECG criteria for LBBB may have intact conduction through their His-Purkinje systems. Intracardiac tracings offer the ability to accurately discriminate between LBBB and other causes of delayed activation, which may facilitate the development of more accurate ECG criteria. Assessing these distinctions are particularly salient to applications for conduction system pacing.

Non-invasive predictors for infranodal conduction delay in patients with left bundle branch block after TAVR

AIMS

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is the most common conduction disorder after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) with an increased risk of atrioventricular (AV) block. The aim of the current study was to identify non-invasive predictors for infranodal conduction delay in patients with LBBB.

METHODS

We analyzed consecutive patients undergoing TAVR with pre-existing or new-onset LBBB between August 2014 and August 2020. His ventricular (HV) interval measurement was performed on day 1 after TAVR. Baseline, procedural, as well as surface and intracardiac electrocardiographic parameters were included. Infranodal conduction delay was defined as HV interval > 55 ms.

RESULTS

Of 825 patients screened after TAVR, 151 patients (82 ± 6 years, 39% male) with LBBB were included. Among these, infranodal conduction delay was observed in 25%. ΔPR (difference in PR interval after and before TAVR), PR and QRS duration after TAVR were significantly longer in the group with HV prolongation. In a multivariate analysis in patients with sinus rhythm (n = 123), ΔPR (OR per 10 ms increase: 1.52; 95%CI: 1.19-2.01; p = 0.002) was the only independent factor associated with infranodal conduction delay. A change in PR interval by 20 ms yielded a specificity of 83% and a sensitivity of 46%, with a negative predictive value of 84% and a positive predictive value of 45% to predict HV prolongation.

CONCLUSIONS

Simple analysis of surface ECG and a calculated ΔPR < 20 ms can be used as predictor for the absence of infranodal conduction delay in post-TAVR patients with LBBB.

Electrocardiographic characterization of non-selective His-bundle pacing: validation of novel diagnostic criteria

AIMS

Permanent His-bundle (HB) pacing is usually accompanied by simultaneous capture of the adjacent right ventricular (RV) myocardium-this is described as a non-selective (ns)-HB pacing. It is of clinical importance to confirm HB capture using standard electrocardiogram (ECG). Our aim was to identify ECG criteria for loss of HB capture during ns-HB pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with permanent HB pacing were recruited. Electrocardiograms during ns-HB pacing and loss of HB capture (RV-only capture) were obtained. Electrocardiogram criteria for loss/presence of HB capture were identified. In the validation phase, these criteria and the 'HB ECG algorithm' were tested using a separate, sizable set of ECGs. A total of 353 ECG (226 ns-HB and 128 RV-only) were obtained from 226 patients with permanent HB pacing devices. QRS notch/slur in left ventricular leads and R-wave peak time (RWPT) in lead V6 were identified as the best features for differentiation. The 'HB ECG algorithm' based on these features correctly classified 87.1% of cases with sensitivity and specificity of 93.2% and 83.9%, respectively. The criteria for definitive diagnosis of ns-HB capture (no QRS slur/notch in Leads I, V1, V4-V6, and the V6 RWPT ≤ 100 ms) presented 100% specificity.

CONCLUSION

A novel ECG algorithm for the diagnosis of loss of HB capture and criteria for definitive confirmation of HB capture were formulated and validated. The algorithm might be useful during follow-up and the criteria for definitive confirmation of ns-HB capture offer a simple and reliable ancillary procedural endpoint during HB device implantation.

Long-term outcome of intraventricular conduction delays in the general population

Background

Previous population studies have presented conflicting results regarding the prognostic impact of intraventricular conduction delays (IVCD).

Methods

We studied long‐term prognostic impact and the association with comorbidities of eight IVCDs in a random sample of 6,299 Finnish subjects (2,857 men and 3,442 women, mean age 52.8, SD 14.9 years) aged 30 or over who participated in the health examination including 12‐lead ECG. For left bundle branch block (LBBB) and non‐specific IVCD (NSIVCD), two different definitions were used.

Results

During 16.5 years’ follow‐up, 1,309 of the 6,299 subjects (20.8%) died and of these 655 (10.4%) were cardiovascular (CV) deaths. After controlling for known clinical risk factors, the hazard ratio for CV death, compared with individuals without IVCD, was 1.55 for the Minnesota definition of LBBB (95% confidence interval 1.04–2.31, p = .032) and 1.27 (95% confidence interval 0.80–2.02, p = .308) for the Strauss’ definition of LBBB. Subjects with NSIVCD were associated with twofold to threefold increase in CV mortality depending on the definition. While right bundle branch block, left anterior fascicular block and incomplete bundle branch blocks were associated with seemingly higher mortality, this was no longer the case after adjustment for age and sex. The presence of R‐R’ pattern was not associated with any adverse outcome.

Conclusions

In a population study with long‐term follow‐up, NSIVCD and Minnesota definition of LBBB were independently associated with CV mortality. Other IVCDs had no significant impact on prognosis. The prognostic impact of LBBB and NSIVCD was affected by the definition of the conduction disorder.

[Association of left bundle branch block definitions with response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy in patients with congestive heart failure]

Aim To compare diagnostic significance of different criteria for complete left bundle branch block (cLBBB) in prediction of reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).Materials and methods This study included 93 patients (men, 81.7 %; mean age at the time of implantation, 56.6±9.3 years). Achievement of a maximum decrease in LV end-systolic volume (ESV) was recorded during the entire follow-up period for evaluation of LV reversibility by CRT. Based on the dynamics of LV ESV, patients were divided into two groups, non-responders (n=27) and responders (n=66). cLBBB was determined by 9 criteria (ESC 2006 and 2013, AHA 2009, Strauss, and MIRACLE, CARE-HF, MADIT-CRT, REVERSE, and RAFT used in large multicenter studies).Results Incidence of cLBBB was significantly higher in the group of responders as demonstrated by the AHA (p=0.001), ESC 2013 (p=0.014), Strauss (p=0.002), MADIT-CRT (p=0.014), REVERSE (p=0.013), and RAFT (p&lt;0.001) criteria. The highest specificity was shown for the AHA and RAFT (92.6 %) criteria, and the highest sensitivity and overall accuracy were shown for the Strauss (80.3 % and 72.04 %, respectively) criterium. The criteria proposed in actual clinical guidelines (AHA and ESC 2013) demonstrated a strong consistency in detecting cLBBB (κ=0.818, 95 % CI, 0.7-0.936; p&lt;0.001). However, the Strauss and ESC 2006 / AHA / ESC 2013 showed the least consistency in identifying cLBBB. For the criteria described in large multicenter studies, consistency in detecting cLBBB was minimal in most cases. However, criteria with moderate or strong consistency were used in the studies, which results have substantiated the use of cLBBB as a selection criterium (MADIT-CRT, REVERSE, and RAFT).Conclusion The reversibility of LV remodeling associated with CRT was different in patients with cLBBB determined by different criteria. All actual cLBBB criteria (AHA, ESC 2013, and Strauss) were significantly more frequently observed in the responder group. Nevertheless, these criteria differed in their sensitivity and specificity. A number of large multicenter studies have used criteria with minimal consistency in detecting cLBBB, which should be taken into account in interpreting results of these studies.

Defining Left Bundle Branch Block Patterns in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: A Return to His Bundle Recordings

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is associated with improved outcome after cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). One historical presumption of LBBB has been that the underlying pathophysiology involved diffuse disease throughout the distal conduction system. The ability to normalize wide QRS patterns with His bundle pacing (HBP) has called this notion into question. The determination of LBBB pattern is conventionally made by assessment of surface 12-lead ECGs and can include patients with and without conduction block, as assessed by invasive electrophysiology study (EPS). During a novel extension of the classical EPS to involve left-sided recordings, we found that conduction block associated with the LBBB pattern is most often proximal, usually within the left-sided His fibres, and these patients are the most likely to demonstrate QRS correction with HBP for resynchronisation. Patients with intact Purkinje activation and intraventricular conduction delay are less likely to benefit from HBP. Future EPS are required to determine the impact of newer approaches to conduction system pacing, including intraseptal or left ventricular septal pacing. Left-sided EPS has the potential to refine patient selection in CRT trials and may be used to physiologically phenotype distinct conduction patterns beyond LBBB pattern.

A new electrocardiographic definition of left bundle branch block (LBBB) in patients after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)

BACKGROUND

Current LBBB definitions cannot always distinguish LBBB from left ventricular conduction delay. Only patients with LBBB are expected to normalize with His bundle pacing. Patients who develop new LBBB immediately post transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) provide an excellent model to define electrocardiogram (ECG) features of LBBB. We sought to describe their ECG features and develop a new ECG definition of LBBB.

METHODS

We screened ECGs from 264 consecutive patients who underwent TAVR at the University of Ottawa Heart Institute. Patients with a baseline QRS of ≤100 ms who developed QRS ≥120 ms immediately after TAVR were included. Two electrocardiologists reviewed all ECG independently. Baseline demographics and echocardiographic data were retrospectively collected.

RESULTS

36 patients were included in the analysis. The median age was 85.5 years (IQR, 81.8-89 years) and 52.8% were males. The minimum QRS duration was 126 ms. The median QRS axis was -18° (IQR, -40-4.5°), which is 18.5° leftward compared to the median QRS axis before TAVR. Fourteen patients (38.9%) had left axis deviation. All patients had a notched/slurred R wave in at least one lateral lead and an R wave duration of ≤20 ms in V1 when present.

CONCLUSION

We developed a new ECG definition of LBBB that includes 2 novel findings: notching/slurring of the R wave in at least one lateral lead and an R wave ≤20 ms in V1. Further larger studies are warranted to confirm these findings.

An S wave in ECG lead V6 predicts poor response to cardiac resynchronization therapy and long-term outcome

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a standard treatment for selected patients with chronic heart failure (HF). However, up to 30%-50% of patients still do not respond to CRT.

OBJECTIVE

Our aim was to identify the predictive value of an S wave in lead V₆ in CRT response in patients with complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB).

METHODS

The CLBBB definition included the Strauss left bundle branch block criteria and the absence of q waves in leads I, V₅, and V₆. According to the electrocardiogram at baseline, CLBBB patients were divided into 3 groups: T-CLBBB group (CLBBB without an S wave in lead V₅ or V₆), V₅S group (CLBBB with an S wave in lead V₅ and no S wave in lead V₆), and V₅&V₆S group (CLBBB with S waves in leads V₅ and V₆). CRT response was defined as left ventricular end-systolic volume reduction ≥ 15% at 6-month follow-up. The combined end point included HF rehospitalization or all-cause death.

RESULTS

Of 181 patients with left bundle branch block-like pattern, 112 patients with CLBBB were included into 3 groups: 54 in the T-CLBBB group, 32 in the V₅S group, and 26 in the V₅&V₆S group. The CRT response rate was 85.2% (46), 65.6% (21), and 38.5% (10), respectively (P < .001). Kaplan-Meier curves demonstrated that patients in the V₅&V₆S group had a higher incidence of HF rehospitalization or all-cause death than those in the other 2 groups (P < .001). In a multivariate logistic regression model analysis, an S wave in lead V₆ was significantly associated with CRT nonresponse (hazard ratio 0.33; 95% confidence interval 0.11-0.96; P = .042).

CONCLUSION

An S wave in lead V₆ can predict poor response to CRT and long-term outcome.

Comparison of four LBBB definitions for predicting mortality in patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is considered an important prognostic parameter in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to evaluate, in a sizeable cohort of patients with CRT, long-term mortality, and morbidity according to four different electrocardiographic definitions of LBBB.

METHODS

This longitudinal cohort study included consecutive patients who underwent CRT device implantation in our institution in years 2006-2014. Two endpoints were assessed: (a) death from any cause or urgent heart transplantation, and (b) death from any cause or heart failure admission. All preimplantation ECGs were analyzed by three physicians blinded to outcome and categorized as LBBB or non-LBBB according to four definitions.

RESULTS

A total of 552 CRT patients entered survival analysis. According to the conventional definition, 350 (63.4%) patients had LBBB, and the Marriott, WHO/AHA, and Strauss definitions identified LBBB in 254 (46.0%), 218 (39.5%) and 226 (40.9%) patients, respectively. During the 9 years of observation, 232 patients died, the combined endpoint was met by 292 patients. The Strauss LBBB definition was significantly better to the other definitions in predicting survival (Kaplan-Meier analysis with comparison of C-statistics). Multivariate Cox regression model showed that LBBB was the major determinant of all-cause mortality with the Strauss definition having the lowest hazard ratio (0.51) of the four studied definitions.

CONCLUSIONS

Criteria included in various definitions of LBBB result in a diagnosis of LBBB in divergent groups of patients. Differences in LBBB definitions have clinical consequences, as patients without 'complete/true' LBBB probably get no mortality benefit from CRT.