Deep Negative Deflection in Unipolar His-Bundle Electrogram as a Predictor of Excellent His-Bundle Pacing Threshold Postimplant

Gradual development of left bundle branch current of injury during left bundle branch pacing lead implantation

A larger left bundle branch (LBB) potential or LBB current of injury (COI) indicates a low LBB capture threshold in LBB pacing. During LBB pacing in an 85-year-old woman, achieving a low LBB capture threshold did not initially present with a larger LBB potential or LBB COI, but rather with a new initial negative deflection in a ventricular electrogram. LBB COI gradually developed over 7 min thereafter, which suggested that the lead tip had reached the left ventricular subendocardium. Therefore, this negative deflection may be the first sign to avoid further lead rotation.

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.

Diverse QRS morphology reflecting variations in lead placement for left bundle branch area pacing

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a potential alternative to His bundle pacing. This study aimed to investigate the impact of different septal locations of pacing leads on the diversity of QRS morphology during non-selective LBBAP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Non-selective LBBAP and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were achieved in 50 and 21 patients with atrioventricular block, respectively. The electrophysiological properties of LBBAP and their relationship with the lead location were investigated. QRS morphology and axis showed broad variations during LBBAP. Echocardiography demonstrated a widespread distribution of LBBAP leads in the septum. During non-selective LBBAP, the qR-wave in lead V1 indicated that the primary location for pacing lead was the inferior septum (93%). The non-selective LBBAP lead was deployed deeper than the LVSP lead in the inferior septum. The Qr-wave in lead V1 with the inferior axis in aVF suggested pacing lead placement in the anterior septum. The penetration depth of the non-selective LBBAP lead in the anterior septum was significantly shallower than that in the inferior septum (72 ± 11 and 87 ± 8%, respectively). In lead V6, the deep S-wave indicated the time lag between the R-wave peak and the latest ventricular activation in the coronary sinus trunk, with pacemaker leads deployed closer to the left ventricular apex.

CONCLUSION

Different QRS morphologies and axes were linked to the location of the non-selective LBBAP lead in the septum. Various lead deployments are feasible for LBBAP, allowing diversity in the conduction system capture in patients with atrioventricular block.

Conduction system pacing: Current status and prospects

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), is the most physiological of all pacing modalities for ventricular capture and a potential alternative to right ventricular pacing. It induces electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony, resulting in left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure hospitalization, and atrial arrhythmia. CSP activates the normal conduction system and restores ventricular synchrony. In 2000, HBP was first performed as permanent ventricular pacing, which improved left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The feasibility of permanent HBP has already been demonstrated in patients with bradycardia, although a high capture threshold and limited efficacy for infra-Hisian conduction diseases remain critical issues. The LBBAP is an alternative pacing form that overcomes the limitations of the HBP. A lower capture threshold was obtained at implantation and preserved during the follow-up period in patients with LBBAP. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with HBP or LBBAP may provide better synchronization than the traditional biventricular pacing. Hybrid therapy utilizing HBP or LBBAP in combination with left ventricular pacing has been introduced to treat patients with heart failure. In this review, we have focused on the clinical implications, limitations, and a literature review on CSP.

Safety of Distal His Bundle Pacing Via the Right Ventricle Backed Up by Adjacent Ventricular Capture

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the differences between distal His bundle pacing (HBP) via the right ventricle and proximal HBP via the right atrium with regard to pacing and sensing parameters.

BACKGROUND

HBP preserves physiological ventricular activation. The capture threshold of the adjacent ventricle accompanying HBP has not been evaluated after implantation.

METHODS

Fifty patients with bradycardia (58% with atrioventricular block) underwent successful HBP and were followed for 1 year. Precise locations of the lead tips were confirmed using follow-up echocardiography.

RESULTS

HBP leads were fixed via the right atrium or right ventricle (25 patients each). Overall, the local ventricle and HBP thresholds were elevated during follow-up. The distal HBP thresholds did not significantly differ from the proximal HBP thresholds, although local ventricular thresholds of distal HBP were markedly lower than those of proximal HBP. At 6 months, the accepted ventricular threshold (≤2.5 V) was maintained in 39 patients (78%). An amplitude of ventricular electrogram post-fixation of ≥2.0 mV and a capture threshold of ≤1.1 V at implantation were determined to be optimal values for predicting the accepted threshold at 6 months, with areas under the curve of 0.86 and 0.84, respectively. Atrial oversensing was often detected in proximal HBP but not distal HBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal HBP via the right ventricle captured the His bundle, similar to proximal HBP via the right atrium, with a superior local ventricular threshold during follow-up. Anatomy and electrophysiological ventricular properties at implantation may be critical for maintaining adjacent ventricle capture to prevent lead revision (Evaluation of Electrophysiological Parameters related to His Bundle Pacing in Patients With Bradyarrhythmias; UMIN000031364).

Short-term and intermediate-term performance and safety of left bundle branch pacing

Introduction

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a promising new method for patients with pacing indications. This study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LBBP in a relatively longer time span.

Methods and Results

A total of 164 patients were recruited for LBBP in this study. Among these patients, 148 patients had pacing indications due to symptomatic bradycardia while the other 16 patients had indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). LBBP was successful in 89.0% (146/164) of all recruited patients. Intracardiac and surface electrographic parameters and image data were documented during the LBBP procedure. The mean paced QRS duration (pQRSD) and the mean stimulus to left ventricular activation time (stim‐LVAT) was 106.0 ± 12.9 ms and 64.4 ± 13.7 ms respectively. Left bundle branch (LBB) potentials were recorded in 89 patients. Forty‐three of whom had sick sinus syndrome (SSS), and 46 had atrioventricular block (AVB). The presence of LBB potential was more common in patients with SSS (82.7% vs 57.5%, P = .002). No significant differences in pQRSD, stim‐LVAT, or capture threshold were detected between patient groups with or without LBB potential. Patients were followed up at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure. Pacing parameters and the echocardiographic data remained stable within a mean follow‐up period of 8.6 ± 4.3 months. No serious complication caused by this procedure was found in this study.

Conclusions

Successful LBBP carried an aspect of short pQRSD and stim‐LVAT while the LBB potential was not the prerequisite and necessary feature. The LBBP procedure had a high success rate with satisfied and stable lead parameters during short and intermediate‐term observations.

Study design and protocol for evaluating the long-term prognosis of patients receiving his bundle pacing: A multicenter observational study

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) is a recently developed pacing technique that can achieve an ideal physiological pattern of ventricular activation via stimulation of the native His-Purkinje system. Despite the widespread introduction of HBP in clinical practice, its appropriate indications are yet to be determined clearly. Moreover, the efficacy and safety of HBP and long-term prognosis of patients undergoing such are unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a multicenter observational prospective study in patients undergoing HBP in Japan. Patients with atrioventricular block or conduction delay and estimated ventricular pacing of ≥ 40% scheduled for HBP implantation are included. All patients are followed up until 3 years after the implantation. The primary endpoints are all-cause death, heart failure-related hospitalization, and upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy. The secondary endpoint is changes in cardiac function based on echocardiographic findings and laboratory data after the implantation.

RESULTS

The results are currently under investigation.

CONCLUSIONS

This multicenter observational study evaluates the long-term prognosis and changes in cardiac function of patients undergoing HBP implantation in a clinical setting. Considering the large number of patients included, the cumulative results would be helpful in establishing evidence on HBP application in this area and consequently allow accurate management and treatment of patients undergoing HBP.