New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared With Right Ventricular Pacing

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Comparison between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing: ventricular electromechanical synchrony and risk of atrial high-rate episodes

Background

The electromechanical dyssynchrony associated with right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been found to have adverse impact on clinical outcomes. Several studies have shown that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has superior pacing parameters compared with RVP. We aimed to assess the difference in ventricular electromechanical synchrony and investigate the risk of atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) in patients with LBBAP and RVP.

Methods

We consecutively identified 40 patients with atrioventricular block and no prior atrial fibrillation. They were divided according to the ventricular pacing sites: the LBBAP group and the RVP group (including the right ventricular apical pacing (RVA) group and the right side ventricular septal pacing (RVS) group). Evaluation of ventricular electromechanical synchrony was implemented using electrocardiogram and two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE). AHRE was defined as event with an atrial frequency of ≥176 bpm lasting for ≥6 min recorded by pacemakers during follow-up.

Results

The paced QRS duration of the LBBAP group was significantly shorter than that of the other two groups: LBBAP 113.56 ± 9.66 ms vs. RVA 164.73 ± 14.49 ms, p < 0.001; LBBAP 113.56 ± 9.66 ms vs. RVS 148.23 ± 17.3 ms, p < 0.001. The LBBAP group showed shorter maximum difference (TDmax), and standard deviation (SD) of the time to peak systolic strain among the 18 left ventricular segments, and time of septal-to-posterior wall motion delay (SPWMD) compared with the RVA group (TDmax, 87.56 ± 56.01 ms vs. 189.85 ± 91.88 ms, p = 0.001; SD, 25.40 ± 14.61 ms vs. 67.13 ± 27.40 ms, p < 0.001; SPWMD, 28.75 ± 21.89 ms vs. 99.09 ± 46.56 ms, p < 0.001) and the RVS group (TDmax, 87.56 ± 56.01 ms vs. 156.46 ± 55.54 ms, p = 0.003; SD, 25.40 ± 14.61 ms vs. 49.02 ± 17.85 ms, p = 0.001; SPWMD, 28.75 ± 21.89 ms vs. 91.54 ± 26.67 ms, p < 0.001). The interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) was shorter in the LBBAP group compared with the RVA group (-5.38 ± 9.31 ms vs. 44.82 ± 16.42 ms, p < 0.001) and the RVS group (-5.38 ± 9.31 ms vs. 25.31 ± 21.36 ms, p < 0.001). Comparing the RVA group and the RVS group, the paced QRS duration and IVMD were significantly shorter in the RVS group (QRS duration, 164.73 ± 14.49 ms vs. 148.23 ± 17.3 ms, p = 0.02; IVMD, 44.82 ± 16.42 ms vs. 25.31 ± 21.36 ms, p = 0.022). During follow-up, 2/16 (12.5%) LBBAP patients, 4/11 (36.4%) RVA patients, and 8/13 (61.5%) RVS patients had recorded novel AHREs. LBBAP was proven to be independently associated with decreased risk of AHREs than RVP (log-rank p = 0.043).

Conclusion

LBBAP generates narrower paced QRS and better intro-left ventricular and biventricular contraction synchronization compared with traditional RVP. LBBAP was associated with a decreased risk of AHREs compared with RVP.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP.

METHODS

The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model.

RESULTS

Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.

Diagnosis and Treatment of New-Onset Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation

This article reviews medical and surgical risk factors for developing atrial fibrillation (AF), the most common sustained dysrhythmia in the United States. Evidence for assessment and management of patients with AF, including AF newly identified in the preoperative clinic, immediately preoperatively, intraoperatively, and unstable AF, is presented. A stepwise approach to guide anesthetic decision-making in the assessment of newly identified preoperative AF is proposed. Anesthetic considerations, including the potential impacts of anesthetic and vasopressor selection, and current evidence related to rate control and rhythm control via pharmacologic or electrical cardioversion as well as anticoagulation strategies are discussed.

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.

New-onset atrial fibrillation following left bundle branch area pacing vs. right ventricular pacing: a two-centre prospective cohort study

AIMS

To investigate whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) can reduce the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with right ventricular pacing (RVP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with indications for dual-chamber pacemaker implant and no history of AF were prospectively enrolled if they underwent successful LBBAP or RVP. The primary endpoint was time to the first occurrence of AF detected by pacemaker programming or surface electrocardiogram. Follow-up at clinic visit was performed and multivariate Cox regression models were applied to evaluate the effect of LBBAP on new-onset AF. The final analysis included 527 patients (mean age 65.3 ± 12.6, male 47.3%), with 257 in the LBBAP and 270 in the RVP groups. During a mean follow-up of 11.1 months, LBBAP resulted in significantly lower incidence of new-onset AF (7.4 vs. 17.0%, P < 0.001) and AF burden (3.7 ± 1.9 vs. 9.3 ± 2.2%, P < 0.001) than RVP. After adjusting for confounding factors, LBBAP demonstrated a lower hazard ratio for new-onset AF compared with RVP {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.278 (0.156, 0.496), P < 0.001}. A significant interaction existed between pacing modalities and the percentage of ventricular pacing (VP%) (P for interaction = 0.020). In patients with VP ≥ 20%, LBBAP was associated with decreased risk of new-onset AF compared with RVP [HR (95% CI): 0.199 (0.105, 0.378), P < 0.001]. The effect of pacing modalities was not pronounced in patients with VP < 20% [HR (95% CI): 0.751 (0.309, 1.823), P = 0.316].

CONCLUSION

Left bundle branch area pacing demonstrated a reduced risk of new-onset AF compared with RVP. Patients with a high ventricular pacing burden might benefit from LBBAP.