Permanent His-bundle Pacing in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease

Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology for the Management of Adults With Congenital Heart Disease

Congenital heart disease (CHD) is the most common congenital anomaly in newborns. Advances in catheter and surgical techniques led to the majority of these patients surviving into adulthood, leading to evolving challenges due to the emergence of long-term complications such as arrhythmias. Interventional electrophysiology (EP) has had remarkable advances over the last few decades, and various techniques and devices have been explored to treat adult patients with CHD. This comprehensive review aims to summarize findings from recent studies exploring advances in the use of interventional electrophysiology to manage adult patients with CHD. While pacemaker therapy has some indications in adults with CHD, various long-term consequences include pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and complications requiring reintervention. Cardiac resynchronization therapy has shown promising results in some studies to treat CHD patients with heart failure, although further research to clarify guidelines is encouraged. Implantable cardiac defibrillators have demonstrated clear benefits in CHD patients and are indicated for primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, although selection criteria for secondary prevention of sudden cardiac death are uncertain. Catheter ablation has also been used for various atrial and ventricular arrhythmias in patients with CHD with high success rates, although the likelihood of success depends on patient characteristics and the type of arrhythmia, and multidisciplinary assessment is encouraged to improve the chance of successful therapy.

Conduction System Pacing in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease, a Single Center Series of 24 Patients

His-bundle pacing has demonstrated feasibility in numerous adult studies to reverse and prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, however, is met with higher capture thresholds with deployment sheaths designed for adults with his-bundles in the typical location. To describe 24 pediatric and adult congenital patients post-physiologic pacing. Patients at the University of Minnesota Masonic Children's Hospital with congenital complete heart block or congenital heart disease and atrioventricular block presented for pacemaker placement between November 2019 and January 2021. Twenty-four patients had attempted his-bundle placement using either Medtronic's C315 or C308 sheaths and 3830 leads except for 3 patients who had Boston Scientific's His system with the Shape 3 sheath and 7842 leads. Twenty-four total patients underwent physiologic pacing (23 his-bundle, 13 female, 11 male) with median age of 14 years (range 8-39 years) with median weight of 51 kg (range 21.2-81 kg) with five right-sided implants performed. Twelve patients had congenital heart disease including atrioventricular canal defects, tetralogy of Fallot, and ventricular septal defect repairs (nine patients with ventricular septal defect repairs). Twelve patients had selective His-bundle pacing (six with congenital heart disease). Median threshold to capture was 0.5 V at 0.4 ms (range 0.4 to 1.1 V at 0.4 ms), impedance 570 ohms (range 456-1140 ohms), and sensing median of 9.7 mV (range 1.5-13.8 mV if present). The median follow-up time was 610 days (range 240-760 days). No complications occurred peri-procedurally or during follow-up. His-bundle pacing is feasible in pediatric and congenital heart disease patients.

Conduction System Pacing in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease: A Case Report and Literature Review

Conduction system pacing involving either His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a modality that has been introduced as a safe and effective alternative to right ventricular (RV) pacing to help prevent pacemaker-associated cardiomyopathy. While HBP has been employed in the pediatric and congenital populations, several small studies have shown LBBP to be safe and effective in the pediatric population. We present a patient with congenital atrioventricular block and postoperative ventricular septal defect repair cardiomyopathy with subsequent left ventricular function improvement following a transition from an RV epicardial pacemaker system to an LBBP system. This case report serves as a foundation for a review of the current state of LBBP in pediatrics and congenital heart disease.

Epicardial Versus Endocardial Pacing in Paediatric Patients with Atrioventricular Block or Sinus Node Dysfunction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Pacing indications in children are clearly defined, but whether an epicardial (EPI) or an endocardial (ENDO) pacemaker performs better remains to be elucidated. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to directly compare the incidence of pacemaker (PM) lead-related complications, mortality, hemothorax and venous occlusion between EPI and ENDO in children with atrioventricular block (AVB) or sinus node dysfunction (SND). Literature search was conducted in MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus by ELSEVIER, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, and OpenGrey databases until June 25, 2022. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to assess the pacing method's effect on lead failure, threshold rise, post-implantation infection and battery depletion and secondarily on all-cause mortality, hemothorax and venous occlusion. Several sensitivity analyses were also performed. Of 22 studies initially retrieved, 18 were deemed eligible for systematic review and 15 for meta-analysis. Of 1348 pediatric patients that underwent EPI or ENDO implantation, 542 (40.2%) had a diagnosis of congenital heart disease (CHD). EPI was significantly associated with higher possibility of PM-lead failure [pooled odds ratio (pOR) 3.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.05-4.39; I2 = 0%]; while possibility for threshold rise, post-implantation infection and battery depletion did not differ between the PM types. Regarding the secondary outcome, the mortality rates between EPI and ENDO did not differ. In sensitivity analyses the results were consistent results between the two PM types. The findings suggest that EPI may be associated with increased PM-lead failure compared to ENDO while threshold rise, infection, battery depletion and mortality rates did not differ.

Lead Management in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease

Pediatric patients with congenital heart disease present unique challenges when it comes to cardiac implantable electronic devices. Pacing strategy is often determined by patient size/weight and operator experience. Anatomic considerations, including residual shunts, anatomic obstructions and barriers, and abnormalities in the native conduction system, will affect the type of CIED implanted. Given the young age of patients, it is important to have an "eye on the future" when making pacemaker/defibrillator decisions, as one can expect several generator changes, lead revisions, and potential lead extractions during their lifetime.

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.

Case report: Challenges and implications of conduction system pacing in pediatrics: Case series

Cardiac electrical stimulation in children usually is needed in the setting of complete congenital atrioventricular block, atrioventricular block after heart surgery, and bradycardia associated with some specific channelopathies. In cases of atrioventricular block, the high percentage of ventricular stimulation raises concern on the deleterious effects of chronic stimulation of the right ventricle. In recent years, physiologic stimulation has developed as a valid approach for adult patients and a great interest has risen in offering conduction system pacing also to the pediatric population. We present three pediatric cases of stimulation of the conduction system (His bundle or left bundle branch), in order to show the intrinsic particularities and challenges implied in these new techniques.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Developed in collaboration with and endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC) Endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

2021 PACES expert consensus statement on the indications and management of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in pediatric patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consensus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology (ACC), and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate CIED follow-up in pediatric patients.

Selective His-bundle pacing in an adult with atrioventricular canal defect via retrograde His localization

Adult congenital heart disease patients may undergo numerous fluoroscopically guided procedures including pacemaker implantation during their lifetime. One alternative to traditional pacemaker setup which may improve long-term pacing outcomes is His bundle pacing. Given the altered His-bundle location, and given increased radiation exposure over a lifetime, we used 3-dimensional mapping to locate the His and to minimize fluoroscopy for placement of a His-bundle pacemaker system in a 31-year old patient with atrioventricular canal defect and complete heart block with 100% RV pacing and epicardial lead fracture.

METHODS

An Octapolar Livewire catheter (Abbott, Minneapolis, USA) was used for mapping and location of the His bundle from a right femoral venous access on the EnSite Precision system 3-dimensional mapping system (Abbott Medical, Abbott Park, IL). The same map was used to guide 3830 lead placement into the posterior-inferior His-bundle position.

RESULTS

Successful placement of a His-bundle pacing system with thresholds of 1Volt@0.4ms for both the atrial and ventricular leads with selective His-bundle pacing noted. Ten-month follow-up demonstrated His-bundle capture at 0.75V@0.4ms with stable impedance, sensing and with 100% right ventricular pacing a projected longevity of 12 years total.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful placement of selective His-bundle pacing can be achieved in an adult patient with atrioventricular canal defect using 3-dimensional mapping.

Ventricular pacing and myocardial function in patient with congenital heart block

INTRODUCTION

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is a potential complication of chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing, but its characterization in adult patients is often complicated by pre-existing cardiomyopathy. This study investigated the incidence of PICM in patients with congenital heart block (cHB) who have conduction disease from birth without confounding pre-existing cardiac conditions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This retrospective cohort analysis included 42 patients with cHB and baseline left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50%. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess freedom from cardiomyopathy (defined as LVEF <50%) between paced and nonpaced patients. Patients were 26 ± 3 years old at first presentation, 64% were women and baseline LVEF was 60.0 ± 0.2%. Median follow-up from birth was 35 (interquartile range [IQR]: 20-42) years with a median of 6.7 years (IQR: 3.6-9.2) at our institution. Thirty-two patients received pacing at mean age 21 ± 3 years. Patients receiving a pacemaker (PM) were significantly more likely to develop a cardiomyopathy (p = .021) and no patient developed a cardiomyopathy in the absence of a PM. Four patients who developed a new cardiomyopathy were upgraded to biventricular pacing, leading to stabilization or improvement of LVEF.

CONCLUSION

In a relatively young and healthy cHB cohort, RV pacing is associated with a higher risk of developing a cardiomyopathy. These data confirm the deleterious effects of RV pacing on myocardial function in patients without pre-existing structural cardiac disease and has clinical implications to the management of patients with cHB.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients

In view of the increasing complexity of both cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) and patients in the current era, practice guidelines, by necessity, have become increasingly specific. This document is an expert consensus statement that has been developed to update and further delineate indications and management of CIEDs in pediatric patients, defined as ≤21 years of age, and is intended to focus primarily on the indications for CIEDs in the setting of specific disease categories. The document also highlights variations between previously published adult and pediatric CIED recommendations and provides rationale for underlying important differences. The document addresses some of the deterrents to CIED access in low- and middle-income countries and strategies to circumvent them. The document sections were divided up and drafted by the writing committee members according to their expertise. The recommendations represent the consensus opinion of the entire writing committee, graded by class of recommendation and level of evidence. Several questions addressed in this document either do not lend themselves to clinical trials or are rare disease entities, and in these instances recommendations are based on consenus expert opinion. Furthermore, specific recommendations, even when supported by substantial data, do not replace the need for clinical judgment and patient-specific decision-making. The recommendations were opened for public comment to Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES) members and underwent external review by the scientific and clinical document committee of the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the science advisory and coordinating committee of the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Cardiology, (ACC) and the Association for European Paediatric and Congenital Cardiology (AEPC). The document received endorsement by all the collaborators and the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), the Indian Heart Rhythm Society (IHRS), and the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS). This document is expected to provide support for clinicians and patients to allow for appropriate CIED use, appropriate CIED management, and appropriate follow-up in pediatric patients.

Three-dimensional mapping for His-bundle pacing in pediatric patients, a case series

INTRODUCTION

Pediatric patients who receive pacemakers may have a lifetime of repeat exposure to fluoroscopy. His bundle pacing may provide better long-term pacing for these patients. To minimize fluoroscopy and for improved localization of the His bundle, we utilized three-dimensional mapping to guide His bundle pacing and we follow-up short-term results.

METHODS

An Octapolar Livewire catheter (Abbott, Minneapolis, USA) was used for mapping and location of the His bundle while 3-dimensional mapping via the EnSite Precision system (Abbott Medical, Abbott Park, IL) was utilized to create a 3-dimensional geometry. The EnSite Precision system also mapped and recorded His bundle signal strengths and earliest ventricular activation or retrograde His bundle activation.

RESULTS

Three patients are presented and followed for 4-5 months. The ages ranged from 10 to 15 years with 1 male patient. Diagnoses including progressive atrioventricular block, alternating bundle branch block and atrioventricular canal defect with complete heart block. All patients received selective His-bundle pacing systems. The range in fluoroscopy time was 6.4 to 9.9 min with 5.64 mGy to 10.18 mGy. Stable lead thresholds, impedances and sensing were present at last follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

His bundle pacing in our 3 pediatric patients including one with altered His-bundle physiology (case 3 with atrioventricular canal defect) was successful with good short-term follow-up results.

His bundle pacing in a young child guided by electroanatomical mapping

Pediatric patients with complete congenital atrio-ventricular (AV) block are generally exposed to life-long dyssynchronous right ventricular (RV) pacing. His bundle pacing (HBP) is an alternative method of pacing that better restores physiological ventricular activation which could prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. We present a case of a 5-year-old child with complete AV block who underwent successful permanent HBP implantation. Three-dimensional electro-anatomical mapping system was used to facilitate the procedure and reduce the fluoroscopy time. There were no acute procedure-related complications, and electrical parameters were stable at short-term follow-up.

His Bundle and Left Bundle Pacing in Pediatrics and Congenital Heart Disease: A Single Center Experience

Long-term right ventricular pacing is associated with left ventricular dysfunction and cardiomyopathy, particularly in pediatric patients and those with congenital heart disease (CHD). Research has shown that pacing-induced cardiomyopathy can be reversed with nonselective or selective His bundle pacing in adults, however, the information available about the use of this type of therapy in pediatrics and CHD is scarce. We performed a retrospective chart review of all the cases of His or left bundle pacing at the University of Minnesota, division of Pediatric Cardiology from January of 2019 to April of 2020. Parametric data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Non-parametric data are presented as median value with interquartile ranges. Eight patients, ages 8 to 18 years (median of 11.5) and weight from 21.5 to 81.6 kg (median of 40 kg) underwent this procedure successfully. The most common structural heart disease was a repaired peri-membranous ventricular septal defect. Three patients (37.5%) had selective and three (37.5%) had nonselective His bundle pacing, and two patients (25%) had left bundle pacing. There were two cases of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and each had a 14% and 16% improvement of the ejection fraction after nonselective His bundle pacing. There were no procedural complications. Selective and nonselective His bundle, as well as left bundle pacing may be a feasible procedure in pediatric patients with and without CHD. This procedure may improve pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this population.