Future easy and physiological cardiac pacing

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.

Transvenous pacing implantation: techniques, tips, and lessons learned along the way

The right ventricular apex has been the traditional site for lead placement in veterinary patients who require permanent cardiac pacing therapy for atrioventricular block and sick sinus syndrome. Implantation of leads in this location is a straightforward procedure that most veterinary cardiologists perform routinely. Pacing at the right ventricular apex, however, has been demonstrated to have long-term deleterious effects on the left ventricular function in numerous patient populations and animal models. Alternative lead placement sites and pacing system configurations have been developed, and the purpose of this review article is not to review the literature or the decision-making process in selecting a specific pacing system but rather to share the experiences of our group with the use of alternative pacing implantation techniques for veterinary patients in need of permanent cardiac pacing.

Right ventricular septal pacing: Safety and efficacy in a long term follow up

AIM: To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the permanent high interventricular septal pacing in a long term follow up, as alternative to right ventricular apical pacing.

METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated: (1) 244 patients (74 ± 8 years; 169 men, 75 women) implanted with a single (132 pts) or dual chamber (112 pts) pacemaker (PM) with ventricular screw-in lead placed at the right ventricular high septal parahisian site (SEPTAL pacing); (2) 22 patients with permanent pacemaker and low percentage of pacing (< 20%) (NO pacing); (3) 33 patients with high percentage (> 80%) right ventricular apical pacing (RVA). All patients had a narrow spontaneous QRS (101 ± 14 ms). We evaluated New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, quality of life (QoL), 6 min walking test (6MWT) and left ventricular function (end-diastolic volume, LV-EDV; end-systolic volume, LV-ESV; ejection fraction, LV-EF) with 2D-echocardiography.

RESULTS: Pacing parameters were stable during follow up (21 mo/patient). In SEPTAL pacing group we observed an improvement in NYHA class, QoL score and 6MWT. While LV-EDV didn’t significantly increase (104 ± 40 mL vs 100 ± 37 mL; P = 0.35), LV-ESV slightly increased (55 ± 31 mL vs 49 ± 27 mL; P = 0.05) and LV-EF slightly decreased (49% ± 11% vs 53% ± 11%; P = 0.001) but never falling < 45%. In the RVA pacing control group we observed a worsening of NYHA class and an important reduction of LV-EF (from 56% ± 6% to 43% ± 9%, P < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION: Right ventricular permanent high septal pacing is safe and effective in a long term follow up evaluation; it could be a good alternative to the conventional RVA pacing in order to avoid its deleterious effects.

Atrial septal pacing in small dogs: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the feasibility of atrial septal pacing via a delivery catheter-guided small non-retracting helix pacing lead.

ANIMALS

Six healthy beagles (8.3-12.9 kg).

METHODS

Using single plane fluoroscopic guidance, Medtronic(®) 3830 SelectSecure leads were connected to the atrial septum via Medtronic® Attain Select® II standard 90 Left Heart delivery catheter. Pacing threshold and lead impedance were measured at implantation. The Wenckebach point was tested via atrial pacing up to 220 paced pulses per minute (ppm). Thoracic radiographs were performed following implantation to identify the lead position, and repeated at 24 h, 1 month, and 3 months post-operatively.

RESULTS

Macro-lead dislodgement occurred in two dogs at 24 h and in three dogs at one-month post-implantation. Lead impedance, measured at the time of implantation, ranged from 583 to 1421 Ω. The Wenckebach point was >220 ppm in four of the six dogs. The remaining two dogs had Wenckebach points of 120 and 190 ppm.

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study suggests the selected implantation technique and lead system were inadequate for secure placement in the atrial septum of these dogs. The possible reasons for inadequate stability include unsuitable lead design for this location, inadequate lead slack at the time of implantation and inadequate seating of the lead as evidenced by low impedance at the time of implantation. Other implantation techniques and/or pacing leads should be investigated to determine the optimal way of pacing the atria in small breed dogs that are prone to sinus node dysfunction.

Direct His bundle and paraHisian cardiac pacing

The success rate of direct His bundle pacing (DHBP) and paraHisian pacing has improved remarkably in the last 3-5 years with the advent of dedicated fixation systems that have reduced procedural duration, dislodgement rate, and fluoroscopy time. The methodology of DBHP remains still more complex than paraHisian pacing and is associated with high-pacing thresholds. Thus, DHBP entails greater battery current drain and reduced device longevity. A shift toward paraHisian pacing (which is fusion pacing of myocardium and His bundle) has occurred because its implementation is easier and the electrical parameters are superior to those of DBHP. Currently, an additional safety lead is inserted at the RV apex or outflow tract to prevent asystole, especially in patients with pure DHBP. It is often possible to avoid a safety lead with paraHisian pacing because ventricular pacing is virtually assured on a long-term basis via myocardial capture. DBHP and paraHisian pacing can be achieved in a substantial proportion of patients with varying grades of narrow QRS AV block or after AV junctional ablation and in some patients with the ECG manifestation of bundle branch block caused by an intraHisian lesion. Preliminary observations suggest that DHBP may be useful in some patients requiring cardiac resynchronization if it produces a narrow QRS complex because the site of an intraHisian lesion responsible for left bundle branch block is above the site of DHBP.

Assessment of ventricular pacing in the setting of an institutional improvement program: insights into physiological pacing

Background

Excessive ventricular pacing is known to be detrimental. The purpose of this study was to assess ventricular pacing in the setting of an institutional improvement program in order to decrease unnecessary pacing.

Method

This cross-sectional single-center study performed in a university hospital assessed 80 consecutive patients attending for a cardiac electronic device (pacemaker or cardioverter defibrillator) check. Forty percent of ventricular pacing was set as the cutoff level beyond which pacing was considered excessive.

Results

Three patients were excluded. Forty-six (59.7%) patients (group 1) had more than 40% ventricular pacing and 31 (40.3%) patients (group 2) showed ventricular pacing less than 41%. In group 1, corrective action was successful in 27 (58.7%) patients, but 19 (41.3%) continued to have ventricular pacing over 40% and were discussed accordingly. An improvement program was established at the institution in order to decrease unnecessary ventricular pacing.

Conclusion

Unnecessary ventricular pacing was encountered in many of the patients in this study, corrective actions were performed, and an institutional improvement project was set up as a consequence.