Programmed His Bundle Pacing: A Novel Maneuver for the Diagnosis of His Bundle Capture

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.

The evolving state of cardiac resynchronization therapy and conduction system pacing: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was proposed in the 1990s as a new therapy for patients with heart failure and wide QRS with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction despite optimal medical treatment. This review is aimed first to describe the rationale and the physiologic effects of CRT. The journey of the landmark randomized trials leading to the adoption of CRT in the guidelines since 2005 is also reported showing the high level of evidence for CRT. Different alternative pacing modalities of CRT to conventional left ventricular pacing through the coronary sinus have been proposed to increase the response rate to CRT such as multisite pacing and endocardial pacing. A new emerging alternative technique to conventional biventricular pacing, conduction system pacing (CSP), is a promising therapy. The different modalities of CSP are described (Hirs pacing and left bundle branch area pacing). This new technique has to be evaluated in clinical randomized trials before implementation in the guidelines with a high level of evidence.

Conduction System Pacing Today and Tomorrow

Conduction system pacing (CSP) encompassing His bundle (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is gaining increasing attention in the electrophysiology community. These relatively novel physiological pacing modalities have the potential to outperform conventional pacing approaches with respect to clinical endpoints, although data are currently still limited. While HBP represents the most physiological form of cardiac stimulation, success rates, bundle branch correction, and electrical lead performance over time remain a concern. LBBAP systems may overcome these limitations. In this review article, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence, implantation technique, device programming, and follow-up considerations concerning CSP systems. Moreover, we discuss ongoing technical developments and future perspectives of CSP.

Physiologic Differentiation Between Selective His Bundle, Nonselective His Bundle and Septal Pacing

His bundle (HB) pacing is an increasingly popular method of physiologic ventricular pacing. The electrocardiographic hallmark of physiologic pacing is the preservation or restoration of physiologic activation times in the left ventricle-a principle of paramount diagnostic importance. The current review focuses on the differentiation between 3 possible capture types when the pacing lead is placed in the HB region: selective HB capture when only HB is activated, nonselective HB capture when there is simultaneous activation of the adjacent right ventricular septal (RVS) myocardium, and selective RVS capture when HB is not activated at all but only septal myocardium.

His bundle pacing guided by automated intrinsic morphology matching is feasible in patients with narrow QRS complexes

Pace mapping and visual comparison of the local pacing response with the intrinsic QRS morphology form the mainstay of His bundle pacing (HBP). We evaluated the performance of a surface lead morphology match algorithm for automated classification of the pacing response in patients with narrow intrinsic QRS undergoing electroanatomic mapping (EAM)-guided HBP. HBP was attempted in 43 patients. In 28 cases with narrow QRS, the EnSite AutoMap Module was used for automated assessment of the QRS morphology resulting from pace mapping in the His cloud area with either a diagnostic catheter or the His lead. An intrinsic morphology match score (IMS) was calculated for 1.546 QRS complexes and assessed regarding its accuracy and performance in classifying the individual pacing response as either selective HBP (S-HBP), nonselective HBP (NS-HBP) or right ventricular stimulation. Automated morphology comparison of 354 intrinsic beats with the individual reference determined a test accuracy of 99% (95% CI 98.96–99.04) and a precision of 97.99–99.5%. For His-lead stimulation, an IMS ≥ 89% identified S-HBP with a sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.98, 1.00). An IMS between 78 and < 89% indicated NS-HBP with a sensitivity and specificity of 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) and 0.99 (0.98, 1.00), respectively. IMS represents a new automated measure for standardized individual morphology classification in patients with normal QRS undergoing EAM-guided HBP.

Clinical trial registration: NCT04416958.

ECG and Pacing Criteria for Differentiating Conduction System Pacing from Myocardial Pacing

During His-Purkinje conduction system (HPS) pacing, it is crucial to confirm capture of the His bundle or left bundle branch versus myocardialonly capture. For this, several methods and criteria for differentiation between non-selective (ns) capture - capture of the HPS and the adjacent myocardium - and myocardial-only capture were developed. HPS capture results in faster and more homogenous depolarisation of the left ventricle than right ventricular septal (RVS) myocardial-only capture. Specifically, the depolarisation of the left ventricle (LV) does not require slow cell-to-cell spread of activation from the right side to the left side of the interventricular septum but begins simultaneously with QRS onset as in native depolarisation. These phenomena greatly influence QRS complex morphology and form the basis of electrocardiographic differentiation between HPS and myocardial paced QRS. Moreover, the HPS and the working myocardium are different tissues within the heart muscle that vary not only in conduction velocities but also in refractoriness and capture thresholds. These last two differences can be exploited for the diagnosis of HPS capture using dynamic pacing manoeuvres, namely differential output pacing, programmed stimulation and burst pacing. This review summarises current knowledge of this subject.

Novel approach to diagnosis of His bundle capture using individualized left ventricular lateral wall activation time as reference

BACKGROUND

During nonselective His bundle (HB) pacing, it is clinically important to confirm His bundle capture versus right ventricular septal (RVS) capture. The present study aimed to validate the hypothesis that during HB capture, left ventricular lateral wall activation time, approximated by the V₆ R-wave peak time (V₆ RWPT), will not be longer than the corresponding activation time during native conduction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with permanent HB pacing were recruited; cases with abnormal His-ventricle interval or left bundle branch block were excluded. Two corresponding intervals were compared: stimulus-V₆ RWPT and native HB potential-V₆ RWPT. The difference between these two intervals (delta V₆ RWPT), which was diagnostic of lack of HB capture, was identified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 723 electrocardiograms (ECGs) (219 with native rhythm, 172 with selective HB, 215 with nonselective HB, and 117 with RVS capture) were obtained from 219 patients. The native HB-V₆ RWPT, nonselective-, and selective-HB paced V₆ RWPT were nearly equal, while RVS V₆ RWPT was 32.0 (±9.5) ms longer. The ROC curve analysis indicated delta V₆ RWPT > 12 ms as diagnostic of lack of HB capture (specificity of 99.1% and sensitivity of 100%). A blinded observer correctly diagnosed 96.7% (321/332) of ECGs using this criterion.

CONCLUSIONS

We validated a novel criterion for HB capture that is based on the physiological left ventricular activation time as an individualized reference. HB capture can be diagnosed when paced V₆ RWPT does not exceed the value obtained during native conduction by more than 12 ms, while longer paced V₆ RWPT indicates RVS capture.

Is His-optimized superior to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy in improving heart failure? Results from a propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP), alone or optimized in association with coronary sinus pacing (HBP+LV) has recently been proposed as an alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, there is lack of controlled studies that assessed clinical outcome.

METHODS

We did a single-center, propensity-score matched, case-control study of comparison of HBP and HBP+LV versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure (HF) and standard indications for CRT. The study group patients were consecutively enrolled in the year 2019. The control group patients were selected, by propensity score matching, among those CRT implantations performed in the years 2015-2018.

RESULTS

There were 27 patients in each group. In the active group, 12 (44%) patients received HBP alone and 12 (44%) patients HBP+LV pacing. HBP failed in three (11%) patients. In the control group, conventional CRT was achieved in 26 (96%) patients and failed in one. Paced QRS width was shorter in the active than in the control group (128 ± 18 vs. 148 ± 27 ms, p = .004). During a mean of 9.6 months of follow-up, a composite clinical outcome of death, hospitalization for HF or worsening HF occurred in three (11%) in the active group and in four (15%) in the control group, p = .58. No difference was also observed with softer endpoints: NYHA class (1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.1 ± 0.7), subjective improvement (74% vs. 74%) and LV ejection fraction (40.7% vs. 40.7%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional CRT, a shorter QRS width can be obtained with HBP alone or in association with coronary sinus pacing but we were unable to show a better clinical outcome. There is urgent need for large, randomized trials.

A simple and practical criterion for determining a failed His-bundle pacing

AIMS

To establish a simple criterion for determining a failed His-bundle pacing (HBP). This criterion states that if stimulus to QRS end interval is longer than His-bundle potential to QRS end interval ('S-QRSend > H-QRSend') then a failed HBP can be determined.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We performed retrospective analysis on 737 pacing tests around His-bundle in 241 patients and prospective analysis on 400 tests in 123 patients. A successful HBP is defined as that whole His-bundle is captured with or without capture of adjacent ventricular myocardium, otherwise, a failed HBP was considered. The output criteria and effective refractory period criteria were used as the gold standards for determining a successful HBP. The gold standards are that if decreasing the pacing output or pacing cycle length to a certain level results in duration or morphology changes of QRS, then a successful HBP is ascertained. In retrospective analysis of patients with normal His-Purkinje conduction, a failed HBP was determined in 31% (154/492) of pacing tests according to 'S-QRSend > H-QRSend'; all of them were validated by the gold standards (specificity = 100%). In prospective study, a failed HBP was confirmed according to the simple criterion with 100% accuracy in 33% (79/241) pacing tests. This simple criterion was also suitable for patients with His-Purkinje conduction disease although cases with 'S-QRSend > H-QRSend' rarely occurred.

CONCLUSION

A failed HBP can be easily and reliably determined solely by 'S-QRSend > H-QRSend' in more than 30% pacing tests.

Impact of His bundle pacing on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND

His-Bundle pacing (HBP) is an emerging technique for physiological pacing. However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for pacemaker (PM) implantation to compare HBP versus RV pacing (RVP) effects on RV performance. Patients were evaluated before implantation and after 6 months by a transthoracic echocardiogram.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients (age 75.1±7.9 years, 64% male) were enrolled, 42 patients (50%) underwent successful HBP, and 42 patients (50%) apical RVP. At follow up, we found a significant improvement in RV-FAC (Fractional Area Change)% [baseline: HBP 34 IQR (31-37) vs. RVP 33 IQR (29.7-37.2),p = .602; 6-months: HBP 37 IQR (33-39) vs. RVP 30 IQR (27.7-35), p < .0001] and RV-GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)% [baseline: HBP -18 IQR (-20.2 to -15) vs. RVP -16 IQR (-18.7 to -14), p = .150; 6-months: HBP -20 IQR(-23 to -17) vs. RVP -13.5 IQR (-16 to -11), p < .0001] with HBP whereas RVP was associated with a significant decline in both parameters. RVP was also associated with a significant worsening of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (p < .0001) and S wave velocity (p < .0001) at follow up. Conversely from RVP, HBP significantly improved pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) [baseline: HBP 38 IQR (32-42) mmHg vs. RVP 34 IQR (31.5-37) mmHg,p = .060; 6-months: HBP 32 IQR (26-38) mmHg vs. RVP 39 IQR (36-41) mmHg, p < .0001] and tricuspid regurgitation (p = .005) irrespectively from lead position above or below the tricuspid valve.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PM implantation, HBP ensues a beneficial and protective impact on RV performance compared with RVP.

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.

His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing: State of the Art in 2020

Conduction system pacing involves directly stimulating the specialised His-Purkinje cardiac conduction system with the aim of activating the ventricles physiologically, in contrast to the dyssynchronous activation produced by conventional myocardial pacing. Since the first report of permanent His bundle pacing (HBP) in 2000, the stylet-driven technique of its earliest incarnation has been superseded by a more successful stylet-less approach. Widespread uptake has led to a much greater evidence base. Single-centre observational studies have now been supported by large multicentre, international registries, mechanistic studies and the first randomised controlled trials. New evidence has elucidated mechanisms of HBP and illustrated the nature and magnitude of its potential benefits for preventing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and correcting bundle branch block. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a newer technique in which the lead is fixed deep into the left side of the intraventricular septum to allow capture of the left bundle, distal to the His bundle. LBBP holds promise as a method for physiological pacing that overcomes some of the fixation, threshold and sensing challenges of HBP. In this state-of-the-art review of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing, the authors assess recent evidence and current practice and explore emerging and future directions in this rapidly evolving field.

Discriminating electrocardiographic responses to His-bundle pacing using machine learning

BACKGROUND

His-bundle pacing (HBP) has emerged as an alternative to conventional ventricular pacing because of its ability to deliver physiological ventricular activation. Pacing at the His bundle produces different electrocardiographic (ECG) responses: selective His-bundle pacing (S-HBP), non-selective His bundle pacing (NS-HBP), and myocardium-only capture (MOC). These 3 capture types must be distinguished from each other, which can be challenging and time-consuming even for experts.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to use artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of supervised machine learning using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to automate HBP ECG interpretation.

METHODS

We identified patients who had undergone HBP and extracted raw 12-lead ECG data during S-HBP, NS-HBP, and MOC. A CNN was trained, using 3-fold cross-validation, on 75% of the segmented QRS complexes labeled with their capture type. The remaining 25% was kept aside as a testing dataset.

RESULTS

The CNN was trained with 1297 QRS complexes from 59 patients. Cohen kappa for the neural network's performance on the 17-patient testing set was 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.88; P <.0001), with an overall accuracy of 75%. The CNN's accuracy in the 17-patient testing set was 67% for S-HBP, 71% for NS-HBP, and 84% for MOC.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated proof of concept that a neural network can be trained to automate discrimination between HBP ECG responses. When a larger dataset is trained to higher accuracy, automated AI ECG analysis could facilitate HBP implantation and follow-up and prevent complications resulting from incorrect HBP ECG analysis.

Implantation technique of His bundle pacing

His bundle pacing (HBP) preserves physiological ventricular synchrony, with clinical benefits particularly evident when a high percentage of ventricular pacing is required. First experiences with standard leads and manually shaped stylets produced the impression that HBP is highly complex and time-consuming. However, with dedicated leads and sheaths, reliable HBP can be achieved in routine clinical practice. Implantation success in more than 90% of patients can be reached with current technology and has been shown to be reliable and effective, both at implantation and during long-term follow-up. At the same time, fluoroscopy and total procedural time can be reduced. New customized technologies will continue to improve the implant success rate and system performance. Large randomized trials will prove the long-term clinical benefits of HBP definitively and may render HBP the first choice in patients requiring ventricular pacing.

Programmed deep septal stimulation: A novel maneuver for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture during permanent pacing

INTRODUCTION

Permanent deep septal stimulation with capture of the left bundle branch (LBB) enables maintenance/restoration of the physiological activation of the left ventricle. However, it is almost always accompanied by the simultaneous engagement of the local septal myocardium, resulting in a fused (nonselective) QRS complex, therefore, confirmation of LBB capture remains difficult.

METHODS

We hypothesized that programmed extrastimulus technique can differentiate nonselective LBB capture from myocardial-only capture as the effective refractory period (ERP) of the myocardium is different from the ERP of the LBB. Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation underwent programmed stimulation delivered from the lead implanted in a deep septal position. Responses to programmed stimulation were categorized on the basis of sudden change in the QRS morphology of the extrastimuli, observed when ERP of LBB or myocardium was encroached upon, as: "myocardial," "selective LBB," or nondiagnostic (unequivocal change of QRS morphology).

RESULTS

Programmed deep septal stimulation was performed 269 times in 143 patients; in every patient with the use of a basic drive train of 600 milliseconds and in 126 patients also during intrinsic rhythm. The average septal-myocardial refractory period was shorter than the LBB refractory period: 263.0 ± 34.4 vs 318.0 ± 37.4 milliseconds. Responses diagnostic for LBB capture ("myocardial" or "selective LBB") were observed in 114 (79.7%) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel maneuver for the confirmation of LBB capture during deep septal stimulation was developed and found to enable definitive diagnosis by visualization of both components of the paced QRS complex: selective paced LBB QRS and myocardial-only paced QRS.

His Bundle Pacing – Why Should You be Doing it?

Collapse