Comparison of automated subcutaneous defibrillator screening between different pacing sites in cardiac pacing device carriers

AIMS

The compatibility of cardiac pacing with the presence of a subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has been investigated, but S-ICD screening test results have not been compared among different pacing sites. The objective was to compare S-ICD screening results among different cardiac pacing sites and to assess the electrocardiographic predictors of success.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This prospective single-centre study conducted automated S-ICD screening in 102 carriers of cardiac pacing devices in conduction system (CSP), biventricular (BVP), right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), or right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing sites. The study included 102 patients: 40 with CSP (20 left bundle pacing and 20 His bundle pacing), 21 with BVP, and 20 and 21 with RVOT and RVA pacing, respectively. The percentage of positive screenings was significantly higher for CSP (97.5%) than for the other patient groups (BVP 71.4%, RVOT 70%, and RVA 19%). In multivariate analysis, positive screening was associated with a narrower QRS (OR 0.95 [0.92-0.98] P = 0.001) and higher R/T ratio in precordial leads (1.76 [1.18-2.61]).

CONCLUSION

A higher S-ICD eligibility rate of cardiac pacing device carriers was obtained in CSP than in conventional pacing (RVA or RVOT) or BVP. The presence of narrower paced QRS width and paced corrected QT interval and of higher R/T ratio in precordial and limb leads are electrocardiographic predictors of a positive response to screening.

High predictive value of paced QRS frequency in verification of left bundle branch pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a newer technique to deliver more synchronous left ventricular activation. Several criteria have been proposed, but not fully validated, to confirm LBBAP during implantation of the pacing lead. Spectral analysis has been used to characterize the frequency components of the clinical QRS utilizing the Fourier transform algorithm. We hypothesized that higher frequency content of the paced QRS complex may show predictive value of successful LBBAP.

METHODS

We evaluated 84 patients with ejection fraction > 50%, who underwent LBB lead placement (n = 42) using ≥ 1 current criteria and right ventricular midseptal (RVsp) lead placement (n = 42) from 2000 to 2022. Time frequency analysis (Matlab) was used to determine the frequency content of the paced QRS complex. The centroid frequency (CF), which is the weighted average QRS frequency, was calculated.

RESULTS

Patients in RVsp group had a longer paced QRS duration (155.6 ± 28.0 vs 127.1 ± 17.2, p < 0.002) compared to the LBBAP group. Of all standard ECG leads, the paced QRS in V2 gave the greatest difference of the CF of the LBBAP group at 8.8 ± 1.6 Hz versus 5.7 ± 0.7 Hz of the RVsp group. This difference was significant by both univariate (p < 0.003) and multivariate (p < 0.010) analysis. Predictive value of the CF for successful LBB pacing in lead V2 was highest with an AUC of 0.98. The sensitivity and specificity were 88.1% and 97.6%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Spectral analysis predicts successful LBBAP with higher frequency content when compared to RVsp pacing. Given the limitations to the current criteria to confirm LBBAP, intraprocedural use of frequency content analysis of the paced QRS complex in patients may prove useful at verifying LBB capture if verified by prospective clinical trials.

Computational Modelling Enabling In Silico Trials for Cardiac Physiologic Pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has the potential to achieve physiological-paced activation by pacing the ventricular conduction system. Before CSP is adopted in standard clinical practice, large, randomised, and multi-centre trials are required to investigate CSP safety and efficacy compared to standard biventricular pacing (BVP). Furthermore, there are unanswered questions about pacing thresholds required to achieve optimal pacing delivery while preventing device battery draining, and about which patient groups are more likely to benefit from CSP rather than BVP. In silico studies have been increasingly used to investigate mechanisms underlying changes in cardiac function in response to pathologies and treatment. In the context of CSP, they have been used to improve our understanding of conduction system capture to optimise CSP delivery and battery life, and noninvasively compare different pacing methods on different patient groups. In this review, we discuss the in silico studies published to date investigating different aspects of CSP delivery.

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: electrical treatment targets and mechanisms of action

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been developed as a treatment for patients with conduction system dysfunction and impairment of ventricular performance. The aim is to restore more physiological cardiac activation and thereby improve cardiac function, symptoms, and outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss potential electrical treatment targets for patients with heart failure and how these electrical treatment targets may determine the optimal pacing approach for delivering CRT.

EXPERT OPINION

The most well-established method for delivering CRT is biventricular pacing (BVP). BVP improves symptoms and reduces mortality in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, patients continue to suffer from heart failure symptoms and decompensations despite receiving BVP. There may be scope to deliver more effective CRT since BVP does not restore physiological ventricular activation. Furthermore, the results with BVP in patients with non-LBBB conduction system disease have been generally disappointing. Alternative pacing approaches to BVP are now available, including conduction system pacing and left ventricular endocardial pacing. These newer pacing approaches offer exciting potential to not only offer an alternative to coronary sinus lead implantation in the case of implant failure but to potentially deliver more effective treatment in LBBB and maybe even extend the indications for CRT beyond LBBB.

Conduction system pacing learning curve: Left bundle pacing compared to His bundle pacing

Introduction

Conduction system pacing (CSP), consisting of His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a rapidly developing field. These pacing techniques result in single lead left ventricular resynchronisation. Understanding of the associated learning curve of the two techniques is an important consideration for new implanters/implanting centres.

Methods

We conducted a review of the first 30 cases of both HBP and LBBAP at The Royal Brompton Hospital. The procedural duration and fluoroscopy time were used as surrogates for the learning curve of each technique.

Results

Patient characteristics were similar in HBP and LBBAP groups; LV ejection fraction (46% vs 54%, p = 0.08), pre-procedural QRS duration (119 ms vs 128 ms, p = 0.32).Mean procedural duration was shorter for LBBAP than for HBP (87 vs 107mins, p = 0.04) and the drop in procedural duration was more marked in LBBAP, plateauing and remaining low at 80mins after the initial 10 cases. Fluoroscopic screening time mirrored procedural duration (8 min vs 16 min, p < 0.01).

Discussion/Conclusion

Our data suggest that the CSP learning curve was shorter for LBBAP than for HBP and appears to plateaux after the first 10 cases, however the HBP learning curve is longer with continued improvement over the first 30 cases. The shorter learning curve of LBBAP in conjunction with the superior electrical parameters and simplified programming mean the establishment of a CSP program is potentially easier with LBBAP compared to with HBP.

Left bundle branch area pacing in congenital heart disease

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be effective and safe. Limited data are available on LBBAP in the congenital heart disease (CHD) population. This study aims to describe the feasibility and safety of LBBAP in CHD patients compared with non-CHD patients.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a single-centre, non-randomized observational study recruiting consecutive patients with bradycardia indication. Demographic data, ECGs, imaging, and procedural data including lead parameters were recorded. A total of 39 patients were included: CHD group (n = 13) and non-CHD group (n = 26). Congenital heart disease patients were younger (55 ± 14.5 years vs. 73.2 ± 13.1, P < 0.001). Acute success was achieved in all CHD patients and 96% (25/26) of non-CHD patients. No complications were encountered in either group. The procedural time for CHD patients was comparable (96.4 ± 54 vs. 82.1 ± 37.9 min, P = 0.356). Sheath reshaping was required in 7 of 13 CHD patients but only in 1 of 26 non-CHD patients, reflecting the complex and distorted anatomy of the patients in this group. Lead parameters were similar in both groups; R wave (11 ± 7 mV vs. 11.5 ± 7.5, P = 0.881) and pacing threshold (0.6 ± 0.3 V vs. 0.7 ± 0.3, P = 0.392). Baseline QRS duration was longer in the CHD group (150 ± 28.2 vs. 118.6 ± 26.6 ms, P = 0.002). Despite a numerically greater reduction in QRS and a similar left ventricular activation time (65.9 ± 6.2 vs. 67 ± 16.8 ms, P = 0.840), the QRS remained longer in the CHD group (135.5 ± 22.4 vs. 106.9 ± 24.7 ms, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Left bundle branch area pacing is feasible and safe in CHD patients as compared to that in non-CHD patients. Procedural and fluoroscopy times did not differ between both groups. Lead parameters were satisfactory and stable over a short-term follow-up.

Left Posterior Fascicular Pacing

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is emerging as an alternative to His bundle pacing that overcomes the latter’s limitations. Several studies have reported on the safety, efficacy, and electrophysiological properties of LBBP, while postoperative success rates range from 80.5% to 94%. The left posterior fascicle is composed of broad bands of fibers coursing inferiorly and posteriorly toward the papillary muscle, while the anterior fascicle is a thin, tendon-like structure. We report a case of a 70-year-old man in whom left posterior fascicular pacing was done after LBBP failed. We were able to demonstrate all the features of left posterior fascicular capture, including fascicular potential and a left anterior hemiblock pattern, using surface 12-lead electrocardiography. Left posterior fascicular pacing could be an alternative technique when attempts to deploy LBBP fail.

Mid-term feasibility, safety and outcomes of left bundle branch pacing-single center experience

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) has evolved as the most physiological form of pacing but associated with limitations. Recently, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is emerging as an effective alternative strategy for HBP.

OBJECTIVES

Our study was designed to assess the feasibility, efficacy, electrophysiological parameters, and mid-term outcomes of LBBP in Indian population.

METHODS

All patients requiring permanent pacemaker implantation for symptomatic bradycardia and heart failure were prospectively enrolled. Echocardiography, QRS duration, pacing parameters, left bundle (LB) potentials, paced QRS duration, and peak left ventricular activation time (pLVAT) were recorded.

RESULTS

LBBP was successful in 93 out of 99 patients (94% acute success). Mean age was 62.6 ± 13 years, male 59%, diabetes 69%, and coronary artery disease 65%. Follow-up duration was 4.8 months (range1-12 months). Indication for pacing included atrioventricular (AV) block 43%, cardiac resynchronization therapy 44%, and AV node ablation 4%. LB potential was noted in 37 patients (40%). QRS duration reduced from 144.38 ± 34.6 at baseline to 110.8 ± 12.4 ms after LBBP (p < 0.0001). Pacing threshold was 0.59 ± 0.22 V and sensed R wave 14.14 ± 7.19 mV, and it remained stable during follow-up. Lead depth in the septum was 9.62 mm. LV ejection fraction increased from 44.96 to 53.3% after LBBP (p < 0.0001). One died due to respiratory tract infection on follow up.

CONCLUSION

LBBP is a safe and effective strategy (94% acute success) of physiological pacing. The pacing parameters remained stable over a period of 12 months follow-up. LBBP can effectively overcome the limitations of HBP.

Selective left bundle branch pacing for pediatric complete heart block

Traditionally Right Ventricle has been the preferred site of pacing for the management of symptomatic brady-arrhythmias. The deleterious effect of chronic RV pacing has been shown by several studies. This has generated interest into a novel pacing strategy called physiological pacing wherein the His bundle or the left bundle is paced directly with 4.1 F pacing lead. Herewith we are reporting a case of congenital complete heart block in a 13-year-old child for whom selective left bundle branch pacing was done. This physiological pacing will ensure a synchronized contraction of the ventricles thereby avoiding the deleterious effect of RV pacing.

Impacts of Left Bundle/Peri-Left Bundle Pacing on Left Ventricular Contraction

BACKGROUND

His-bundle pacing is an emerging routine technique that avoids pacing-dependent side effects. However, the success rate of His-bundle pacing is not 100%.Methods and Results:Left bundle pacing or peri-left bundle pacing (LBP/peri-LBP) are recently developed techniques that directly capture the left bundle or ventricular tissue near the left bundle. We evaluated the success rate of LBP/peri-LBP in patients whose treatment with His-bundle pacing failed. In addition, we evaluated left ventricular contraction and desynchrony after LBP/peri-LBP.

CONCLUSIONS

LBP/peri-LBP is an alternative ventricular pacing method in atrioventricular block in patients with failure of His-bundle pacing.