AV-optimized conduction system pacing for treatment of AV dromotropathy: A randomized, cross-over study

BACKGROUND

Severe first-degree atrioventricular (AV) block may produce symptoms similar to heart failure due to AV dyssynchrony, a syndrome termed AV dromotropathy. According to guidelines, it should be considered for permanent pacemaker implantation, yet evidence supporting this treatment is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the impact of AV-optimized conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients with symptomatic severe first-degree AV block and echocardiographic signs of AV dyssynchrony.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic first-degree AV block (PR > 250 ms), preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, narrow QRS, and AV dyssynchrony were included in the study. In a single-blind cross-over design, patients were randomized to AV sequential CSP or backup VVI pacing with a base rate of 40 bpm. We compared exercise capacity, echocardiographic parameters, and symptom occurrence at the end of 3 months of each period.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients completed the study. During the AV-optimized CSP compared to the backup pacing period, patients achieved a higher workload on exercise test (147.2 ± 50.9 vs. 140.7 ± 55.8 W; p = .032), with a trend towards higher peak VO2 (23.3 ± 7.1 vs. 22.8 ± 7.1 mL/min/kg; p = .224), and higher left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV 74.5 ± 13.8 vs. 66.4 ± 12.5 mL; p < .001). Symptomatic improvement was recorded, with fewer patients reporting general tiredness and 71% of patients preferring the AV-optimized CSP (p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

AV-optimized CSP could improve symptoms, exercise capacity and LVSV in patients with severe first-degree AV block.

A porcine large animal model of radiofrequency ablation-induced left bundle branch block

Background

Electrocardiographic (ECG) features of left bundle branch (LBB) block (LBBB) can be observed in up to 20%-30% of patients suffering from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, predicting which LBBB patients will benefit from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) or conduction system pacing remains challenging. This study aimed to establish a translational model of LBBB to enhance our understanding of its pathophysiology and improve therapeutic approaches.

Methods

Fourteen male pigs underwent radiofrequency catheter ablation of the proximal LBB under fluoroscopy and ECG guidance. Comprehensive clinical assessments (12-lead ECG, bloodsampling, echocardiography, electroanatomical mapping) were conducted before LBBB induction, after 7, and 21 days. Three pigs received CRT pacemakers 7 days after LBB ablation to assess resynchronization feasibility.

Results

Following proximal LBB ablation, ECGs displayed characteristic LBBB features, including QRS widening, slurring in left lateral leads, and QRS axis changes. QRS duration increased from 64.2 ± 4.2 ms to 86.6 ± 12.1 ms, and R wave peak time in V6 extended from 21.3 ± 3.6 ms to 45.7 ± 12.6 ms. Echocardiography confirmed cardiac electromechanical dyssynchrony, with septal flash appearance, prolonged septal-to-posterior-wall motion delay, and extended ventricular electromechanical delays. Electroanatomical mapping revealed a left ventricular breakthrough site shift and significantly prolonged left ventricular activation times. RF-induced LBBB persisted for 3 weeks. CRT reduced QRS duration to 75.9 ± 8.6 ms, demonstrating successful resynchronization.

Conclusion

This porcine model accurately replicates the electrical and electromechanical characteristics of LBBB observed in patients. It provides a practical, cost-effective, and reproducible platform to investigate molecular and translational aspects of cardiac electromechanical dyssynchrony in a controlled and clinically relevant setting.

"Ablate and Pace" with Conduction System Pacing: Concomitant versus Delayed Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Objectives: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve the outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). In this setting, AVJA can be performed simultaneously with implantation or in a second procedure a few weeks after implantation. Comparison data on these two alternative strategies are lacking. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, observational study enrolled consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing CSP and AVJA performed in a single procedure or in two separate procedures. Data on the long-term outcomes and healthcare resource utilization were prospectively collected. Results: A total of 147 patients were enrolled: for 105 patients, CSP implantation and AVJA were performed simultaneously (concomitant AVJA); in 42, AVJA was performed in a second procedure, with a mean of 28.8 ± 19.3 days from implantation (delayed AVJA). After a mean follow-up of 12 months, the rate of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups (3.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.666). Concomitant AVJA was associated with a lower number of procedure-related hospitalizations per patient (1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 2.0 ± 0.3; p < 0.001) and with a lower number of hospital treatment days per patient (4.7 ± 1.8 vs. 7.4 ± 1.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Concomitant AVJA resulted as being as safe as delayed AVJA and was associated with a lower utilization of healthcare resources.

Enhancing Cardiac Pacing Strategies: A Review of Conduction System Pacing Compared to Right and Biventricular Pacing and their influence on myocardial function

Traditional right ventricular pacing has been linked to the deterioration of both left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. This worsening often culminates in elevated rates of hospitalization due to heart failure, an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, and increased morbidity. While biventricular pacing has demonstrated clinical and echocardiographic improvements in patients afflicted with heart failure and left bundle branch block, it has also encountered significant challenges, such as a notable portion of non-responders and procedural failures attributed to anatomical complexities. In recent time, the interest has shifted towards conduction system pacing, initially His bundle pacing and more recently left bundle branch area pacing, as promising alternatives to the established methods. In contrast to other approaches, conduction system pacing offers the advantage of fostering more physiological and harmonized ventricular activation by directly stimulating the His-Purkinje network. This direct pacing results in a more synchronized systolic and diastolic function of left ventricle compared to right ventricular pacing and biventricular pacing. Of particular note is conduction system pacing's capacity to yield shorter QRS, conserve left ventricular ejection fraction, and reduced rates of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation when compared to right ventricular pacing. The efficacy of conduction system pacing has also been found to have better clinical and echocardiographic improvement than biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization. This review will delve into myocardial function in conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing and biventricular pacing.

Prognostic benefits of His-Purkinje capture in physiological pacemakers for bradycardia

INTRODUCTION

Clinical outcomes of long-term ventricular septal pacing (VSP) without His-Purkinje capture remain unknown. This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes between conduction system pacing (CSP), VSP, and right ventricular pacing (RVP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with bradycardia indicated for pacing from 2016 to 2022 were prospectively followed for the clinical endpoints of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations and all-cause mortality at 2 years. VSP was defined as septal pacing due to unsuccessful CSP implant or successful CSP followed by loss of His-Purkinje capture within 90 days.

RESULTS

Among 1016 patients (age 73.9 ± 11.2 years, 47% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 612 received RVP, 335 received CSP and 69 received VSP. Paced QRS duration was similar between VSP and RVP, but both significantly longer than CSP (p < .05). HF-hospitalizations occurred in 130 (13%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 16% vs. VSP 13%, p = .001), and all-cause mortality in 143 (14%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 19% vs. VSP 9%, p < .001). The association of pacing modality with clinical events was limited to those with ventricular pacing (Vp) > 20% (pinteraction < .05). Adjusting for clinical risk factors among patients with Vp > 20%, VSP (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 4.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-14.36) and RVP (AHR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.44-6.60) were associated with increased hazard of HF-hospitalizations, and RVP (2.52, 95% CI: 1.19-5.35) with increased mortality, compared to CSP. Clinical endpoints did not differ between VSP and RVP with Vp > 20%, or amongst groups with Vp < 20%.

CONCLUSION

Conduction system capture is associated with improved clinical outcomes. CSP should be preferred over VSP or RVP during pacing for bradycardia.

Assessing Torque Transfer in Conduction System Pacing: Development and Evaluation of an Ex Vivo Model

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) faces challenges in achieving reliable and safe deployments. Complex interactions between tissue and lead tip can result in endocardial entanglement, a drill effect that prevents penetration. No verified ex vivo model exists to quantitatively assess this relationship.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively characterize CSP lead tip to tissue responses for 4 commonly used leads.

METHODS

CSP leads (from Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Abbott) were examined for helix rotation efficiency in ex vivo ovine right ventricular septa. A custom jig was utilized for rotation measurements. Fifteen turns were executed, documenting tissue-interface changes every 90° using high-resolution photography. Response curves (input rotation vs helix rotation) were evaluated using piecewise linear regression, with a focus on output vs input response slopes and torque breakpoint events.

RESULTS

We analyzed 3,840 quarter-turn CSP insertions with 4 different lead types. Helix rotations were consistently less than input: Abbott Tendril = 0.21:1, Medtronic 3830 = 0.21:1, Biotronik Solia = 0.47:1, and Boston Scientific Ingevity = 0.56:1. Torque breakpoint events were observed on average 7.22 times per insertion (95% CI: 6.08-8.35; P = NS) across all leads. In 57.8% of insertions (37 of 64), uncontrolled torque breakpoint events occurred, signaling unexpected excess helix rotations.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a robust ex vivo model, we revealed a muted helix rotation response compared with input turns on the lead, and frequent torque change events during insertion. This is critical for CSP implanters, emphasizing the potential for unexpected torque breakpoint events, and suggesting the need for novel lead designs or deployment methods to enhance CSP efficiency and safety.

Single operator experience, learning curve, outcomes, and insights gained with conduction system pacing

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is increasingly utilized to prevent and correct dyssynchrony. Barriers to CSP adoption include limited training, methodologic variability, laboratory slot allocation, and few data on learning curves. We report learning curves/clinical outcomes from a single experienced electrophysiologist who was new to CSP, and share gained insights.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent attempted CSP implantation (2016-2023). Patient characteristics, ECGs, echocardiograms, fluoroscopy/procedure times, lead data were recorded at implant and follow-up.

RESULTS

CSP leads were implanted successfully in 167/191(87.4%) patients with a follow-up of 278 ± 378 days. His-bundle pacing (HBP = 59) and left-bundle-area pacing (LBAP = 108) had similar procedure/fluoroscopy times, QRS duration decreases, and ejection fraction improvements (all p > NS). Eight HBP lead revisions were required for high capture thresholds LBAP demonstrated lower pacing thresholds, higher lead impedances, and greater R-wave amplitudes at implant and follow-up. After 25 HBP cases, implant pacing thresholds, fluoroscopy, procedural times did not decrease. After 25 LBAP cases, there were significant decreases in all these parameters (p < 0.05). A separate analysis in LBAP patients with recorded Purkinje signals showed no differences in paced ECG characteristics between patients with pre- QRS Purkinje signals versus patients with Purkinje signals post-QRS onset.

CONCLUSIONS

Experienced implanters who are new to CSP can achieve steady-state procedural/fluoroscopy times after a learning curve of 25 implants. LBAP showed lower capture thresholds and higher success rates. Adequate depth of lead deployment (as determined by published parameters) does not require Purkinje potential to be pre-QRS. Operators new to CSP.can forego HBP and directly implement LBAP.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Left Ventricular Septal Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are considered to be acceptable as LBBAP strategies. Differences in clinical outcomes between LBBP and LVSP are yet to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of LBBP vs LVSP vs BIVP for CRT.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter observational study, LBBP was compared with LVSP and BIVP in patients undergoing CRT. The primary composite outcome was freedom from heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, postprocedural NYHA functional class, and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 415 patients were included (LBBP: n = 141; LVSP: n = 31; BIVP: n = 243), with a median follow-up of 399 days (Q1-Q3: 249.5-554.8 days). Freedom from the primary composite outcomes was 76.6% in the LBBP group and 48.4% in the LVSP group (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.143-1.649; P = 0.001), driven by a 31.4% absolute increase in freedom from HF-related hospitalizations (83% vs 51.6%; HR: 3.55; 95% CI: 1.856-6.791; P < 0.001) without differences in all-cause mortality. LBBP was also associated with a higher freedom from the primary composite outcome compared with BIVP (HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.175-1.730; P < 0.001), with no difference between LVSP and BIVP.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing CRT, LBBP was associated with improved outcomes compared with LVSP and BIVP, while outcomes between BIVP and LVSP are similar.

A case of exaggerated exuberance: Iatrogenic atrioventricular block/intra-Hisian Wenckebach during conduction system pacing

Isolated sinus node dysfunction with its pursuant long-term risk for atrioventricular (AV) conduction disease poses a unique dilemma for proponents of CSP due to paucity of imprimatur guidelines. In such scenarios, the risk and prognosis of iatrogenic AV block is not well elucidated but is a valid concern. We report a case where CSP was complicated by iatrogenic AV block and peculiarly the rare phenomenon of intra-Hisian Wenckebach.

Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing

Cardiac pacing to treat bradyarrhythmias has evolved in recent decades. Recognition that a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients can develop heart failure due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from traditional right ventricular apical pacing has led to development of more physiologic pacing methods that better mimic normal cardiac conduction and provide synchronized ventricular contraction. Conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease but can be limited by scarring and fibrosis. His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing are novel techniques that can provide more physiologic ventricular activation as an alternative to conventional or biventricular pacing. Leadless pacing has emerged as another alternative pacing technique to overcome limitations in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Our objective is to review the evolution of cardiac pacing and explore these new advances in pacing strategies.

Feasibility of Conduction System Pacing in Patients with Baseline Bundle Branch Block-A Single-Center Mid-Term Follow-Up Study

BACKGROUND

The primary prerequisite for a successful conduction system pacing (CSP) procedure is the integrity of the conduction system, which may be impaired if a baseline bundle branch block (BBB) is present. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and mid-term performance of permanent CSP in patients with baseline BBB and to compare the results between left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB) patterns.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 101 patients with typical BBB and an attempt at CSP were retrospectively reviewed. Procedural characteristics, pacing, sensing parameters, and complications at baseline and after a mid-term follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

The global procedural success for CSP was 93%. His bundle pacing (HBP) had a significantly lower success rate than left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) (50.5% vs. 86%). The paced QRS duration was significantly narrower with HBP. The pacing and sensing thresholds were significantly better with LBBAP. Procedural complications occurred only in the LBBAP group (two acute perforations in the LV cavity and one acute chest pain during lead fixation) without long-term sequelae. The HBP and the LBBAP procedural success rates were higher in the RBBB versus the LBBB group (62.5% vs. 44.9% and 100% vs. 81.5%, respectively). Baseline QRS duration, atrial volumes, and right ventricular diameters were significantly associated with HBP procedural failure. The follow-up pacing and sensing thresholds were similar to the baseline values for all pacing methods and BBB morphology. Only one device-related complication leading to pacing interruption was recorded.

CONCLUSION

In patients with bundle branch blocks, CSP is a feasible procedure associated with a high success rate, stable pacing and sensing parameters, and low complication rates over a mid-term follow-up.

Left bundle branch pacing versus left ventricular septal pacing as a primary procedural endpoint during left bundle branch area pacing: Evaluation of two different implant strategies

INTRODUCTION

Implant procedure features and clinical implications of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) have not been yet fully described. We sought to compare two different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implant strategies: the first one accepting LVSP as a procedural endpoint and the second one aiming at achieving LBBP in every patient in spite of evidence of previous LVSP criteria.

METHODS

LVSP was accepted as a procedural endpoint in 162 consecutive patients (LVSP strategy group). In a second phase, LBBP was attempted in every patient in spite of achieving previous LVSP criteria (n = 161, LBBP strategy group). Baseline patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up data were compared.

RESULTS

The final capture pattern was LBBP in 71.4% and LVSP in 24.2% in the LBBP strategy group compared to 42.7% and 50%, respectively, in the LVSP strategy group. One hundred and eighty-four patients (57%) had proven LBB capture criteria with a significantly shorter paced QRS duration than the 120 patients (37%) with LVSP criteria (115 ± 9 vs. 121 ± 13 ms, p < .001). Implant parameters were comparable between the two strategies but the LBBP strategy resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p = .026) without any clinical sequelae. Patients with CRT indications significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow-up irrespective of the capture pattern (from 35 ± 11% to 45 ± 14% in proven LBBP, p = .024; and from 39 ± 13% to 47 ± 12% for LVSP, p = .003). The presence of structural heart disease and baseline LBBB independently predicted unsuccessful LBB capture.

CONCLUSION

The LBBP strategy was associated with comparable implant parameters than the LVSP strategy but resulted in higher rates of septal perforation. Proven LBB capture and LVSP showed comparable effects on LVEF during follow-up.

Spontaneous Sinus Rhythm Restoration in Patients With Refractory, Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Who Underwent Conduction System Pacing and Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Ablate and pace (A&P) with conduction system pacing (CSP) improves outcomes in patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). Data on spontaneous sinus rhythm restoration (SSRR) in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to assess the incidence and the predictors of SSRR in a population of patients with permanent AF who underwent A&P with CSP. Prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic permanent AF (of documented duration >6 months) and uncontrolled, drug-refractory high ventricular rate, who underwent A&P with CSP. The incidence and predictors of SSRR were prospectively assessed. A total of 107 patients (79.0 ± 9.1 years, 33.6% male, 74.8% with New York Heart Association class ≥III, 56.1% with ejection fraction <40%) were enrolled: 40 received His' bundle pacing, 67 left bundle branch area pacing. During a median follow-up of 12 months SSRR was observed in 14 patients (13.1%), occurring a median of 3 months after A&P (interquartile range 1 to 6; range 0 to 17). Multivariable analysis identified a duration of permanent AF <12 months (hazard ratio 7.7, p = 0.040) and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 (hazard ratio 14.8, p = 0.008) as independent predictors of SSRR. In patients with coexistence of both predictors the incidence of SSRR was of 41.4%. In a population of patients with symptomatic, permanent AF, treated with A&P with CSP, SSRR was observed in 13% of patients during follow-up. A duration of permanent AF <12 months and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 were independent predictors of this phenomenon.

Superior approach from the pocket for atrioventricular junction ablation performed at the time of conduction system pacing implantation

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Superior approach (SA) from the pocket via axillary or subclavian vein has been proposed as an alternative to the conventional femoral venous access (FA) to perform AVJA.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and safety of SA for AVJA performed simultaneously with CSP, and to compare this approach with FA.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing simultaneous CSP and AVJA.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were enrolled: in 50, AVJA was primarily attempted with SA, in 69 from FA. AVJA with SA was successful in 38 patients (76.0%), while in 12 patients, a subsequent FA was required. AVJA from FA was successful in 68 patients (98.5%), while in one patient, a left-sided approach via femoral artery was required. Compared with FA, SA was associated with a significantly longer duration of ablation (238.0 ± 218.2 vs. 161.9 ± 181.9 s; p = .035), a significantly shorter procedure time (28.1 ± 19.8 vs. 19.8 ± 16.8 min; p = .018), an earlier ambulation (2.7 ± 3.2 vs. 19.8 ± 0.1 h; p < .001), and an earlier discharge from procedure completion (24.0 ± 2.7 vs. 27.1 ± 5.1 h; p < .001). After a median follow-up of 12 months, the rate of complications was similar in the two groups (2.0% in SA, 4.3% in FA; p = .483).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous CSP and AVJA with SA is feasible, with a safety profile similar to FA. Compared to FA, this approach reduces the procedure times and allows earlier ambulation and discharge.

Conduction System Pacing: Have We Finally Found the Holy Grail of Physiological Pacing?

The late fifties are considered a high point in the history of cardiac pacing, since this era is marked by the first pacemaker implantation, which has since evolved into life-saving therapy. Right ventricular apical and biventricular pacing are the classic techniques that are recommended as first-l ine approaches for most indications in current guidelines. However, conduction system pacing has emerged as being able to deliver a more physiological form of pacing and is becoming mainstream practice in a growing number of centres. In this review, we aim to compare traditional pacing methods with conduction system pacing.

The Emerging Role of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of heart failure-related hospitalisations and all-cause mortality, as well as improving quality of life and functional status in patients with persistent heart failure symptoms despite optimal medical treatment and left bundle branch block. CRT has traditionally been delivered by implanting a lead through the coronary sinus to capture the left ventricular epicardium; however, this approach is associated with significant drawbacks, including a high rate of procedural failure, phrenic nerve stimulation, high pacing thresholds and lead dislodgement. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients fail to derive any significant benefit. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a suitable alternative to traditional CRT. By stimulating the cardiac conduction system physiologically, LBBAP can result in a more homogeneous left ventricular contraction and relaxation, thus having the potential to improve outcomes compared with conventional CRT strategies. In this article, the evidence supporting the use of LBBAP in patients with heart failure is reviewed.

Effectiveness of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) is ineffective in approximately one-third of patients. CRT with Conduction system pacing (CSP-CRT) may achieve greater synchronization. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CRT with His pacing (His-CRT) or left bundle branch pacing (LBB-CRT) in lieu of biventricular CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched until August 19, 2023, for original studies including patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who received His- or LBB-CRT, that reported either CSP-CRT success, LVEF, QRS duration (QRSd), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Effect measures were compared with frequentist network meta-analysis. Thirty-seven publications, including 20 comparative studies, were included. Success rates were 73.5% (95% CI: 61.2-83.0) for His-CRT and 91.5% (95% CI: 88.0-94.1) for LBB-CRT. Compared to BiV-CRT, greater improvements were observed for LVEF (mean difference [MD] for His-CRT +3.4%; 95% CI [1.0; 5.7], and LBB-CRT: +4.4%; [2.5; 6.2]), LV end-systolic volume (His-CRT:17.2mL [29.7; 4.8]; LBB-CRT:15.3mL [28.3; 2.2]), QRSd (His-CRT: -17.1ms [-25.0; -9.2]; LBB-CRT: -17.4ms [-23.2; -11.6]), and NYHA (Standardized MD [SMD]: His-CRT:0.4 [0.8; 0.1]; LBB-CRT:0.4 [-0.7; -0.2]). Pacing thresholds at baseline and follow-up were significantly lower with LBB-CRT versus both His-CRT and BiV-CRT. CSP-CRT was associated with reduced mortality (R = 0.75 [0.61-0.91]) and hospitalizations risk (RR = 0.63 [0.42-0.96]).

CONCLUSION

This study found that CSP-CRT is associated with greater improvements in QRSd, echocardiographic, and clinical response. LBB-CRT was associated with lower pacing thresholds. Future randomized trials are needed to determine CSP-CRT efficacy.

Cardiac Conduction System Pacing: A Comprehensive Update

The field of cardiac pacing has changed rapidly in the last several years. Since the initial description of His bundle pacing targeting the conduction system, recent advances in pacing the left bundle branch and its fascicles have evolved. The field and investigators' knowledge of conduction system pacing including relevant anatomy and physiology has advanced significantly. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on recent advances in conduction system pacing.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one-third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiple strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged in recent years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP, appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations, and future directions.

A Comparative Assessment of Myocardial Work Performance during Spontaneous Rhythm, His Bundle Pacing, and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Insights from the EMPATHY Study

BACKGROUND

Physiological pacing has gained significant interest due to its potential to achieve optimal hemodynamic response. This study aimed to assess left ventricular performance in terms of electrical parameters, specifically QRS duration and mechanical performance, evaluated as myocardial work. We compared His Bundle Pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) to evaluate their effects.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with class I or IIa indications for pacing were enrolled in this study, with twelve patients undergoing HBP implantation and another twelve undergoing LBBAP implantation. A comprehensive analysis of myocardial work was conducted.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that there were no major differences in terms of spontaneous and HBP activation in myocardial work, except for global wasted work (217 mmHg% vs. 283 mmHg%; p 0.016) and global work efficiency (87 mmHg% vs. 82 mmHg%; p 0.049). No significant differences were observed in myocardial work between spontaneous activation and LBBAP. Similarly, no significant differences in myocardial work were found between HBP and LBBAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Both pacing modalities provide physiological ventricular activation without significant differences when compared to each other. Moreover, there were no significant differences in QRS duration between HBP and LBBAP. However, LBBAP demonstrated advantages in terms of feasibility, as it achieved better lead electrical parameters compared to HBP (threshold@0.4 ms 0.6 V vs. 1 V; p = 0.045-sensing 9.4 mV vs. 2.4 mV; p < 0.001). Additionally, LBBAP required less fluoroscopy time (6 min vs. 13 min; p = 0.010) and procedural time (81 min vs. 125 min; p = 0.004) compared to HBP.

Ablate and pace: Comparison of outcomes between conduction system pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), have been proposed as alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients scheduled for ablate and pace (A&P) strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes, including the rate and nature of device-related complications, between BVP and CSP in a cohort of patients undergoing A&P.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing A&P. The risk of device-related complications and of heart failure (HF) hospitalization was prospectively assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 373 patients (75.3 ± 8.7 years, 53.9% male, 68.9% with NYHA class ≥III) were enrolled: 263 with BVP, 68 with HBP, and 42 with LBBAP. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were similar. Compared to BVP and HBP, LBBAP was associated with the shortest mean procedural and fluoroscopy times and with the lowest acute capture thresholds (all p < .05). At 12-month follow-up LBBAP maintained the lowest capture thresholds and showed the longest estimated residual battery longevity (all p < .05). At 12-months follow-up the three study groups showed a similar risk of device-related complications (5.7%, 4.4%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .650), and of HF hospitalization (2.7%, 1.5%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .850).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of A&P, CSP is a feasible pacing modality, with a midterm safety profile comparable to BVP. LBBAP offers the advantage of reducing procedural times and obtaining lower and stable capture thresholds, with a positive impact on the device longevity.

Possible systolic fascicular potentials in patients with left bundle branch block undergoing left bundle branch area pacing: A case series

INTRODUCTION

In left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), several methods allow determination of lead depth during active fixation inside the septum: among these, visualization of a Purkinje potential indicates that the subendocardial area has been reached. In LBB block (LBBB) patients, fascicular potentials are visible as presystolic only in rare conditions.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Since October 2022 until August 2023, LBBAP was attempted in 21 patients with LBBB at our Center: among the 18 consecutive patients (86%) in which it was successful, focusing on the terminal part of the unipolar ventricular electrogram (VEGM) recorded in the LBBA (where fixation beats occurred and conduction system (CS) capture was confirmed), we always observed discrete high-frequency, low-amplitude signals during spontaneous rhythm with LBBB morphology, showing a consistent coupling with the QRS onset, falling in a portion of QRS interval ranging from 58% to 80% of its overall duration, and disappearing during pacing. As found in a recently published case report, these sharp signals could represent the activation of left ventricular CS fibers, occurring passively from the septal working myocardium, and thus appearing lately in the VEGM.

CONCLUSION

The possibility of recognizing discrete high-frequency, low-amplitude signals within the terminal portion of the unipolar VEGM, possibly representing left CS potentials, even in patients with LBBB, may constitute a useful additional means to notice operators about having reached the LBBA, thus helping to avoid perforation in the left ventricle.

Comparative cost analysis of implanting devices in different cardiac resynchronization therapeutic strategies

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment option for heart failure patients. However, the implementation of triple-chamber pacemakers can be cost-prohibitive. His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) can also enable cardiac resynchronization, and it can be achieved with relatively inexpensive conventional pacemakers.

HYPOTHESIS

This article aims to comparatively evaluate the cost of implanting devices in different CRT strategies to provide meaningful guidance for clinical decision-making by electrophysiologists.

METHODS

Data was collected on the prices, designed life, and price/designed life of multiple mainstream models of CRT-P, CRT-D, dual-chamber pacemakers, and single-chamber pacemakers that were sold in the Chinese market in 2022. The prices, designed lives, and price/designed life of different pacemaker models were then compared.

RESULTS

The costs of CRT-P and CRT-D (13008.44 ± 2752.30 USD and 22043.36 ± 3676.25 USD) were significantly higher than those of conventional pacemakers (dual-chamber: 11142.39 ± 4273.85 USD and single-chamber: 5634.28 ± 2032.80 USD) (p < .05). Additionally, the price/designed life of conventional pacemakers (dual-chamber: 839.63 ± 258.62 US dollar/year and single-chamber: 435.86 ± 125.44 US dollar/year) was significantly better than that of CRT-P and CRT-D (1386.91 ± 266.73 and 2585.53 ± 520.27 US dollar/year, respectively) (p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Conduction system pacing (CSP)-based CRT is more cost-effective than BVP-based CRT. Furthermore, CSP-based CRT can achieve cardiac resynchronization with conventional pacemakers and may be a good option for HF patients who do not need defibrillation.

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.

Predictors of implantation failure in left bundle branch area pacing using a lumenless lead in patients with bradycardia

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel conduction system pacing technique. In this multicenter study, we aimed to evaluate the procedural success, safety, and preoperative predictors of procedural failure of LBBAP.

Methods

LBBAP was attempted in 285 patients with pacemaker indications for bradyarrhythmia, which were mainly atrioventricular block (AVB) (68.1%) and sick sinus syndrome (26.7%). Procedural success and electrophysiological and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated.

Results

LBBAP was successful in 247 (86.7%) patients. Left bundle branch (LBB) capture was confirmed in 54.7% of the population. The primary reasons for procedural failure were the inability of the pacemaker lead to penetrate deep into the septum (76.3%) and failure to achieve shortening of stimulus to left ventricular (LV) activation time in lead V6 (18.4%). Thickened interventricular septum (odds ratio [OR], 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-5.35), severe tricuspid regurgitation (OR, 8.84; 95% CI, 1.22-64.06), and intraventricular conduction delay (OR, 8.16; 95% CI, 2.32-28.75) were preoperative predictors of procedural failure. The capture threshold and ventricular amplitude remained stable, and no major complications occurred throughout the 2-year follow-up. In patients with ventricular pacing burden >40%, the LV ejection fraction remained high regardless of LBB capture.

Conclusions

Successful LBBAP was affected by abnormal cardiac anatomy and intraventricular conduction. LBBAP is feasible and safe as a primary strategy for patients with AVB, depending on ventricular pacing.

Conduction System Pacing versus Conventional Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Where Are We Heading?

Over the last few years, pacing of the conduction system (CSP) has emerged as the new standard pacing modality for bradycardia indications, allowing a more physiological ventricular activation compared to conventional right ventricular pacing. CSP has also emerged as an alternative modality to conventional biventricular pacing for the delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients. However, if the initial clinical data seem to support this new physiological-based approach to CRT, the lack of large randomized studies confirming these preliminary results prevents CSP from being used routinely in clinical practice. Furthermore, concerns are still present regarding the long-term performance of pacing leads when employed for CSP, as well as their extractability. In this review article, we provide the state-of-the-art of CSP as an alternative to biventricular pacing for CRT delivery in heart failure patients. In particular, we describe the physiological concepts supporting this approach and we discuss the future perspectives of CSP in this context according to the implant techniques (His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing) and the clinical data published so far.

Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.

Cardiac Resynchronisation with Conduction System Pacing

To date, biventricular pacing (BiVP) has been the standard pacing modality for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. However, it is non-physiological, with the activation spreading between the left ventricular epicardium and right ventricular endocardium. Up to one-third of patients with heart failure who are eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy do not derive benefit from BiVP. Conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, has emerged as an alternative to BiVP for cardiac resynchronisation. There is mounting evidence supporting the benefits of CSP in achieving synchronous ventricular activation and repolarisation. The aim of this review is to summarise the current options and outcomes of CSP when used for cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure.

The weakest point of cardiac resynchronization therapy: new technologies facing old terminology

Patients with symptomatic heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) are currently treated with biventricular pacing (BiV) which has a Class IA recommendation. Given the possibility to re-establish the inter and intra-ventricular synchrony, BiV is commonly referred to as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). This wording is widely utilized and over time the terms BiV and CRT have become interchangeable. Conduction system pacing (CSP) is emerging as a valid therapeutic opportunity to obtain CRT restoring the native conduction via the Purkinje network. Therefore the acronym CRT is no longer synonymous with BiV only but could also refer to CSP. A terminology update is needed to include the resource of CSP to ensure better communication among all the stakeholders involved in managing recipients of cardiac devices and should be a fundamental step in advancing the quality of patient care. Making use of the NBG code to describe the implantable cardiac device would ease such terminology update, since only the first three positions of the five letters NBG code are commonly utilized, while the last two are rarely used.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is observed to produce greater improvements in echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, whether these surrogate endpoints directly translate to improvements in hard clinical outcomes such as death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) with CSP remains uncertain as studies reporting these outcomes are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the existing data to compare the clinical outcomes of CSP versus BiVP.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Embase and PubMed database was performed for studies comparing CSP and BiVP for patients indicated to receive a CRT device. The coprimary endpoints were all-cause mortality and HFH. Other secondary outcomes included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), change in NYHA class, and increase in NYHA class ≥1. A random-effects model was chosen a priori to analyze the composite effects given the anticipated heterogeneity of included trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (4 randomized and 17 observational) were identified reporting either primary outcome and were included in the meta-analysis. In total 1960 patients were assigned to CSP and 2367 to BiVP. Median follow-up time was 10.1 months (ranging 2-33 months). CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.83) and HFH (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.63). Mean improvement in LVEF was also greater with CSP (mean difference 4.26, 95% CI: 3.19-5.33). Reduction in NYHA class was significantly greater with CSP (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.22) and the number of patients with an increase in NYHA class ≥1 was significantly greater with CSP (OR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.70-2.40).

CONCLUSIONS

CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and HFH when compared to conventional BiVP for CRT. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to verify these observations.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing as Initial Strategy for Cardiac Resynchronization

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVp).

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes between LBBAP and BiVp as an initial implant strategy for CRT.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter, observational, nonrandomized study, first-time CRT implant recipients with LBBAP or BiVp were included. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcomes were acute and long-term complications. Secondary outcomes included postprocedural New York Heart Association functional class and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 371 patients (median follow-up of 340 days [IQR: 206-477 days]) were included. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 24.2% in the LBBAP vs 42.4% in the BiVp (HR: 0.621 [95% CI: 0.415-0.93]; P = 0.021) group, driven by a reduction in HF-related hospitalizations (22.6% vs 39.5%; HR: 0.607 [95% CI: 0.397-0.927]; P = 0.021) without significant difference in all-cause mortality (5.5% vs 11.9%; P = 0.19) or differences in long-term complications (LBBAP: 9.4% vs BiVp: 15.2%; P = 0.146). LBBAP resulted in shorter procedural (95 minutes [IQR: 65-120 minutes] vs 129 minutes [IQR: 103-162 minutes]; P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (12 minutes [IQR: 7.4-21.1 minutes] vs 21.7 minutes [IQR: 14.3-30 minutes]; P < 0.001), shorter QRS duration (123.7 ± 18 milliseconds vs 149.3 ± 29.1 milliseconds; P < 0.001), and higher postprocedural left ventricular ejection fraction (34.1% ± 12.5% vs 31.4% ± 10.8%; P = 0.041).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP as an initial CRT strategy resulted in a lower risk of HF-related hospitalizations compared to BiVp. A reduction in procedural and fluoroscopy times, shorter paced QRS duration, and improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction compared with BiVp were observed.

Comparison of Pacing Performance and Clinical Outcomes Between Left Bundle Branch and His Bundle Pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch (LBBP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) provide physiological ventricular activation.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated differences in feasibility, device performance, and clinical outcomes between LBBP and HBP.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with LBBP and HBP from 2018 to 2021 in 2 centers were prospectively studied. The primary endpoint was optimal device performance during follow-up, defined as the presence of pacing thresholds <2.5 V, R-wave amplitude ≥5 V, and absence of conduction system pacing (CSP)-related complications. The secondary endpoint was the composite of heart failure hospitalizations or all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Among 338 patients, 282 underwent successful CSP (119 HBP, 163 LBBP). Success rates, CSP-related complications, and need for reoperations did not differ between LBBP and HBP (P > 0.05). Pacing thresholds were lower, whereas R-wave amplitudes and lead impedance were higher in LBBP (P < 0.05). The primary endpoint was more frequent in LBBP than HBP (79% vs 34%; P < 0.001), with LBBP independently associated with 9-fold increased odds of optimal device performance (adjusted OR: 9.31; 95% CI: 5.14-16.86). LBBP was less likely to have increased pacing thresholds by >1 V (1% vs 19% HBP, P < 0.001). The secondary outcome was less frequent in LBBP than HBP (9% vs 24%, P = 0.001), with LBBP trending towards higher event-free survival (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31-1.23). The secondary outcome was independent of pacing burden or pacing indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar feasibility and safety profiles, LBBP confers additional benefits in pacing performance and reliability, shows trends towards improved survival compared to HBP, and should be the preferred first-line CSP modality of choice.

Two-step changes in paced QRS morphology suggest capturing at different levels of posterior fascicle fibers during left bundle branch area pacing: A case report

Two-step changes in paced QRS morphology during the left bundle branch area pacing threshold test. It suggests that capturing occurs at multiple sites of the left bundle branch-Purkinje system.

Comparison of electrocardiographic parameters between left bundle optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) and left bundle branch pacing-cardiac resynchronization therapy (LBBP-CRT)

BACKGROUND

In patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy using left bundle branch area pacing (LBBP-CRT), the addition of a coronary sinus lead, that is, Left bundle optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) might confer additional benefits.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the electrocardiographic characteristics between LBBP-CRT and LOT-CRT MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICMP) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) with left ventricular ejection fraction <35% who underwent implantation of an atrial lead, a left bundle lead, and a coronary sinus lead were included in this prospective study. Digital 12-lead electrocardiograms were recorded in three pacing modes-AAI, DDD with pacing from the LBB lead (LBBP-CRT), and DDD with pacing from both left bundle and coronary sinus leads (LOT-CRT). QRS duration (QRSd), QRS area, QT interval, and T peak-T end (TpTe) intervals were compared.

RESULTS

Among 24 patients, QRSd reduced from 167 ± 21.2 ms to 134.5 ± 23.6 ms with LBBP-CRT (p < .001) and 129.5 ± 18.6 ms with LOT-CRT (p < .001) without a significant difference between LBBP-CRT and LOT-CRT (p = .15). Patients with QRS duration with LBBP-CRT > 131 ms showed a significant reduction in QRSd with LOT-CRT (p = .03). QT interval was reduced with both modes of CRT. LOT-CRT was associated with a greater reduction in QRS area (p = .001), TpTe interval (p = .03), and TpTe/QT ratio (p = .013) compared to LBBP-CRT.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with NICMP and LBBB, there was no significant difference in QRSd with LOT-CRT compared to LBBP-CRT. However, in patients with QRSd > 131 ms after LBBP-CRT, LOT-CRT resulted in a significantly narrower QRS.

Cardiac Memory T-wave Inversions Noted with Ventricular Pacing: A Possible Electrocardiographic Marker of Appropriate Conduction System Pacing

Cardiac memory is a common condition occurring after a period of abnormal depolarization, such as with right ventricular apical pacing. With restoration of normal conduction, the T-wave "remembers" the direction of the QRS vector of the previously aberrantly conducted complexes, creating diffusely inverted T-waves on the electrocardiogram. The presence of diffuse T-wave inversions with this phenomenon may be confused with myocardial ischemia and may continue to be present for several weeks after restoration of normal conduction. Here, an interesting electrocardiogram obtained after pacemaker implantation showing the opposite effect, ie, the finding of memory T-waves occurring during pacing after a period of intrinsic atrioventricular nodal conduction, is presented. In this case, the patient had an underlying left bundle branch block, which subsequently normalized as a result of conduction system pacing. The memory T-waves became evident after pacing was performed, suggesting a potential marker for restoration of the normal ventricular activation sequence with left bundle branch pacing and normalization of the baseline intraventricular conduction defect.

Predictors of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy detection and outcomes demonstration after conduction system pacing upgrade on patients with long-term persistent atrial fibrillation

OBJECTIVE

To identify the predictors of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) and illustrate the safety and feasibility of conduction system pacing (CSP) upgrade on patients with long-term persistent atrial fibrillation (AF).

METHODS

All patients with long-term persistent AF and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50% were consecutively enrolled from January 2008 to December 2017, and all the patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and high right ventricular pacing (RVP) percentage of at least 40%. The predictors of PICM were identified, and patients with PICM were followed up for at least 1 year regardless of CSP upgrade. Cardiac performances and lead outcomes were investigated in all patients before and after CSP upgrade.

RESULTS

The present study included 139 patients, out of which 37 (26.62%) developed PICM, resulting in a significant decrease in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from 56.11 ± 2.56% to 38.10 ± 5.81% (p< .01). The median duration for the development of PICM was 5.43 years. Lower LVEF (≤52.50%), longer paced QRS duration (≥175 ms), and higher RVP percentage (≥96.80%) were identified as independent predictors of PICM. Furthermore, the morbidity of PICM progressively increased with an increased number of predictors. The paced QRS duration (183.90 ± 22.34 ms vs. 136.57 ± 20.71 ms, p < .01), LVEF (39.35 ± 2.71% vs. 47.50 ± 7.43%, p < .01), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (55.53 ± 5.67 mm vs. 53.20 ± 5.78 mm, p = .03) improved significantly on patients accepting CSP upgrade. CSP responses and complete reverse remodeling (LVEF ≥50% and LVEDD < 50 mm) were detected in 80.95% (17/21) and 42.9% (9/21) of patients. The pacing threshold (1.52 ± 0.78 V/0.4 ms vs. 1.27 ± 0.59 V/0.4 ms, p = .16) was stable after follow-up.

CONCLUSION

PICM is very common in patients with long-term persistent AF, and CSP upgrade was favorable for better cardiac performance in this patient population.

Giant Interventricular Septal Hematoma Complicating Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Cautionary Tale

An 88-year-old woman underwent atrioventricular node ablation and left bundle branch pacing for atrial fibrillation. She presented to the emergency room several hours after discharge with dyspnea. An echocardiogram revealed a giant interventricular septal hematoma. The patient was successfully treated with conservative medical therapy, with eventual complete resolution of the hematoma. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Atrioventricular Node Ablation in a Single-Procedure Approach for Elderly Patients with Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Implantation of a permanent pacemaker and atrioventricular (AV) node ablation (pace-and-ablate) is an established approach for rate and symptom control in elderly patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a physiological pacing strategy that might overcome right ventricular pacing-induced dyssynchrony. In this study, the feasibility and safety of performing LBBAP and AV node ablation in a single procedure in the elderly was investigated.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with symptomatic AF referred for pace-and-ablate underwent the treatment in a single procedure. Data on procedure-related complications and lead stability were collected at regular follow-up at one day, ten days and six weeks after the procedure and continued every six months thereafter.

RESULTS

25 patients (mean age 79.2 ± 4.2 years) were included and underwent successful LBBAP. In 22 (88%) patients, AV node ablation and LBBAP were performed in the same procedure. AV node ablation was postponed in two patients due to lead-stability concerns and in one patient on their own request. No complications related to the single-procedure approach were observed with no lead-stability issues at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP combined with AV node ablation in a single procedure is feasible and safe in elderly patients with symptomatic AF.

Feasibility of Permanent His Bundle Pacing in the Elderly vs the Very Elderly. A Single-Center Mid-Term Follow-Up Study

Purpose

Although feasibility studies have included older patients, specific data for His bundle pacing (HBP) in this population is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and mid-term performance of HBP in the elderly (70 to 79 years old) versus the very elderly (80 years old and above) patients with conventional indications for pacing.

Patients and Methods

About 105 patients older than 70 years of age with attempted HBP from the 1st of January 2019 to the 31st of December 2021 were reviewed. Clinical and procedural characteristics were recorded at baseline, and after a mid-term follow-up period.

Results

The procedural success rate was similar in both age groups (68.49% vs 65.62%). There was no significant difference in pacing or sensing thresholds, impedance, and fluoroscopy times. For both age intervals, patients with a baseline narrow QRS maintained a similar QRS duration after pacing, while in patients with a wide QRS, the paced QRS was significantly shorter. Baseline QRS duration, left bundle branch block morphology, and ejection fraction, were significantly associated with HBP procedural failure. The mean follow-up period was 830.34 days for the elderly and 722.76 days for the very elderly. After the follow-up period, both sensing and pacing thresholds were similar between the groups. Compared to the baseline values, there were no significant changes in both pacing and sensing parameters, irrespective of the age interval. During follow-up, no lead dislodgements were recorded. There were two cases of significant pacing threshold rise in the elderly (4%) and three cases in the very elderly group (14.2%) which were managed conservatively, without lead revision.

Conclusion

In elderly and very elderly patients, HBP is a feasible procedure associated with constant pacing and sensing parameters and with low complication rates over mid-term follow-up.

Cardiovascular imaging in conduction system pacing: What does the clinician need?

Permanent pacemakers are used for symptomatic bradycardia and biventricular pacing (BVP)-cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP-CRT) is established for heart failure (HF) patients traditionally. According to guidelines, patients' selection for CRT is based on QRS duration (QRSd) and morphology by surface electrocardiogram (ECG). Cardiovascular imaging techniques evaluate cardiac structure and function as well as identify pathophysiological substrate changes including the presence of scar. Cardiovascular imaging helps by improving the selection of candidates, guiding left ventricular (LV) lead placement, and optimization devices during the follow-up. Conduction system pacing (CSP) includes His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) which is screwed into the interventricular septum. CSP maintains and restores ventricular synchrony in patients with native narrow QRSd and left bundle branch block (LBBB), respectively. LBBP is more feasible than HBP due to a wider target area. This review highlights the role of multimodality cardiovascular imaging including fluoroscopy, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), myocardial scintigraphy, and computed tomography (CT) in the pre-procedure assessment for CSP, better selection for CSP candidates, the guidance of CSP lead implantation, and the optimization of devices programming after the procedure. We also compare the different characteristics of multimodality imaging and discuss their potential roles in future CSP implantation.

Optimization of the atrioventricular delay in conduction system pacing

INTRODUCTION

In patients receiving conduction system pacing (CSP), it is not well established how to program the sensed atrioventricular delay (sAVD), with respect to the type of capture obtained (selective, nonselective His-bundle [HB] capture or left bundle branch [LBB] capture). The aim of this study was to acutely assess the effectiveness of an electrophysiology (EP)-guided method for sAVD optimization by comparing it with the echocardiogram-guided optimization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients undergoing HB or LBB pacing were enrolled. The EP-guided sAVD was defined as the sAVD leading to a PR interval of 150 ms on surface electrocardiogram (ECG). In HB pacing patients, EP-guided sAVD was obtained subtracting the time from the onset of the P wave on ECG to the local atrial electrogram (EGM) recorded by the atrial lead (right atrial sensing latency, RASL) and the His-ventricular interval from 150 ms; in LBB pacing patients, subtracting RASL from 150 ms. Transmitral flow assessment by pulsed wave Doppler was used to find the echo-optimized sAVD by a modified iterative method. The discordance between the EP-guided and the echo-optimized sAVD was recorded.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were enrolled: 12 with selective, 32 nonselective HB capture, and 27 LBB capture. Overall, the rate of concordance between the EP-guided and the echo-optimized sAVD was 71.8%, with no significant differences between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

In CSP patients, an optimal sAVD can be programmed, in more than 70% of cases, considering only simple EGM intervals to obtain a physiological PR interval on surface ECG.

Conduction system pacing improves the outcomes on patients with high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSP in patients with a high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with HFmrEF.

Methods

Patients who underwent CSP for HFmrEF and ventricular pacing >40% were consecutively enrolled from January 2018 to May 2021. All participants were followed up at least 12 months. Clinical data including cardiac performance and lead outcomes were compared before and after the procedure. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured using the biplane Simpson's method. HFmrEF was defined as heart failure with the LVEF ranging from 41%-49%.

Results

CSP was successfully performed in 64 cases (96.97%), which included 16 cases of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and 48 cases of His bundle pacing (HBP). After a mean of 23.12 ± 8.17 months follow-up, NYHA classification (P < 0.001), LVEF (42.45 ± 1.84% vs. 49.97 ± 3.57%, P < 0.001) and left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (55.59 ± 6.17 mm vs. 51.66 ± 3.48 mm, P < 0.001) improved significantly. During follow-up, more than half (39/64,60.9%) of patients returned to normal LVEF and LVEDD with complete reverse remodeling. The pacing threshold in LBBP was lower (0.90 ± 0.27 V@0.4 ms vs. 1.61 ± 0.71 V@0.4 ms, P < 0.001) than that in HBP. No perforation, electrode dislodging, thrombosis or infection was observed during follow-up.

Conclusions

CSP could improve the clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF and a high percentage of ventricular pacing. LBBP might be a better choice because of its feasibility and safety, especially in patients with infranodal atrioventricular block.

Improved Outcomes of Conduction System Pacing in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Conduction system pacing (CSP) - His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) - are emerging alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure. However, evidence is largely limited to small and observational studies. We conducted a meta-analysis including a total of 15 randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compare CSP (HBP & LBBAP) with BVP in patients with CRT indications. We assessed the mean differences in QRS duration (QRSd), pacing threshold, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class score. CSP resulted in a pooled mean QRSd improvement of -20.3 ms (95% CI -26.1 - -14.5, p<0.05, I²=87.1%) versus BVP. For LVEF, a weighted mean increase of 5.2% (95% CI 3.5-6.9, p<0.05, I²=55.6) was observed following CSP versus BVP. The mean NYHA score was reduced by -0.40 (95% CI -0.6 - -0.2, p<0.05, I²=61.7) post-CSP versus BVP. Subgroup analysis of outcomes by LBBAP and HBP demonstrated statistically significant weighted mean improvements from both CSP modalities for QRSd and LVEF compared to BVP. LBBAP resulted in NYHA improvement compared to BVP without differences between CSP subgroups. LBBAP is associated with a significantly lowered mean pacing threshold of -0.51V (95% CI -0.68 - -0.38) whilst HBP had increased the mean threshold (0.62V, 95% CI -0.03 - 1.26) compared to BVP, however, this was associated with significant heterogeneity. Overall, both CSP techniques are feasible and effective CRT alternatives for heart failure. Further RCTs are needed to establish long-term efficacy and safety.