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.

Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular pacing (RVP) may cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony leading to impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We investigated the outcomes of RVP with His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker (PPM) for bradyarrhythmia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing HBP or LBP with RVP for de novo PPM implantation between 01 January 2013 and 17 November 2020 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), LVEF, QRS duration, lead revision, atrial fibrillation, procedure parameters, and pacing metrics. Overall, 9 studies were included (6 observational, 3 randomised). HBP compared with RVP was associated with decreased HFH (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.94), preservation of LVEF (mean difference [MD] 0.81, 95% CI - 1.23 to 2.85 vs. - 5.72, 95% CI - 7.64 to -3.79), increased procedure duration (MD 15.17 min, 95% CI 11.30-19.04), and increased lead revisions (RR 5.83, 95% CI 2.17-15.70, p = 0.0005). LBBP compared with RVP was associated with shorter paced QRS durations (MD 5.6 ms, 95% CI - 6.4 to 17.6) vs. (51.0 ms, 95% CI 39.2-62.9) and increased procedure duration (MD 37.78 min, 95% CI 20.04-55.51).

CONCLUSION

Of the limited studies published, this meta-analysis found that HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in maintaining physiological ventricular activation as an initial pacing strategy.