Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging, echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing (BVP). This study assessed ventricular activation patterns and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP and compared this to BVP.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients underwent LBBP or BVP for CRT. Ventricular activation mapping was obtained by ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG). Functional and echocardiographic outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality after one year from implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization vs BVP (QRS width: 170 ± 16 ms to 128 ± 20 ms vs 174 ± 15 to 144 ± 17 ms, p = 0.002 (LBBP vs BVP); e-DYS 81 ± 17 ms to 0 ± 32 ms vs 77 ± 18 to 16 ± 29 ms, p = 0.016 (LBBP vs BVP)). Improvement in LVEF (from 28 ± 8 to 42 ± 10 percent vs 28 ± 9 to 36 ± 12 percent, LBBP vs BVP, p = 0.078) was similar. Improvement in NYHA function class (from 2.4 to 1.5 and from 2.3 to 1.5 (LBBP vs BVP)), hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging is an appropriate way to gain a better insight into activation patterns of LBBP and BVP. LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization (e-DYS and QRS duration) with comparable improvement in LVEF, NYHA functional class, hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality at one year of follow up.

Left bundle branch pacing lead for sensing ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A pilot study (LBBP-ICD study)

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative modality for biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-eligible patients. As it provides stable R-wave sensing, LBBP has been recently used to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term safety and efficacy of the LBBP lead for appropriate detection of ventricular arrhythmia and delivery of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients requiring defibrillator therapy with CRT.

METHODS

CRT-eligible patients who underwent successful LBBP-optimized ICD and LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator were enrolled. The LBBP lead was connected to the right ventricular-P/S port after capping the IS-1 connector plug of the DF-1-ICD lead. LBBP-optimized ICD or LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator was decided on the basis of correction of conduction system disease. Documented arrhythmic episodes and therapy delivered were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled. The mean age was 59.7 ± 10.5 years. LBBP resulted in an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction from 29.9% ± 4.6% to 43.9% ± 11.2% (P < .0001). During a mean follow-up of 22.9 ± 12.5 months, 254 ventricular arrhythmic events were documented. Appropriate events (n = 225 [89%]) included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 212 episodes [94%]), VT (n = 8 [3.5%]), and ventricular fibrillation (n = 5 [2.5%]). ATP efficacy in terminating VT was 75%. Eleven percent of episodes (n = 29) were inappropriately detected because of T-wave oversensing. Inappropriate therapy (ATP) was delivered for 14 episodes (5.5%). Three patients (10%) had worsening of tricuspid regurgitation.

CONCLUSION

Sensing from the LBBP lead for arrhythmia detection is safe as ∼90% of the episodes were detected appropriately. Future studies with a dedicated LBBP-defibrillator lead along with algorithms to avoid oversensing can help in combining defibrillation with conduction system pacing.

Difference of ventricular synchrony between LBBP, LBFP and LVSP: A speckle tracking echocardiographic study

PURPOSE

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiological and stable form of pacing. We aim to compare the mechanical ventricular synchrony of LBBP, LBFP, and LVSP.

METHODS

Proximal Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), left bundle fascicular pacing (LBFP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were identified in patients with bradycardia who successfully underwent LBBAP. Patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% or QRS duration (QRSd) ≥ 120 ms were excluded. By using electrocardiograms, the left ventricular activation time (LVAT) and QRS duration (QRSd) were measured to examine electrophysiological synchrony. As indications of mechanical synchrony, global longitudinal strain (GLS), global circumferential strain (GCS), global radial strain (GRS), and peak strain dispersion (PSD) were evaluated by using 2-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (2D-STE).

RESULTS

In 56 patients, data were collected during LBBP (n = 18), LBFP (n = 16), and LVSP (n = 22). LVSP resulted in a longer LVAT (91.3 ± 14.9 ms) than LBBP (77.1 ± 10.8 ms, P < 0.05) and LBFP (72.1 ± 9.6 ms, P < 0.05), but all three groups had similar QRSd. There were no differences in GLS, GCS, GRS, or PSD between LBBP, LBFP, and LVSP.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with normal cardiac function and narrow QRS, though LBBAP with LBB capture resulted in better electrophysiological synchrony than without, the mechanical synchrony of the three groups was comparable.

Effect of left bundle branch pacing on right ventricular function: A 3-dimensional echocardiography study

BACKGROUND

The effect of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) on right ventricular (RV) function is not well known, and there is conflicting evidence regarding whether cardiac resynchronization therapy improves RV function.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to investigate the effect of LBBP on RV function and to evaluate the response of RV dysfunction (RVD) to LBBP.

METHODS

Sixty-five LBBP candidates were prospectively included in the study and underwent echocardiography at baseline and 6-month follow-up. LBBP response was left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling, defined as a reduction in LV end-systolic volume of ≥15% at follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients were assigned to 2 subgroups on the basis of 3-dimensional echocardiography-derived RV ejection fraction (EF) before LBBP implantation: 30 patients (46%) in the no RVD group and 35 patients (54%) in the RVD group. The RVD group was characterized by higher N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, New York Heart Association functional class, and larger LV/RV size. LBBP induced a significant reduction in QRS duration, LV size, and improvement in LVEF and mechanical dyssynchrony in both the no RVD and RVD groups, and a significant improvement in RV volumes and RVEF in the RVD group (all P<.01). LBBP resulted in a similar percentage reduction in QRS duration, LV dimensions, LV volumes, and percentage improvement in LVEF in RVD and no RVD groups (all P＞.05). LV reverse remodeling (29 of 35 patients vs 27 of 30 patients; P = .323) in the RVD group was similar to that in the no RVD group after LBBP.

CONCLUSION

LBBP induces excellent electrical and mechanical resynchronization, with a significant improvement in RV volumes and function. RVD did not diminish the beneficial effects on LV reverse remodeling after LBBP.

Comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes with left bundle branch pacing, left ventricular septal pacing, and biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are referred to as left bundle branch area pacing.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether long-term clinical outcomes differ in patients undergoing LBBP, LVSP, and biventricular pacing (BiVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <50%) undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled if they underwent successful LBBP, LVSP, or BiVP. The primary composite end point was all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and echocardiographic measures of reverse remodeling.

RESULTS

A total of 259 patients (68 LBBP, 38 LVSP, and 153 BiVP) were observed for a mean duration of 28.8 ± 15.8 months. LBBP was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point by 78% compared with both BiVP (7.4% vs 41.2%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.22 [0.08-0.57]; P = .002) and LVSP (7.4% vs 47.4%; aHR, 0.22 [0.08-0.63]; P = .004]. The adjusted risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in LVSP than in BiVP (31.6% vs 7.2%; aHR, 3.19 [1.38-7.39]; P = .007) but comparable between LBBP and BiVP (2.9% vs 7.2%; aHR, 0.33 [0.07-1.52], P = .155). Propensity score adjustment also obtained similar results. LBBP showed a higher rate of echocardiographic response (ΔLVEF ≥10%: 60.0% vs 36.2% vs 16.1%; P < .001) than BiVP or LVSP.

CONCLUSION

LBBP yielded long-term clinical outcomes superior to those of BiVP and LVSP. The role of LVSP for CRT needs to be reevaluated because of its high mortality risk.

Left bundle branch area pacing versus conventional pacing in patients with advanced atrioventricular conduction abnormalities: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging pacing method that may prevent the deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of LBBAP with right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) in patients with advanced atrioventricular conduction abnormalities and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

METHODS

The effect of pacing was evaluated by echocardiographic indices of dyssynchrony, including global myocardial work efficiency (GWE) and peak systolic dispersion (PSD). The primary endpoint was GWE postprocedural, at 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty patients received LBBAP and 18 RVSP. Complete follow-up was accomplished in 37 patients (97.4%) due to the death of a patient (RVSP arm) from nonrelated cause. GWE was significantly increased in the group of LBBAP compared to RVSP at all time points (90.8% in LBBAP versus 85.8% in RVSP group at 12 months, p = 0.01). PSD was numerically lower in the LBBAP arm at all time points, yet not statistically significant (56.4 msec in LBBP versus 65.1 msec in RVSP arm at 12 months, p = 0.178). The implantation time was increased (median 93 min in LBBAP versus 45 min in RVSP group, p < 0.01), along with fluoroscopy time and dose area product (DAP), in the arm of LBBAP. There were no severe perioperative acute complications in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP is an emerging and safe technique for patients with a pacing indication. Despite the longer procedural and fluoroscopy time, as well as higher DAP, LBBAP seems to offer better left ventricular synchrony compared to RVSP, according to GWE measurements.

Is left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) associated with better depolarization and repolarization kinetics than right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP)? - Comparison of frontal QRS -T angle in patients with LBBP, RVSP and normal ventricular conduction

AIMS

To assess the frontal QRS- T angle (f QRS- T angle) in patients with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) as compared to right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP) implanted for symptomatic high degree atrioventricular (AV) block and to compare with control subjects with normal ventricular conduction (CSNVC) METHODS: A total of one-fifty subjects were chosen (50 patients with LBBP, 50 patients with RVSP and 50 CSNVC). The indication for pacemaker implantation was symptomatic high degree AV block. Baseline clinical and electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters like QRS duration (QRSD), QRS axis and f QRS-T angle and Ejection Fraction (EF) were assessed. f QRS-T angle was measured as the difference between the computerised mean frontal QRS and T wave axes in the limb leads. If the difference between the QRS axis and T-wave axis exceeds 180°, then the resultant QRS-T angle would be calculated as 360° minus the absolute angle to obtain a value between 0° and 180°. Baseline, immediate post procedural and 6 month follow up (f/u) ECGs and EF were chosen for the analysis.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent LBBP had significantly shorter paced QRSD than patients who had undergone RVSP (112 ± 12 ms vs 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 43, -31; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the QRSD before and after LBBP. The QRSD before and after pacing in RVSP was 111 ± 27 ms and 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % CI: 43, -28; p < 0.001. The QRSD in control patients with NVC was 82.94 ± 9.59 ms. RVSP was associated with wider f QRS-T angle when compared with LBBP (103 ± 53° vs 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 39, -1.0; p = 0.037). The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in LBBP was 70 ± 48° and 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 31, 5.3; p = 0.2. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle was 61 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 8.5, 35; p=0.002. The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in RVSP was 67 ± 51° and 103 ± 53°; 95 % CI: 54, -17; p < 0.001. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle in RVSP group was 87 ± 58°; 95 % CI: 2.6, 29; p = 0.020. The f QRS T angle in control patients with NVC was 24 ± 16°. When subgroup analysis was done the difference in the f QRS-T angle was significant between RVSP and LBBP groups only in patients who had wide QRS escape. The mean LVEF at 6-month follow-up in LBBP vs RVSP was 61 ± 3.7 % vs 57.1 ± 7.8 %; 95 % CI:1.48, 6.32, p = 0.002. In the RVSP group, three patients developed pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PIC) whereas no patients in the LBBP group developed PIC at 6-month follow-up; p=0.021. One patient with PIC had deterioration of functional status with new onset HF symptoms. The patient symptoms improved with medical therapy and needed no hospitalisation. The patient declined further interventions including upgradation to CRT or LBB pacing. No deaths or ventricular arrhythmias were observed during the study period.

CONCLUSION

LBBP is associated with narrower f QRS-T angle as compared to RVSP both at post implant period and at 6 month f/u period. These findings might be due to the more physiological depolarization and repolarization kinetics associated with LBBP. RVSP was associated with 6 % incidence of PIC. Hence wide f QRS-T angle might be a predictor of PIC.

Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

The outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) in patients with heart failure remain to be learned.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP, LVSP, and deep septal pacing (DSP).

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who met the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and underwent attempted LBBP in 5 Mayo centers. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were collected at baseline and follow-up.

Results

A total of 91 consecutive patients were included in the study. A total of 52 patients had LBBP, 25 had LVSP, and 14 had DSP. The median follow-up duration was 307 (interquartile range 208, 508) days. There was significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement in the LBBP and LVSP groups (from 35.9 ± 8.5% to 46.9 ± 10.0%, P < .001 in the LBBP group; from 33.1 ± 7.5% to 41.8 ± 10.8%, P < .001 in the LVSP group) but not in the DSP group. A unipolar paced right bundle branch block morphology during the procedure in lead V1 was associated with higher odds of CRT response. There was no significant difference in heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths between the LBBP and LVSP groups. The rate of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths were increased in the DSP group compared with the LBBP group (hazard ratio 5.10, 95% confidence interval 1.14-22.78, P = .033; and hazard ratio 7.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38-44.32, P = .020, respectively).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing CRT, LVSP had comparable CRT outcomes compared with LBBP.

An individualized criterion for left bundle branch capture in patients with a narrow QRS complex

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing; however, the accuracy of current electrocardiographic criteria for LBBP remains inadequate.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to establish a novel individualized criterion to improve the accuracy of LBBP determination in patients with a narrow QRS complex.

METHODS

Patients in whom both LBBP and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were acquired during operation were enrolled. LBB conduction time (LBBCT) was measured from LBB potential (LBBpo) to intrinsic QRS onset. LBBpo-V6RWPT, Native-V6RWPT, and Paced-V6RWPT were respectively measured from LBBpo, intrinsic QRS onset, and stimulus to R-wave peak in V6. ΔV6RWPT was the difference value between Paced-V6RWPT and Native-V6RWPT. The accuracy of ΔV6RWPT criterion for determining LBBP was evaluated.

RESULTS

In all 71 enrolled patients, ΔV6RWPT was <30 ms during LBBP (21.3 ± 4.6 ms; range 9.3-28.3 ms) but was >30 ms during LVSP (38.5 ± 4.6 ms; range 31.1-47.0 ms). The probability distribution of ΔV6RWPT was well separated between LBBP and LVSP. Sensitivity and specificity of the novel criterion of "ΔV6RWPT <30 ms" for determining LBBP both were 100%. However, the optimal cutoff value of Paced-V6RWPT for validation of LBBP was 64.2 ms, and sensitivity and specificity were 84.5% and 97.2%, respectively. Paced-V6RWPT during LBBP was equivalent to LBBpo-V6RWPT in all patients. There was a strong linear correlation between Native-V6RWPT and LBBpo-V6RWPT (r = 0.796; P <.001).

CONCLUSION

ΔV6RWPT could be an accurate individualized criterion for determining LBB capture with high sensitivity and specificity and was superior over the fixed Paced-V6RWPT criterion.

Left bundle branch pacing vs biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel pacing modality of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) that achieves more physiologic native ventricular activation than biventricular pacing (BiVP).

AIM

To explore the validity of electromechanical resynchronization, clinical and echocardiographic response of LBBP-CRT.

METHODS

Systematic review and Meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the standard guidelines as mentioned in detail in the methodology section.

RESULTS

In our analysis, the success rate of LBBP-CRT was determined to be 91.1%. LBBP-CRT significantly shortened QRS duration, with significant improvement in echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and left ventricular end-systolic diameter in comparison with BiVP-CRT.

CONCLUSION

A significant reduction in New York Heart Association class and B-type natriuretic peptide levels was also observed in the LBBP-CRT group vs BiVP-CRT group. Lastly, the LBBP-CRT cohort had a reduced pacing threshold at follow-up as compared to BiVP-CRT.

Tailored electrocardiographic-based criteria for different pacing locations within the left bundle branch

BACKGROUND

Electrocardiographic (ECG)-based criteria are used to confirm left bundle branch (LBB) pacing (LBBP), but current cutoff values have never been validated for different pacing locations.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe diagnostic performance of V6-R wave peak time (RWPT), V6-V1 interpeak interval, and aVL-RWPT for different pacing sites within the LBB and to determine 100% specific values for each criterion at each pacing location.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with confirmed LBBP were selected. Population was divided into subgroups based on the site of pacing: left bundle trunk pacing (LBTP), left septal fascicular pacing (LSFP), left posterior fascicular pacing (LPFP), and left anterior fascicular pacing (LAFP).

RESULTS

A total of 147 patients with unequivocal LBB capture were analyzed. Left fascicular pacing was more frequently achieved (82.8%) than LBTP (17.2%). Diagnostic performance of V6-RWPT, V6-V1 interpeak interval, and aVL-RWPT for discrimination of LBBP was good in all subgroups. V6-RWPT cutoff values with 100% specificity (SP) for LBBP discrimination were 75 ms in LBTP, 68 ms in LPFP, 81 ms in LAFP, and 79.5 ms in LSFP. V6-V1 interpeak interval cutoff values with 100% SP for LBBP discrimination were 35.5 ms in LBTP, 53.5 ms in LPFP, 41 ms in LAFP, and 46 ms in LSFP. In LAFP, aVL-RWPT cutoff value with 100% SP for LBBP discrimination was 68 ms, but was 74 ms in LBTP, 74.5 ms in LSFP, and 73.5 ms in LPFP.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored ECG-based criteria might be useful to confirm LBBP at different pacing locations within the LBB.

Conduction system pacing: how far are we from the "electrical" bypass?

Conduction system pacing is an alternative practice to conventional right ventricular apical pacing. It is a method that maintains physiologic ventricular activation, based on a correct pathophysiological basis, in which the pacing lead bypasses the lesion of the electrical fibers and the electrical impulse transmits through the intact adjacent conduction system. For this reason, it might be reasonably characterized by the term "electrical bypass" compared to the coronary artery bypass in revascularization therapy. In this review, reference is made to the sequence of events in which conventional right ventricular pacing may cause adverse outcomes. Furthermore, there is a reference to alternative strategies and pacing sites. Interest focuses on the modalities for which there are data from the literature, namely for the right ventricular (RV) septal pacing, the His bundle pacing (HBP), and the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). A more extensive reference is about the HBP, for which there are the most updated data. We analyze the considerations that limit HBP-wide application in three axes, and we also present the data for the implantation and follow-up of these patients. The indications with their most important studies to date are then described in detail, not only in their undoubtedly positive findings but also in their weak aspects, because of which this pacing mode has not yet received a strong recommendation for implementation. Finally, there is a report on LBBP, focusing mainly on its points of differentiation from HBP.

The interventricular conduction delays guide best cardiac resynchronization therapy: A tailored-patient approach to perform a CRT through Conduction System Pacing

Evaluation of conduction intervals to predict success of resynchronization in biventricular pacing(BiVP) or Conduction System Pacing(CSP) is not spread in clinical practice. A right ventricle-to-left ventricle intrinsic conduction interval (RVs-LVs) > 70 ms or prolonged RVpaced - LVs(RVp-LVs)interval can predict Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT)response.This paper describes a case of cardiac resynchronization guided by spontaneous and paced interventricular conduction delays (IVCD) obtained in BiVP that led to changing intraoperative approach. A strategy for cardiac resynchronization based on the CSP/BiVP approach according to the IVCD could represent a viable and reliable solution to obtain a narrow paced QRS and to improve the CRT response.

Comparison of the efficacy of combining left bundle branch pacing with either sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril in the treatment of chronic heart failure: A retrospective observational analysis

Objective

To assess the efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) combined with either sacubitril/valsartan or enalapril in the treatment of chronic heart failure (CHF).

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the records of 138 patients with CHF admitted to Dazhou Central Hospital between June 2020 and June 2022 to extract clinical data. We divided the data into two treatment groups for the analysis: 71 patients received LBBP combined with sacubitril/valsartan treatment (sacubitril/valsartan group), and 67 received LBBP combined with enalapril treatment (enalapril group). The levels of cardiac and cardiopulmonary function indicators, levels of myocardial injury markers, and the scores of the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLHFQ) before and after the treatment were compared between the two groups.

Results

After six months of treatment, patients in the sacubitril/valsartan group had lower myocardial injury markers, higher cardiopulmonary function indicators, and lower MLHFQ scores (P<0.05).

Conclusions

In CHF patients, the combination of LBBP with sacubitril/valsartan had a better therapeutic effect compared to LBBP with enalapril, with more effective improvement of the cardiopulmonary function, reduction of myocardial injury, and improvement in quality of life.

Autothreshold algorithm feasibility and safety in left bundle branch pacing

AIMS

Autothreshold algorithms enable remote monitoring of patients with conventional pacing, but there is limited information on their performance in left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Our objective was to analyse the behaviour of the autothreshold algorithm in LBBP and compare it with conventional pacing and manual thresholds during initial device programming (acute phase), after 1-7 days (subacute), and 1-3 months later (chronic).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective, non-randomized, single-centre comparative study was conducted. Consecutive patients with indication for cardiac pacing were enrolled. Implants were performed in the left bundle branch area or the right ventricle endocardium at the discretion of the operator. Left bundle branch pacing was determined according to published criteria. Autothreshold algorithm was activated in both groups whenever allowed by the device. Seventy-five patients were included, with 50 undergoing LBBP and 25 receiving conventional pacing. Activation of the autothreshold algorithm was more feasible in later phases, showing a favourable trend towards bipolar pacing. Failures in algorithm activation were primarily due to insufficient safety margins (82.8% in LBBP and 90% in conventional pacing). The remainder was attributed to atrial tachyarrhythmias (10.3% and 10%, respectively) and electrical noise (the remaining 6.9% in the LBBP group). In the LBBP group, there were not statistically significant differences between manual and automatic thresholds, and both remained stable during follow-up (mean increase of 0.50 V).

CONCLUSION

The autothreshold algorithm is feasible in LBBP, with a favourable trend towards bipolar pacing. Automatic thresholds are similar to manual in patients with LBBP, and they remain stable during follow-up.

Conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation in heart failure: The PACE-FIB study design

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) worsens the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). Successful treatments are still very scarce for those with permanent AF and preserved (HFpEF) or mildly reduced (HFmrEF) ejection fraction. In this study, the long-term benefits and safety profile of heart rate regularization through left-bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) will be explored in comparison with pharmacological rate-control strategy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PACE-FIB trial is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized (1:1) clinical study that will take place between March 2022 and February 2027. A total of 334 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF and permanent AF will receive either LBBP followed by AVNA (intervention arm) or optimal pharmacological treatment for heart rate control according to European guideline recommendations (control arm). All patients will be followed up for a minimum of 36 months. The primary outcome measure will be the composite of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and worsening HF at 36 months. Other secondary efficacy and safety outcome measures such as echocardiographic parameters, functional status, and treatment-related adverse events, among others, will be analysed too.

CONCLUSION

LBBP is a promising stimulation mode that may foster the clinical benefit of heart rate regularization through AV node ablation compared with pharmacological rate control. This is the first randomized trial specifically addressing the long-term efficacy and safety of this pace-and-ablate strategy in patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF and permanent AF.

ECG characteristics of "true" left bundle branch block: Insights from transcatheter aortic valve-related LBBB and His-Purkinje conduction system pacing-correctable LBBB

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) pattern on the electrocardiogram includes patients with both complete conduction block in the His-Purkinje system as well as nonspecific left ventricular conduction delay without discrete block.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to characterize electrocardiographic morphological features of LBBB patterns in patients with (1) LBBB after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and (2) LBBB correctable by conduction system pacing (CSP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with post-TAVR (n = 123) or CSP-correctable LBBB (n = 58) from 2 centers were included in this retrospective evaluation. QRS durations as well as detailed morphological features, including notching and slurring, of QRS complexes in leads I, aVL, V1, V2, V5, and V6 and in all 3 inferior leads were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age of the entire cohort was 78.3 ± 10.1 years, with 48% of the cohort being male (87/181). In the CSP-correctable group (n = 58), 14 (24.1%) underwent His-bundle pacing and 44 (75.9%) left bundle branch area pacing. A total of 17 of 181 (9.4%) of the combined cohort failed to completely meet the Strauss criteria. QRS morphology in lead V1/V2 was always either rS or QS, and there were no q/Q waves noted in lead V5/V6. Although dominant R waves were seen in leads I and aVL of 176 of 181 (97.2%), q/Q waves were present in only 21 of 181 (11.6%). Importantly, notched or slurred QRS complexes were identified in at least 1 lead of 4 leads I, aVL, V5, and V6 in 181 of 181 (100%).

CONCLUSION

Strauss criteria and QRS notching are highly prevalent in LBBB after TAVR and in LBBB correctable by CSP.

Conduction system pacing for ventricular pacing requirement is feasible and effective on patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and cardiac dysfunction

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of his-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and heart failure (HF).

Methods

Patients with HF and interventricular septal thickness (IVST) ≥ 13 mm resulted from HCM, who accepted conduction system pacing (CSP) with a percentage of ventricular pacing > 40% from May 2018 to April 2022 were consecutively enrolled in our center. LBBP was preferred and HBP was the alternative therapy unless IVST ≥ 16 mm or LBBP failed, whereas LBBP would be the alternative therapy if HBP failed in patients with IVST ≥ 16 mm. All patients were followed up for at least one year. Data including clinical, echocardiographic parameters and electrocardiogram measurements, were collected and evaluated in patients with and without left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%.

Results

A total of 27 patients (65.93 ± 9.09 years old) were enrolled and only 3 patients failed in CSP (11.11%) via LBBP (6/13) and HBP (18/21) procedures. LVEF (P = 0.521), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (P = 0.816), and QRS duration (P = 0.928) did not worsen after CSP, and left atrial diameter (LAD) (49.58 ± 8.99 mm vs.47.04 ± 9.82 mm, P = 0.045) tended to improve slightly after 19.19 ± 7.71 months follow-up. Of note, LVEF (39.22%±7.51% vs. 45.22%±9.59%, P = 0.015), LVEDD (52.11 ± 10.10 mm vs. 48.33 ± 9.07 mm, P = 0.037), LAD (50.33 ± 8.93 mm vs. 46.11 ± 5.97 mm, P = 0.013) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade (2.67 ± 0.5 vs. 1.38 ± 1.02, P = 0.029) improved in 9 patients with LVEF < 50%, whereas LVEF (P = 0.372), LVEDD (P = 0.665), LAD (P = 0.093) and NYHA grade (P = 0.452) did not deteriorate in patients with preserved ejection fraction.

Conclusion

CSP was safe and feasible in patients with HCM and cardiac dysfunction, and did not worsen cardiac performance especially in patients with LVEF < 50%. HBP might be an effective alternative to LBBP in patients with significantly thickened interventricular septum.

Implant, assessment, and management of conduction system pacing

His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing, together referred to as conduction system pacing, have (re)gained considerable interest over the past years as it has the potential to preserve and/or restore a more physiological ventricular activation when compared with right ventricular pacing and may serve as an alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy. This review manuscript dives deeper into the implantation techniques and the relevant anatomy of the conduction system for both pacing strategies. Furthermore, the manuscript elaborates on better understanding of conduction system capture with its various capture patterns, its potential complications as well as appropriate follow-up care. Finally, the limitations and its impact on clinical care for both His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing are being discussed.

Left bundle branch pacing in alternating bundle branch block

We present a case of symptomatic intermittent AV block showing during monitorization alternating bundle branch block. Presuming a high need of pacing, conduction system pacing was considered a more physiological alternative in this patient. Left bundle branch pacing restored a stable atrioventricular synchrony with a paced QRS complex similar to the native one and might be a good alternative in these cases.

Role of conduction system pacing in ablate and pace strategies for atrial fibrillation

With the advent of conduction system pacing, the threshold for performing 'ablate and pace' procedures for atrial fibrillation has gone down markedly in many centres due to the ability to provide a simple and physiological means of pacing the ventricles. This article reviews the technical considerations for this strategy as well as the current evidence, recognized indications, and future perspectives.

Beneficial effects of upgrading to His-Purkinje system pacing in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) in the management of patients with pace-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively to collect related studies published from the inception of databases to June 1, 2022. R 4.04 software, including the Metafor package, matrix package, and the Meta package, was utilized to conduct the singe-arm meta-analysis. The methodology index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

Results

A total of seven studies were included, involving 164 PICM patients. The meta-analysis showed that HPSP ameliorated the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by 13.41% (95% CI [11.21-15.61]), improved the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification by 1.02 (95% CI [-1.41 to -0.63]), and shortened the QRS duration (QRSd) by 60.85 ms (95% CI [-63.94 to -57.75]), resulting in improved cardiac functions in PICM patients. Besides, HPSP reversed the ventricular remodeling, with a 32.46 ml (95% CI [-53.18 to -11.75]) decrease in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) and a 5.93 mm (95% CI [-7.68 to -4.19]) decrease in left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD). HPSP also showed stable electrical parameters of pacemakers, with a 0.07 V (95% CI [0.01-0.13]) increase in pacing threshold, a 0.02 mV (95% CI [-0.85 to 0.90]) increase in sensed R-wave amplitude, and a 31.12 Ω reduction in impedance (95% CI [-69.62 to 7.39]). Compared with LBBP, HBP improved LVEF by 13.28% (95% CI [-11.64 to 14.92]) vs 14.43% (95% CI [-13.01 to 15.85]), ameliorated NHYA classification by 1.18 (95% CI [-1.97 to -0.39]) vs 0.95 (95% CI [-1.33 to -0.58]), shortened QRSd by 63.16 ms (95% CI [-67.00 to -59.32]) vs 57.98 ms (95% CI [-62.52 to -53.25]), and decreased LVEDD by 4.12 mm (95% CI [-5.79 to -2.45]) vs 6.26 mm (95% CI [-62.52 to -53.25]). The electrical parameters of the pacemaker were stable in both groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis showed that HPSP could significantly improve cardiac function, promote reverse remodeling, and provide stable electrical parameters of pacemakers for PICM patients.

Left bundle branch pacing with and without anodal capture: impact on ventricular activation pattern and acute haemodynamics

AIMS

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can deliver physiological left ventricular activation, but typically at the cost of delayed right ventricular (RV) activation. Right ventricular activation can be advanced through anodal capture, but there is uncertainty regarding the mechanism by which this is achieved, and it is not known whether this produces haemodynamic benefit.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We recruited patients with LBBP leads in whom anodal capture eliminated the terminal R-wave in lead V1. Ventricular activation pattern, timing, and high-precision acute haemodynamic response were studied during LBBP with and without anodal capture. We recruited 21 patients with a mean age of 67 years, of whom 14 were males. We measured electrocardiogram timings and haemodynamics in all patients, and in 16, we also performed non-invasive mapping. Ventricular epicardial propagation maps demonstrated that RV septal myocardial capture, rather than right bundle capture, was the mechanism for earlier RV activation. With anodal capture, QRS duration and total ventricular activation times were shorter (116 ± 12 vs. 129 ± 14 ms, P < 0.01 and 83 ± 18 vs. 90 ± 15 ms, P = 0.01). This required higher outputs (3.6 ± 1.9 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 V, P < 0.01) but without additional haemodynamic benefit (mean difference -0.2 ± 3.8 mmHg compared with pacing without anodal capture, P = 0.2).

CONCLUSION

Left bundle branch pacing with anodal capture advances RV activation by stimulating the RV septal myocardium. However, this requires higher outputs and does not improve acute haemodynamics. Aiming for anodal capture may therefore not be necessary.

Use of acoustic cardiography to assess left ventricular electromechanical synchronization during left bundle branch pacing

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing that captures the main left bundle or its proximal branch. Electromechanical activation time (EMAT) is an acoustic cardiographic metric that provides a simple method for evaluating left ventricular (LV) synchrony. Prolonged EMAT reflects impaired LV electromechanical coupling.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to explore whether EMAT can confirm that LBBP produces more satisfactory LV electromechanical synchronization than conventional right ventricular pacing modalities.

Methods

Patients with standard pacing indications and narrow QRS duration were recruited for this study. Unipolar pacing under 3 different modalities-right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP), right ventricular high septal pacing (RVHSP), and LBBP-were successively performed in each patient. Pacing parameters, echocardiographic characteristics, and acoustic cardiographic parameters at different pacing modalities and during normal rhythm were collected.

Results

A total of 55 patients were enrolled, and all had successful LBBP. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was significantly associated with EMAT, with LVAT vs EMAT correlation coefficient of 0.665 (P <.001). LVAT during LBBP was shorter than that during RVHSP (51.93 ± 2.732 ms vs 85.59 ± 2.240 ms; P <.001). EMAT of LBBP was significantly lower than either RVAP or RVHSP (95.44 ± 1.794 ms vs 143.32 ± 2.376 ms, and 132.22 ± 1.872 ms; both P <.001) but was similar to that of intrinsic rhythm (95.37 ± 2.271 ms; P = .862).

Conclusion

We found EMAT significantly prolonged in RVHSP and RVAP but not in the LBBP mode. This finding indicates superior electromechanical synchronization in patients having LBBP. EMAT measurement could be an additional method for identifying the ideal pacing position.

Early left bundle branch pacing in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) achieves resynchrony and improves cardiac function in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) by correcting left bundle branch block (LBBB). Few data on the efficacy of early LBBP in HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF) and LBBB have been reported.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy of early LBBP in patients with HFmrEF and LBBB.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (left ventricular EF [LVEF] 35%-50%) and LBBB were prospectively enrolled to receive LBBP (Early-LBBP group) plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT alone (GDMT group). Study outcomes included changes in LVEF, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and clinical events (HF rehospitalization or syncope). Subgroup analysis compared efficacy of LBBP between patients with LBBB only without comorbidities or late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (LBBB-Only group) and patients with either comorbidities or LGE (LBBB-Combined group).

RESULTS

Fifty-four patients were enrolled and analyzed (37 Early-LBBP group; 15 GDMT group). LBBP achieved greater improvement in LVEF (+14.75% ± 7.37% vs -2.42% ± 2.84%; P <.001), reduction of LVEDD (-7.51 ± 5.40 mm vs -0.87 ± 4.36 mm; P <.001) and NYHA classification (-0.84 ± 0.76 vs -0.13 ± 0.74; P = .004), and similar reduction of NT-proBNP (-408.83 ± 920.29 pg/mL vs -229.05 ± 1579.17 pg/mL; P = .610) at 6 months. Early LBBP showed significantly reduced clinical events (0.0% vs 40.0%; P <.001) after 20.68 ± 13.55 months of follow-up. Subgroup analysis showed patients in the LBBB-Only group benefited more from LBBP with regard to LVEF improvement and LVEDD reduction than the LBBB-Combined group.

CONCLUSION

Early LBBP with GDMT demonstrated greater improvement of cardiac function and reduced clinical events than GDMT alone in patients with HFmrEF and LBBB.

Diverse QRS morphology reflecting variations in lead placement for left bundle branch area pacing

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a potential alternative to His bundle pacing. This study aimed to investigate the impact of different septal locations of pacing leads on the diversity of QRS morphology during non-selective LBBAP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Non-selective LBBAP and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were achieved in 50 and 21 patients with atrioventricular block, respectively. The electrophysiological properties of LBBAP and their relationship with the lead location were investigated. QRS morphology and axis showed broad variations during LBBAP. Echocardiography demonstrated a widespread distribution of LBBAP leads in the septum. During non-selective LBBAP, the qR-wave in lead V1 indicated that the primary location for pacing lead was the inferior septum (93%). The non-selective LBBAP lead was deployed deeper than the LVSP lead in the inferior septum. The Qr-wave in lead V1 with the inferior axis in aVF suggested pacing lead placement in the anterior septum. The penetration depth of the non-selective LBBAP lead in the anterior septum was significantly shallower than that in the inferior septum (72 ± 11 and 87 ± 8%, respectively). In lead V6, the deep S-wave indicated the time lag between the R-wave peak and the latest ventricular activation in the coronary sinus trunk, with pacemaker leads deployed closer to the left ventricular apex.

CONCLUSION

Different QRS morphologies and axes were linked to the location of the non-selective LBBAP lead in the septum. Various lead deployments are feasible for LBBAP, allowing diversity in the conduction system capture in patients with atrioventricular block.

Left Bundle Branch Block: Characterization, Definitions, and Recent Insights into Conduction System Physiology

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is not just a simple electrocardiogram alteration. The intricacies of this general terminology go beyond simple conduction block. This review puts together current knowledge on the historical concept of LBBB, clinical significance, and recent insights into the pathophysiology of human LBBB. LBBB is an entity that affects patient diagnosis (primary conduction disease, secondary to underlying pathology or iatrogenic), treatment (cardiac resynchronization therapy or conduction system pacing for heart failure), and prognosis. Recruiting the left bundle branch with conduction system pacing depends on the complex interaction between anatomy, site of pathophysiology, and delivery tools.

Stepwise application of ECG and electrogram-based criteria to ensure electrical resynchronization with left bundle branch pacing

AIMS

To define a stepwise application of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) criteria that will simplify implantation and guarantee electrical resynchronization. Left bundle branch pacing has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing. However, a systematic stepwise criterion to ensure electrical resynchronization is lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cohort of 24 patients from the LEVEL-AT trial (NCT04054895) who received LBBP and had electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) at 45 days post-implant were included. The usefulness of ECG- and electrogram-based criteria to predict accurate electrical resynchronization with LBBP were analyzed. A two-step approach was developed. The gold standard used to confirm resynchronization was the change in ventricular activation pattern and shortening in left ventricular activation time, assessed by ECGI. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients showed electrical resynchronization on ECGI. All patients fulfilled pre-screwing requisites: lead in septal position in left-oblique projection and W paced morphology in V1. In the first step, presence of either right bundle branch conduction delay pattern (qR or rSR in V1) or left bundle branch capture Plus (QRS ≤120 ms) resulted in 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity to predict LBBP resynchronization, with an accuracy of 95.8%. In the second step, the presence of selective capture (100% specificity, only 41% sensitivity) or a spike-R <80 ms in non-selective capture (100% specificity, sensitivity 46%) ensured 100% accuracy to predict resynchronization with LBBP.

CONCLUSION

Stepwise application of ECG and electrogram criteria may provide an accurate assessment of electrical resynchronization with LBBP (Graphical abstract).

Quantitative analysis reveals influencing factors to facilitate successful anodal-ring capture in left bundle branch pacing

AIMS

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) maintains left ventricular synchrony but induces right ventricular conduction delay (RVCD). Although anodal-ring capture (ARC) during bipolar LBBP improves RVCD, it is not achieved in all patients receiving LBBP. This study aimed to analyze the factors influencing ARC implementation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients receiving LBBP with intraoperative ARC testing were enrolled. Electrocardiographic parameters were measured, including stimulus-to-QRS duration (stim-QRSd), stimulus-to-left/right ventricular activation time (stim-LVAT/RVAT), and V6-V1 interpeak interval. The distribution of lead-tip sites was described as the corrected longitudinal and lateral distance (longit-/lat-dist). Relative angles of the LBBP lead were measured. Echocardiography in short-axis view was used to measure the intraseptal lead length. Intergroup comparisons, correlation analysis, and stepwise logistic regression were performed. In total, 105 patients were included, among which 65 (62%) patients achieved ARC at a pacing output ≤ 5.0 V/0.5 ms (average 3.1 V/0.5 ms). Anodal-ring capture further shortened the stim-QRSd by 13.1 ± 7.5 ms. Better unipolar-ring (cathodal) threshold and R-wave sensing in LBBP-ARC group indicated the critical role of ring-septum contact in ARC. Longer corrected longit-dist and shorter corrected lat-dist of lead-tip sites were positively correlated with higher success likelihood of ARC, likely due to the greater relative angle in which the lead enters the septum and consequently the longer intraseptal lead length and better ring-septum contact.

CONCLUSION

This study elucidated the factors affecting the success likelihood of LBBP-ARC. These findings improve the understanding of LBBP-ARC, providing references for future research and clinical practice.

MAgnetic resonance imaging based DUal lead cardiac Resynchronization therapy: A prospectIve Left Bundle Branch Pacing Study (MADURAI LBBP study)

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy(CRT) is a class-I indication for LVEF≤35%, and heart failure(HF). LBBB associated nonischemic-cardiomyopathy (LB-NICM) with minimal or no scar by cardiac-magnetic-resonance(CMR) imaging may be associated with excellent prognosis following CRT. Left-bundle-branch-pacing(LBBP) can achieve excellent resynchronization in LBBB patients.

OBJECTIVES

Aim of our study was to prospectively assess feasibility and efficacy of LBBP with or without a defibrillator in patients with LB-NICM and LVEF ≤35%, risk stratified by CMR.

METHODS

Pts with LB-NICM, LVEF≤35% and HF were prospectively enrolled from 2019 to 2022. If the scar burden<10% by CMR, LBBP only (Group-I) and if ≥10%, LBBP+ICD(Group-II) was performed. Primary endpoints-1.Echocardiographic-response(ER)- ΔLVEF ≥15% at 6 months; 2.Composite of time to death, HFH or sustained VT/VF. Secondary endpoints-1.Echocardiographic-hyper-response(EHR-LVEF≥50%orΔLVEF ≥20%) at 6 and 12 months; 2.Indication for ICD-upgradation(persistent LVEF<35% at 12 months or sustained VT/VF) RESULTS: 120 patients were enrolled. CMR showed <10% scar-burden in 109 patients(90.8%). 4 patients opted for LBBP+ICD and withdrew. LBBP optimized-dual-chamber-pacemaker(LOT-DDD-P) was done in 101 patients and LOT-CRT-P in 4 patients(Group-I,n=105). Scar-burden ≥10% in 11 pts who underwent LBBP+ICD(Group-II). During mean-follow-up 21±12 months, primary endpoint of ER observed in 80%(68/85 pts) in Group-I vs 27%(3/11 pts) in Group-II(p-0.0001). Primary composite-endpoint of death,HFH or VT/VF occurred in 3.8% in group-I vs 33.3% in Group-II(p<0.0001). Secondary endpoint of EHR(LVEF≥50%) observed in 39.5%vs0%, 61.2%vs9.1% and 80%vs33.3% at 3, 6 and 12 months in group-I and group-II respectively.

CONCLUSION

CMR guided CRT using LOT-DDD-P appears to be a safe and feasible approach in LB-NICM and has the potential to reduce healthcare cost.

Clinical, procedural and lead outcomes associated with different pacing techniques: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

His- Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) techniques have been proposed as alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP).

OBJECTIVE

To compare data regarding clinical, procedural and lead outcomes associated with different pacing techniques.

METHODS

An accurate search of online scientific libraries (from inception to May, 12,022) was performed. Thirty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis involving 4386 patients, of whom 1324 receiving RVP, 1032 patients receiving BVP, 1069 patients receiving his-bundle pacing (HBP) and 968 patients receiving left bundle branch pacing (LBBP).

RESULTS

LBBP provided a statistically significant increase in LVEF relative to HBP (0.4473 [0.0584; 0.8361] p = 0.0242) and BVP (0.6733 [0.4734; 0.8732] p < 0.0001) in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication. LBBP and HBP significantly decreased QRS duration as compared to BVP, with largest QRS narrowing obtained by LBBP (-0.4951 [-0.9077; -0.0824] p = 0.0187). As compared to LBBP, HBP was associated with a significant increase of pacing threshold (p = 0.0369) and significant reduction of R-wave amplitude over time (p = 0.027). LBBP was associated with significant reduction in RR of hospitalization for HF (HFH) as compared to both BVP (p = 0.0343) and HBP (p = 0.0476), whereas, as compared to RVP, the risk of lead issues was significantly higher with BVP (p = 0.0424) and HBP (p = 0.0298), but not for LBBP (p = 0.425).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared to other pacing techniques, LBBP significantly improved LVEF, narrowed QRS duration and reduced HFHs, with steadily lower capture thresholds and higher R-wave amplitude, and without increasing lead issues.

Left bundle branch pacing as an alternative to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for the delivery of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). This study assessed the feasibility and outcomes of LBBP in comparison to BVP.

METHODS

LBBP was attempted in 40 consecutive patients as the first-line method for delivering CRT. To evaluate LBBP versus BVP, 40 patients with identical inclusion criteria who received BVP were compared with the LBBP group. Acute success rate, complications, functional and echocardiographic outcomes as well as hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality 6 months after implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP was successfully performed in 31 (78%) patients and resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 166 ± 16 to 123 ± 18 ms, p < 0.001), improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; from 28 ± 8 to 43 ± 12%, p < 0.001) and New York Heart Association functional class (from 2.8 ± 0.5 to 1.6 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) at 6 months. No LBBP-related complications occurred. Compared to BVP, LBBP resulted in a greater reduction in QRS duration (44 ± 17 vs 15 ± 26 ms, p < 0.001) with comparable absolute improvement in LVEF (15.2 ± 11.7 vs 9.6 ± 12.1%, p = 0.088). Hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP is feasible and was safe in 78% of patients with favourable electrical resynchronisation and functional improvement and may serve as an alternative to BVP.

The electrophysiological characteristics and meanings in left bundle branch pacing based on unipolar and bipolar pacing

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is considered as an innovative physiologic pacing form because of lower thresholds compared with His bundle pacing and can partially resolve distal bundle disease (1). Our group had reported a novel LBBP lead implantation procedure guided by electrocardiogram (ECG) and electrogram (EGM) morphology under beat-to-beat monitoring, and found the isoelectric interval was a safe and precise endpoint for implantation, and was feasible in 87.8% (2). Few studies described the ECG and EGM characteristics of bipolar pacing due to the inaccuracy of selective left bundle branch pacing (SLBBP). This is the first case to report the electrophysiological characteristics of four unipolar or bipolar pacing modes and try to analyze the potential mechanism of different ECG and EGM morphology.

[Arrhythmias : Update on ablations and devices]

The field of invasive electrophysiology is technically evolving and especially the catheter ablation treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). The technically innovative method of so-called electroporation (pulsed field ablation, PFA) is characterized by a rapid and effective treatment of AF. The current study data confirm a high success rate for ablation and a good safety profile in the treatment of paroxysmal and persistent AF. In the field of radiofrequency ablation (RF) of AF the modified form of energy transfer, the very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) protocols, show good results and can reduce the procedural time. There are also technical innovations in other single-shot devices. There is a device based on the RF technique that could show good clinical results in an initial study and can combine the targeted delivery of RF energy with the advantages of a single-shot device. For ventricular tachycardia (VT) there are innovations in the diagnostics and clarification in the new European guidelines that were presented in August 2022. These make individual recommendations for different types of cardiomyopathy. There are also technical developments in the field of active rhythm implants. In cardiac pacemaker treatment and specifically for conduction system pacing (CSP) there is evidence for a targeted stimulation of the bundle of His or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). This form of stimulation is particularly advantageous for patients with heart failure and a broad QRS complex. For leadless pacemakers (leadless pacing) there are now good long-term results and also a two-chamber approach.

A conversion CRT strategy combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative for heart failure patients with persistent atrial fibrillation

Heart failure (HF) combined with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist and may promote the pathological conditions of cardiac dysfunction, leading to poor prognosis. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) combined with atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) is a highly effective treatment for HF patients with underlying AF who either have failed or are not suitable for catheter ablation. The CRT-AVJA combination therapy can improve clinical outcomes in HF patients. Currently, clinical CRT methods are categorized into biventricular pacing (BVP) - based and conduction system pacing (CSP) - based methods. These procedures have inherent advantages and disadvantages, in addition to their considerable differences in clinical applications. This article aims to review the clinical progress of AVJA combined with different CRT strategies for treating HF patients with persistent AF and propose that conversion CRT strategy (BVP/CSP-CRT) combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative. Meanwhile, we generalize that 7 categories of HF patients with persistent AF may need to consider the CRT-AVJA combination therapy.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Bradycardia in Non-obstructive Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy Patients: Feasibility, Safety, and Effect

PURPOSE

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is as an innovative physiological pacing approach. The research on LBBP in non-obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (NOHCM) patients is scarce. This study aimed to assess the feasibility, safety, and effect of LBBP in bradycardia NOHCM patients with permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation indication.

METHODS

Thirteen consecutive patients with NOHCM who received LBBP were retrospectively enrolled as a hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) group. Following 1:3 matching, 39 patients without HCM were randomly matched as a control group. Echocardiographic index and pacing parameters were collected.

RESULTS

The successful LBBP was achieved in 96.2% of all cases (50/52), and the success rate of the HCM group was 92.3% (12/13). In the HCM group, the paced QRS duration (from the pacing stimulus to QRS end) was 145.6±20.8 ms. The stimulus to left ventricular activation time (s-LVAT) was 87.4±15.2 ms. In the control group, the paced QRS duration was 139.4±17.2 ms, and the s-LVAT was 79.9±14.1 ms. During the implantation, R-wave sensing and the pacing threshold of the HCM group were significantly higher than the control group (20.2±10.5 vs 12.5±5.9 mV, P < 0.05; 0.8±0.3 vs 0.6±0.2V/0.4 ms, P < 0.05). In addition, the fluoroscopic duration and procedural duration were longer in the HCM group (14.8±8.3 vs 10.3±6.6min, P = 0.07; 131.8±50.5 vs 101.4±41.6 min, P < 0.05). The lead insertion depth was 15±2 mm in the HCM group, and no procedure-related complications occurred. During the 12-month follow-up, pacing parameters remained stable and were of no significance in the two groups. The cardiac function did not deteriorate, and the left ventricular outflow tract gradient (LVOTG) did not increase in the follow-up.

CONCLUSION

LBBP might be feasible and safe for NOHCM patients with conventional bradycardia pacing indication, and there is no deterioration in cardiac function and LVOTG of patients with NOHCM.

Clinical, hemodynamic and biochemical improvement related to left bundle branch area pacing

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular pacing is associated with risk of heart failure and left ventricular dysfunction. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative method for delivering physiological pacing. The effect of LBBP on N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) has not been investigated.

METHOD

Finally, 50 patients referred for pacemaker implantation were included. LBBP was performed as described previously by Huang et al. Transthoracic echocardiogram and NT-proBNP were performed before and four weeks after the procedure.

RESULTS

50 patients were analyzed. There were not differences between ventricular thresholds during the procedure and 3 months later, LBBP significantly reduced QRS complex duration (148 ± 21 vs. 107 ± 11 ms; p = 0.029). LBBP significantly improved NYHA functional class and reduced NT-proBNP concentration (2888.2 ± 510 vs. 1181 ± 130 pg/ml; p = 0.04). In patients showing left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% and ventricular desynchrony LBBP showed a significant LVEF increase (40.2 ± 7 vs. 55.2 ± 7%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP was feasible and safe in most of patients. LBBP was associated with reduction in QRS width and with increase in LVEF in patients with ventricular desynchrony, while in patients with normal LVEF it remained unchanged during follow-up.

Conduction system pacing: Current status and prospects

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), is the most physiological of all pacing modalities for ventricular capture and a potential alternative to right ventricular pacing. It induces electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony, resulting in left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure hospitalization, and atrial arrhythmia. CSP activates the normal conduction system and restores ventricular synchrony. In 2000, HBP was first performed as permanent ventricular pacing, which improved left ventricular systolic dysfunction. The feasibility of permanent HBP has already been demonstrated in patients with bradycardia, although a high capture threshold and limited efficacy for infra-Hisian conduction diseases remain critical issues. The LBBAP is an alternative pacing form that overcomes the limitations of the HBP. A lower capture threshold was obtained at implantation and preserved during the follow-up period in patients with LBBAP. Cardiac resynchronization therapy with HBP or LBBAP may provide better synchronization than the traditional biventricular pacing. Hybrid therapy utilizing HBP or LBBAP in combination with left ventricular pacing has been introduced to treat patients with heart failure. In this review, we have focused on the clinical implications, limitations, and a literature review on CSP.

Comparison of His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing with Atrial-Ventricular Node Ablation and Pharmacotherapy in HFpEF Patients with Recurrent Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (HPP-AF study)

BACKGROUND

There is currently no particularly effective strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation accompanying heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), especially with recurrent atrial fibrillation after ablation. In this study, we will evaluate a new treatment strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who had at least two attempts (≧2 times) of radio-frequency catheter ablation but experienced recurrence, and physiologic conduction was reconstructed after atrioventricular node ablation or drug therapy, to control the patient's ventricular rate to maintain a regular heart rhythm, which is called His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) with atrioventricular node ablation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This investigator-initiated, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit 296 randomized HFpEF patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation. All the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to the pacing group or the drug treatment group. The primary endpoint is differences in cardiovascular events and clinical composite endpoints (all-cause mortality) between patients in the HPCSP and drug-treated groups. Secondary endpoints included heart failure hospitalization, exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise tests, quality of life, echocardiogram parameters, 6-minute walk distance, NT-ProBNP, daily patient activity levels, and heart failure management report recorded by the CIED. It is planned to compete recruitment by the end of 2023 and report in 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

The study aims to determine whether His-Purkinje conduction system pacing with atrioventricular node ablation can better improve patients' symptoms and quality of life, postpone the progression of heart failure, and reduce the rate of rehospitalization and mortality of patients with heart failure.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1900027723, URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=46128&htm=4.

Left bundle branch pacing on mechanical synchrony and myocardial work in bradycardia patients

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing method to produce narrower QRS duration, but whether it could restore mechanical synchrony and improve myocardial work still lacks sufficient evidence. Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate mechanical synchrony and myocardial work in LBBP. We collected 20 patients with LBBP due to symptomatic bradycardia and another 29 age-matched patients with right ventricular pacing (RVP). For LBBP patients, cardiac electro-mechanical synchrony and myocardial work were measured at baseline and 7 days after implantation and compared with the RVP patients. In the LBBP group, paced QRS duration and mechanical synchrony were not significantly different from baseline(all P > 0.05), but significantly smaller than that in the RVP group (all P<0.05). Meanwhile, global longitudinal strain (GLS) in LBBP was greater than that in the RVP group (17.7 ± 3.5% vs. 14.8 ± 3.1%, P < 0.05). Global myocardial work index and global constructive work were also better than that in the RVP group(all P<0.05). Global work efficiency was 91.9 ± 3.1%, which was greater when compared with RVP (P < 0.05). LBBP provides better cardiac electro-mechanical synchrony and more effective myocardial work than that in RVP, thus improving global heart function.

Distance between the lead-implanted site and tricuspid valve annulus in patients with left bundle branch pacing: Effects on postoperative tricuspid regurgitation deterioration

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an alternative strategy for His-bundle pacing (HBP); however, little is known about tricuspid regurgitation (TR) deterioration after LBBP implantation.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to characterize the incidence of post-LBBP TR deterioration and identify predicting factors, especially lead position parameters.

METHODS

Patients who received LBBP were continuously enrolled from January 2018 to August 2020. The progression of TR and the anatomic position of LBBP were characterized by echocardiography.

RESULTS

A total of 89 patients were enrolled and assigned to 2 subgroups based on the degree of TR before LBBP implantation: 58 (65.2%) with relatively normal tricuspid valve (TV) function (grade 0/1 subgroup: with none/trivial or mild TR) and 31 (34.8%) with more severe TR (grade 2/3 subgroup: with moderate or severe TR). At 19.0 ± 6.5 months of follow-up, 29 patients (32.6%) had TR deterioration, and 23 of them were in the grade 0/1 subgroup. In the grade 0/1 subgroup, patients with TR deterioration had a shorter distance between the lead-implanted site and TV (Lead-TA-dist) than those without TR (19.0 ± 7.6 vs 23.9 ± 5.4; P = .006). The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (area under the curve 0.721; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.575-0.867; P = .005) indicated the favorable efficacy of Lead-TA-dist for predicting TR deterioration after LBBP. Lead-TA-dist ≤16.1 mm was independently associated with TR deterioration after LBBP (hazard ratio 0.20; 95% CI 0.06-0.76; P = .017).

CONCLUSION

TR was a common complication of LBBP implantation. In patients with none/trivial or mild TR, Lead-TA-dist ≤16.1 mm was an independent predictor of TR deterioration after LBBP implantation.

Biventricular endocardial pacing and left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization: Mechanistic insights from electrocardiographic imaging, acute hemodynamic response, and magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

Biventricular endocardial pacing (BiV-endo) has demonstrated superior cardiac resynchronization compared to conventional biventricular epicardial pacing (BiV-epi). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may also achieve effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the acute electrical and hemodynamic effects of BiV-epi, BiV-endo, and LBBAP delivered from the LV endocardium and to assess how myocardial scar affects response.

METHODS

Eleven patients with heart failure and indications for CRT underwent a temporary pacing study with electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) and hemodynamic assessment. BiV-endo was delivered by stimulation of the left ventricular (LV) lateral wall, and LBBAP was delivered by stimulation of the LV septum, at the site of a Purkinje potential. LV activation time (LVAT-95), LV dyssynchrony index (LVDI), biventricular activation time (BIVAT-90), and biventricular dyssynchrony index (BIVDI) were calculated. Myocardial scar was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

RESULTS

The protocol was completed in 10 patients. Compared to BiV-epi (LVAT-95: 79.2 ± 13.1 ms; LVDI: 26.6 ± 3.4 ms) LV resynchronization was superior during BiV-endo (LVAT-95: 48.5 ± 14.9 ms; P = .001; LVDI: 16.6 ± 6.4 ms; P = .002) and LBBAP (LVAT-95: 48.9 ± 12.5 ms; P = .001; LVDI: 15.3 ± 3.4 ms; P = .001). Biventricular resynchronization was similarly superior during BiV-endo and LBBAP vs BiV-epi (BIVAT-90 and BIVDI; P <.05). The rate of acute hemodynamic responders was higher during BiV-endo (90%) and LBBAP (70%) vs BiV-epi (50%). The benefits of LBBAP (but not BiV-endo) on LV resynchronization were attenuated when septal scar was present in a subset of 8 patients who underwent MRI.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest superior electrical resynchronization and a higher proportion of acute hemodynamic responders during BiV-endo and LBBAP compared to BiV-epi. Electrical resynchronization was similar between BiV-endo and LBBAP; however, septal scar seemed to attenuate response to LBBAP.