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.

Optimal Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy with Conduction System Pacing Guided by Electro-Anatomical Mapping: A Case Report

INTRODUCTION

Biventricular pacing has been the gold standard for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with left bundle branch block and severely reduced left ventricular ejection fraction for decades. However, in the past few years, this role has been challenged by the promising results of conduction system pacing in these patients, which has proven non-inferior and, at times, superior to biventricular pacing regarding left ventricular function outcomes. One of the most important limitations of both procedures is the long fluoroscopy times.

CASE DESCRIPTION

We present the case of a 60-year-old patient with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block in whom conduction system pacing was chosen as the first option for resynchronization therapy. A 3D electro-anatomical mapping system was used to guide the lead to the His bundle region, where correction was observed at high amplitudes, and afterward to the optimal septal penetration site. After reaching the left endocardium, left bundle branch pacing achieved a narrow, paced QRS complex with low fluoroscopy exposure. The three-month follow-up showed a significant improvement in clinical status and left ventricular function.

CONCLUSION

Since conduction system pacing requires a great deal of precision, targeting specific, narrow structures inside the heart, 3D mapping is a valuable tool that increases the chances of success, especially in patients with complex anatomies, such as those with indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Feasibility of His bundle pacing facilitated by EASI derived 12‑lead ECG

INTRODUCTION

His bundle pacing (HBP) has become popular in recent years as a more physiological alternative to conventional right ventricular pacing. Implantation requires 12‑lead ECG during surgery, which is not readily available in a standard operating room. Often but not always HBP is performed in an electrophysiology lab. EASI is a reduced lead system which enables derived 12‑lead ECG. EASI derived 12‑lead ECGs on modern tablet computers offer a more mobile and lightweight ECG solution which does not obstruct fluoroscopy during implantation. This case series aims to compare standard 12‑lead ECG to EASI derived 12‑lead ECG in patients undergoing HBP implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 11 patients received permanent HBP guided only by fluoroscopy, a pacing system analyzer (Medtronic CareLink SmartSync Device Manager) and EASI derived 12‑lead ECG (CardioSecur Pro). During the first postoperative device interrogation HBP criteria, as defined in the EHRA consensus paper on conduction system pacing, were evaluated with the EASI derived system as well as a standard 12‑lead ECG and compared to each other. There was perfect agreement with regards to these criteria which lead to identical conclusions in all cases.

CONCLUSION

HBP implantation can be performed with EASI derived 12‑lead ECG instead of conventional 12‑lead ECG. Criteria for discriminating between selective His bundle, non-selective His bundle or myocardial capture alone are clearly visible in the EASI derived ECG leading to the same conclusion when compared to standard 12‑lead ECG. Compared to a conventional 12‑lead ECG the EASI system offers a leaner setup with less visual obstruction on fluoroscopy.

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.

His bundle pacing success and electrical parameter stability regardless of three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography lead localization

BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE

His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiological form of ventricular pacing. Few prospective studies have analyzed lead localization using imaging techniques and its relationship with electrical parameters and capture patterns. The objective of this study is to examine the correlation between electrical parameters and lead localization using three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (3D TTE).

METHODS

This single-center, prospective, nonrandomized clinical research study (January 2018 to June 2020) included patients with an indication of permanent pacing, in whom 3D TTE was performed to define lead localization as supravalvular or subvalvular.

RESULTS

A total of 92 patients were included: 56.5% of leads were supravalvular, and 43.5% were subvalvular, which resembles previous anatomic descriptions of autopsied hearts of His bundle localization within the triangle of Koch (ToK). R-wave sensing was higher when the His lead was localized subvalvular instead of supravalvular. His lead localization was not associated with HBP threshold or impedance differences, nor with the two different HBP patterns of capture, or with the ability of HBP to correct baseline BBB. The thresholds remained stable during follow-up visits, regardless of His lead localization. Higher R-wave sensing was observed during follow-up than at baseline, mainly in the subvalvular His leads. However, lead impedances in both positions decreased during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Lead localization in relation to the tricuspid valve did not influence the electrical performance of HBPs. Wide anatomical variations of the His bundle within the ToK explain our findings, reinforcing the idea that the technique for HBP should be fundamentally guided by electrophysiological and not anatomical parameters.

Long-term follow-up of selective and non-selective His bundle pacing leads in patients with atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) is a novel treatment with limited knowledge on long-term outcome. We aimed to assess long-term safety and effectiveness of HBP in patients with atrioventricular block treated with HBP and a back-up right ventricular pacing (RVP) lead.

METHODS

We included 38 patients from a completed single-center, randomized controlled cross-over trial designed to compare left ventricular (LV) function after 12 months of HBP vs. RVP conducted between September 2007 and August 2011. Lead performance beyond the 2-year study period was assessed based on a retrospective review of capture thresholds, sensing, impedance, energy consumption, and rate of HBP interruption.

RESULTS

Patients were followed for a mean of 7 ± 4 years. Both at baseline and during follow-up, HBP leads displayed significantly higher capture thresholds than RVP leads (P < 0.001), multifold higher energy consumption (P < 0.001), and lower sensing amplitudes (P < 0.001). During follow-up, 17 (53%) HBP leads were deactivated or abandoned. The principal cause for HBP interruption was high pacing thresholds in patients with preserved LVEF during RVP. Device longevity was shorter than that of contemporary cohorts treated with dual-chamber pacing or CRT, and time to first device exchange was 6.8 ± 1.5 years. No lead dislodgements occurred, but four patients (10%) developed device-related infections requiring device extraction.

CONCLUSION

HBP was interrupted in > 50% of patients during long-term follow-up. The principal cause was unacceptably high capture thresholds and no significant difference in LV function with HBP compared with RVP. Device longevity was shorter, and infection rates were higher than anticipated.

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.

Conduction system pacing: overview, definitions, and nomenclature

Pacing from the right ventricle is associated with an increased risk of development of congestive heart failure, increases in total and cardiac mortality, and a worsened quality of life. Conduction system pacing has become increasingly realized as an alternative to right ventricular apical pacing. Conduction system pacing from the His bundle and left bundle branch area has been shown to provide physiologic activation of the ventricle and may be an alternative to coronary sinus pacing. Conduction system pacing has been studied as an alternative for both bradycardia pacing and for heart failure pacing. In this review, we summarize the clinical results of conduction system pacing under a variety of different clinical settings. The anatomic targets of conduction system pacing are illustrated, and electrocardiographic correlates of pacing from different sites in the conduction system are defined. Ultimately, clinical trials comparing conduction system pacing with standard right ventricular apical pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing will help define its benefit and risks compared with existing techniques.

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.

Computational Modelling Enabling In Silico Trials for Cardiac Physiologic Pacing

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

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.

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.

The usefulness of echo-based hemodynamic parameters in cardiac resynchronization therapy with conduction system pacing for optimal device programing

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) has proved to be a valuable alternative enabling the physiological activation of cardiac contraction in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). At present, however, little is known about the optimal method of programming of the His bundle-paced CRT systems in terms of achieving the best cardiac output.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy with conduction system pacing (CRT+CSP) on echo-based hemodynamic parameters in the early post-operative measurements.

METHODS

The study enrollment criteria included: permanent atrial fibrillation, heart failure and bundle branch block. All patients underwent implantation of CRT + HBP. During the post-operative phase, we aimed to optimize HOT-CRT settings in order to achieve the greatest cardiac output assessed by complex echocardiographic measurements.

RESULTS

The study included 21 patients, mean age 71.2 (6.3) years, predominantly men (71.4%) with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy 62%. All patients had heart failure with NYHA functional class III and IV (81%). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 27.5 (9.7%). The mean duration of the QRS complex was 148.8 ms. The effects of resynchronization pacing: HBP alone, HBP with left ventricular pacing, HBP with biventricular pacing (BiV) and BiV without HBP ​​were analyzed consecutively. HBP combined with left ventricular pacing demonstrated the best hemodynamic response.

CONCLUSION

His bundle pacing coupled with LV pacing proved to be the most advantageous pacing program setting with regard to cardiac output. Moreover, it performed better than biventricular pacing and significantly better than RV pacing.

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads

BACKGROUND

Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately.

RESULTS

The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

Safety and efficacy of His-Purkinje system pacing in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the His-Purkinje system pacing (HPCSP) in the treatment of individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) complicated by heart failure (HF).

Methods

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched through September 1, 2022. The literature was initially screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The baseline characteristics of the subjects, implantation success rate, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDd), QRS duration, pacing threshold, and impedance were extracted and summarized; statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

In all, 22 articles were included, involving 1,445 patients. Compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP), HPCSP resulted in improved cardiac function, including increased ejection fraction (MD = 5.69, 95% CI: 0.78-10.60, P = 0.02) and decreased LVEDd (MD = -3.50, 95% CI: -7.05-0.05, P = 0.05). It was also correlated with shorter QRS duration (MD = -38.30, 95% CI: -60.71--15.88, P < 0.01) and reduced all-cause mortality and rehospitalization events (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91, P < 0.01) in patients. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) lowered the pacing threshold (MD = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.69; P < 0.01), and there was no statistical difference in the rate of endpoint events when comparing these two physiologic pacing modalities (RR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.87-2.80, P = 0.14).

Conclusion

The safety and efficacy of HPCSP in patients with AF and HF were verified in this meta-analysis. HPCSP can reverse cardiac remodeling and has great clinical application value. Relatively speaking, His-bundle pacing (HBP) can maintain better ventricular electro-mechanical synchronization, and the pacing parameters of LBBP are more stable.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42022336109).

Correlations between myocardial injury current and lead performance in His bundle pacing compared with left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular septum pacing

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing by implanting the lead in the His bundle (HBP) region or in the left bundle branch area (LBBAP) has gained popularity. Myocardial injury current (IC) is useful for predicting adequate lead fixation in right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP).

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

We compared the correlations between IC and lead performance among patients receiving HBP (n = 41), LBBAP (n = 53), and historical RVSP (n = 88). LBBAP was an alternative if optimal HBP was not achieved. A positive IC (STpost-screw-in - STpre-screw-in) was defined as > 0.2 mV or a > 25% ST elevation and prolongation of the ventricular electrograms > 10 ms from baseline.

RESULTS

HBP patients with a positive IC (48%, 0.84 ± 0.4 V/0.4 ms) exhibited a similar pacing threshold to their LBBAP counterparts (76%, 0.75 ± 0.3 V/0.4 ms, p = 0.329), but a higher pacing threshold than their RVSP counterparts (67%, 0.50 ± 0.1 V/0.4 ms, p < 0.001) at implantation. The R-wave (5.70 ± 3.4 mV) and impedance (660.91 ± 140.8 Ω) were both lower than those of LBBAP (10.35 ± 6.0 mV, p = 0.002; 822.36 ± 235.8 Ω, p = 0.005) and RVSP (11.24 ± 4.9 mV, p < 0.001; 754.27 ± 126.4 Ω, p = 0.006) patients respectively at implantation. The trend of electrical parameter comparisons remained unchanged during follow-up (3.56 ± 1.4 months). Notably, HBP patients without ICs had a higher pacing threshold (1.24 ± 0.6 V/0.4 ms) compared to their LBBAP (0.73 ± 0.3 V/0.4 ms, p = 0.009) and RVSP (0.53 ± 0.1 V/0.4 ms, p < 0.001) counterparts at implantation and during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The detection of positive changes of myocardial ICs during HBP was associated with a better capture threshold equivalent to the LBBAP counterpart both at implantation and during short-term follow-up. Further large-scale studies with longer follow-up are necessary to confirm these findings.

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.

Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications.

RESULTS

Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08-1.22); p < 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.78); p = 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21-0.72); p = 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.35); p < 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.

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.

Pacing of Specialized Conduction System

Right ventricular pacing for bradycardia remains the mainstay of pacing therapy. Chronic right ventricular pacing may lead to pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. We focus on the anatomy of the conduction system and the clinical feasibility of pacing the His bundle and/or left bundle conduction system. We review the hemodynamics of conduction system pacing, the techniques to capture the conduction system and the electrocardiogram and pacing definitions of conduction system capture. Clinical studies of conduction system pacing in the setting of atrioventricular block and after AV junction ablation are reviewed and the evolving role of conduction system pacing is compared with biventricular pacing.

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.