What Intracardiac Tracings Have Taught Us About Left Bundle Branch Block

Current electrocardiogram (ECG) criteria for left bundle branch block (LBBB) are largely based on early work in animal models or on mathematical models of cardiac activation. The resulting criteria have modest specificity, and up to one-third of patients who meet current ECG criteria for LBBB may have intact conduction through their His-Purkinje systems. Intracardiac tracings offer the ability to accurately discriminate between LBBB and other causes of delayed activation, which may facilitate the development of more accurate ECG criteria. Assessing these distinctions are particularly salient to applications for conduction system pacing.

His Bundle Pacing: My Experience, Tricks, and Tips

His Bundle Pacing (HBP) is a form of physiologic pacing achieved through implantation of a pacing electrode into the His bundle. HBP began 20 years ago without any dedicated tools. As specific tools became available HBP quickly spread and proved to be a viable alternative to traditional right ventricle pacing. HBP is reliable and effective in preserving the physiologic ventricular synchrony with clinical benefits particularly evident when a high percentage of pacing is required. Unipolar signals from the lead tip guide the implant. 3D electroanatomical mapping could further assist the procedure.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Although conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease, there are limitations to its therapeutic success, resulting in widely variable clinical response. Limitations of conventional biventricular pacing evolve around myocardial scar, fibrosis, and inability to effectively stimulate diseased tissue. Several observational and acute hemodynamic studies have demonstrated improved electrical resynchronization and echocardiographic response with conduction system pacing. This article provides a systematic review of conduction system pacing as a physiologic alternative to conventional CRT, which is currently undergoing rigorous investigation.

Generating Evidence to Support the Physiologic Promise of Conduction System Pacing: Status and Update on Conduction System Pacing Trials

Conduction system pacing avoids the potential deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and provides an alternative approach to cardiac resynchronization therapy. We focus on the available observational and randomized evidence and review studies supporting the safety, feasibility, and physiologic promise of conduction system approaches. We evaluate the randomized data generated from the available clinical trials of conduction system pacing, which have led to the recent inclusion of CSP in international guidelines. The scope for future randomized trials will building on the physiologic promise of conduction system approaches and offering information on clinical end points is explored.

Uncommon output-dependent paced QRS morphology transition during left bundle branch pacing

We report a patient who underwent left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) because of intermittent complete heart block. During unipolar pacing at a deep septal site, a transition in QRS morphology from nonselective to selective pacing (presence of a discrete component on the intracardiac electrogram) was observed, but this was accompanied by concomitant prolongation of the stimulus-to-left ventricular activation time from 96 to 116 ms. However, with several additional turns of the lead, a transition from nonselective to selective LBBP with a short and constant stimulus-to-left ventricular activation time of 78 ms was achieved. Our case suggests that a paced QRS morphology transition from nonselective to selective pacing does not always indicate LBBP. Assessment of high-output pacing is mandatory to achieve LBBP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony: An intrapatient-controlled study during His-Purkinje conduction system pacing versus right ventricular pacing

Objectives to Background

To compare electromechanical ventricular synchrony when pacing from different sites, including right ventricular apex pacing (RVAP), right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP), His bundle pacing (HBP), left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and RVSP during unipolar pacing from the ring electrode of LBBP lead (RVSP_ring) in each patient and evaluate the correlations between electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony.

Methods

Twenty patients with complete atrioventricular block indicated for dual‐chamber pacemaker implantation were included in the study. Unipolar pacing at different sites, including RVAP, RVSP, HBP, LBBP, and RVSP_ring, was successively performed in each patient. The pacing characteristics and echocardiogram parameters were collected and compared among intrinsic rhythm and pacing at different sites.

Results

Similar to HBP (114.84 ± 18.67 ms), narrower paced QRSd was found in LBBP (116.15 ± 11.60 ms) as compared to RVSP_ring (135.11 ± 13.68 ms), RVSP (141.65 ± 14.26 ms), and RVAP (160.15 ± 19.35 ms) (p < .001). LBBP showed comparable pacing parameters to RVAP or RVSP and was significantly better than HBP, with maintained cardiac function. TS‐12‐SD was significantly improved in LBBP (41.80 ± 20.97 ms) than RVAP (69.70 ± 32.42 ms, p = .003) and RVSP (63.30.56 ± 32.53 ms, p = .018) but similar to HBP (51.50 ± 25.67 ms, p = .283) or RVSP_ring (57.80 ± 25.65 ms, p = .198). Among these pacing strategies, negative values of interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were only identified in LBBP (−19.25 ± 18.43 ms), significantly different from RVAP (35.00 ± 30.72 ms), RVSP (22.85 ± 22.05 ms), HBP (5.20 ± 18.64 ms), and RVSP_ring (16.00 ± 26.76 ms (all p < .05). Using Pearson's analysis, Sti‐LVAT was positively correlated with QRS duration, IVMD, TS‐12‐SD, LVEDV, and LVESV, while a negative relationship could be observed for left ventricular ejection fraction.

Conclusions

His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) achieved better electrical and mechanical synchrony than conventional RV pacing. For interventricular synchrony, only LBBP initiated earlier LV activation than RV, in accordance with the right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern of paced QRS during LBBP. Sti‐LVAT might be a good parameter correlating with LV systolic function and mechanical synchrony.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing vs. optimized biventricular pacing with adaptive algorithm in heart failure with left bundle branch block: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study

AIMS

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB).

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P < 0.001). Higher absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and △LVEF was also achieved in LBBP-CRT than BVP-aCRT at 6-month (47.58 ± 12.02% vs. 41.24 ± 10.56%, P = 0.008; 18.52 ± 13.19% vs. 12.89 ± 9.73%, P = 0.020) and 1-year follow-up (49.10 ± 10.43% vs. 43.62 ± 11.33%, P = 0.021; 20.90 ± 11.80% vs. 15.20 ± 9.98%, P = 0.015, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in response rate between two groups while higher super-response rate was observed in LBBP-CRT as compared to BVP-aCRT at 6 months (53.06% vs. 36.59%, P = 0.016) and 12 months (61.22% vs. 39.22%, P = 0.028) during follow-up. The pacing threshold was lower in LBBP-CRT at implant and during 1-year follow-up (both P < 0.001). Procedure-related complications and adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different in two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.

Biventricular versus His bundle pacing after atrioventricular node ablation in heart failure patients with narrow QRS

Background: His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to biventricular (BiV) pacing. We compared short-term results of both pacing approaches in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with moderately reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF ≥35% and <50%) and narrow QRS (≤120 ms) who underwent atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA).Methods: Thirty consecutive AF patients who received BiV pacing or HBP in conjunction with AVNA between May 2015 and January 2020 were retrospectively assessed. Electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and clinical data at baseline and 6 months after the procedure were assessed.Results: Twenty-four patients (age 68.8 ± 6.5 years, 50% female, EF 39.6 ± 4%, QRS 95 ± 10 ms) met the inclusion criteria, 12 received BiV pacing and 12 HBP. Both groups had similar acute procedure-related success and complication rates. HBP was superior to BiV pacing in terms of post-implant QRS duration, implantation fluoroscopy times, reduction of indexed LV volumes (EDVi 63.8 (49.6-81) mL/m² vs. 79.9 (66-100) mL/m², p = 0.055; ESVi 32.7 (25.6-42.6) mL/m² vs. 46.4 (42.9-68.1) mL/m², p = 0.009) and increase in LVEF (46 (41-55) % vs. 38 (35-42) %, p = 0.005). However, the improvement of the NYHA class was similar in both groups.Conclusions: In symptomatic AF patients with moderately reduced EF and narrow QRS undergoing AVNA, HBP could be a conceivable alternative to BiV pacing. Further prospective studies are warranted to address the outcomes between both 'ablate and pace' strategies.

Clinical Outcomes Of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared To His Bundle Pacing

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiologic form of pacing and has been associated with reduced risk for heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and mortality compared to right ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a safe and effective alternative option for patients needing ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between LBBAP and HBP among a large cohort of patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

This observational registry included consecutive patients with AV block/AV node ablation who underwent de novo permanent pacemaker implantations with successful LBBAP or HBP between April 2018 to October 2020. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death from any cause or HFH. Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with prespecified ventricular pacing burden and individual outcomes.

RESULTS

The study population included 359 patients who met the inclusion criteria (163 in the HBP and 196 in the LBBAP group). Paced QRSd during LBBAP was similar to HBP (125 ± 20.2 vs 126 ± 23.5 ms, p=0.643). There were no statistically significant differences in the primary composite outcome in LBBAP (17.3%) compared to HBP (24.5%) (HR 1.15, CI 0.72-1.82, p = 0.552). Secondary outcomes of death (10 vs 17%; HR 1.3, CI 0.73-2.33, p=0.38) and HFH (10 vs 12%; HR 1.02,CI 0.54-1.94, p=0.94) were not different among both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical outcomes of death or HFH in LBBAP when compared to HBP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Complete electrical reverse remodeling of native conduction after resynchronization therapies

BACKGROUND

Electrical reverse remodeling of native conduction is associated with better clinical outcome following cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to describe characteristics, time course and long-term outcome of patients with complete electrical reverse remodeling (CERR) after resynchronization therapies.

METHODS

CRT candidates were treated with bi-ventricular, His bundle or left bundle branch pacing. CERR was defined if native QRS duration post-implantation was narrowed to ≤120 ms.

RESULTS

A total of 322 patients met the inclusion criteria. Among them, 66 were super-responders and 12 exhibited CERR. All 12 patients were diagnosed of non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with left bundle branch block (LBBB) meeting the Strauss criteria. The mean native QRS duration when CERR was achieved was 110.8 ± 10.0 ms, significantly shorter than the baseline (175.0 ± 18.8 ms). The occurrence of CERR varied from several days post-implantation to 18-month follow-up. The persistence of CERR also showed great variations. Eleven patients (91.7%, 11/12) showed echocardiographic super-response. Patients with CERR showed similar baseline characteristics compared to those with echocardiographic super-response but without CERR. Two patients with CERR showed different responses after bi-ventricular pacing was turned off. One patient remained stable with narrow QRS complex and great response. The other patient had reappearance of LBBB and decreased cardiac function, but recovered by turning on the device again.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with CERR exhibited great response to different resynchronization therapies. The time course of CERR and echocardiographic super-response varied greatly. The variability of native conduction system and accompanied changes of mechanical remodeling suggest the mechanisms of electrical-disorder related cardiomyopathy.

Absence of a left bundle branch potential recording from the left bundle branch pacing lead: What is the mechanism?

An 89-year-old woman was referred to our hospital This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparative effects of left bundle branch area pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy: A network meta-analysis

Background

The comparative effects of different types of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivered by biventricular pacing (BVP), His bundle pacing (HBP), and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) remain inconclusive.

Hypothesis

HBP and LBBAP may be advantageous over BVP for CRT.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched for studies that reported the effects after BVP, HBP, and LBBAP for CRT. The effects between groups were compared by a frequentist random‐effects network meta‐analysis (NMA), by which the mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

Results

Six articles involving 389 patients remained for the final meta‐analysis. The mean follow‐up of these studies was 8.03 ± 3.15 months. LBBAP resulted in a greater improvement in LVEF% (MD = 7.17, 95% CI = 4.31 to 10.04), followed by HBP (MD = 4.06, 95% CI = 1.09 to 7.03) compared with BVP. HBP resulted in a narrower QRS duration (MD = 31.58 ms, 95% CI = 12.75 to 50.40), followed by LBBAP (MD = 27.40 ms, 95% CI = 10.81 to 43.99) compared with BVP. No significant differences of changes in LVEF improvement and QRS narrowing were observed between LBBAP and HBP. The pacing threshold of LBBAP was significantly lower than those of BVP and HBP.

Conclusion

The NMA first found that LBBAP and HBP resulted in a greater LVEF improvement and a narrower QRS duration compared with BVP. Additionally, LBBAP resulted in similar clinical outcomes but with lower pacing thresholds, and may therefore offer advantages than does HBP for CRT.

[ESC guidelines 2021 on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy : What's new?]

The new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy were presented together with the new ESC heart failure guidelines at the ESC congress in September. The new document includes detailed sections on patient evaluation and clinical assessment, implantation, minimizing complications and patient follow-up. The guidelines have been updated and expanded particularly on the approach to reflex syncope, the indications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and the perioperative management. The indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are now in line with the simultaneously published ESC heart failure guidelines. New physiological forms of stimulation and leadless pacing are now included in the guidelines.

Comparison of the Acute Effects of Different Pacing Sites on Cardiac Synchrony and Contraction Using Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography

Background: Cardiac pacing in patients with bradyarrhythmia may employ variable pacing sites, which may have different effects on cardiac function. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a new physiological pacing modality, and the acute outcomes on cardiac mechanical synchrony during LBBP remain uncertain. We evaluated the acute effects of four pacing sites on cardiac synchrony and contraction using speckle-tracking echocardiography, and comparisons among four different pacing sites were rare.

Methods: We enrolled 21 patients with atrioventricular block or sick sinus syndrome who each sequentially underwent acute pacing protocols, including right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP), right ventricular outflow tract pacing (RVOP), His bundle pacing (HBP), and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Electrocardiograms and echocardiograms were recorded at baseline and during pacing. The interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD), the standard deviation of the times to longitudinal peak strain during 17 segments (PSD), and the Yu index were used to evaluate ventricular mechanical synchrony. Layer-specific strain was computed using two-dimensional speckle tracking technique to provide in-depth details about ventricular synchrony and function.

Results: Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) were significantly decreased during RVAP and RVOP but were not significantly different during HBP and LBBP compared with baseline. RVAP and RVOP significantly prolonged QRS duration, whereas HBP and LBBP showed non-significant effects. IVMD and PSD were significantly increased during RVAP but were not significantly different during RVOP, HBP, or LBBP. LBBP resulted in a significant improvement in the IVMD and Yu index compared with RVAP. No significant differences in mechanical synchrony were found between HBP and LBBP.

Conclusion: Among these pacing modalities, RVAP has a negative acute impact on cardiac synchrony and contraction. HBP and LBBP best preserve physiological cardiac synchrony and function.

Arrhythmias in adults with congenital heart disease and heart failure

Arrhythmias and heart failure are among the most common complications encountered by adults with congenital heart disease (CHD). In this contemporary review, we explore the interactions between arrhythmias and heart failure and discuss management strategies. Major knowledge gaps are highlighted throughout. Interactions between arrhythmias and heart failure are complex and bidirectional, with one begetting the other. Arrhythmias can provoke heart failure through various mechanisms: conduction disturbances may contribute to inefficient ventricular filling and contraction patterns; bradyarrhythmias and tachyarrhythmias can result in a reduction in cardiac output; hypoxemia may be exacerbated by right-to-left shunting; and tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy has potentially devastating consequences if the diagnosis is delayed. In turn, heart failure promotes arrhythmogenesis through various structural (eg, fibrosis, chamber dilation, hypertrophy) and electrical remodeling effects that include changes to ion currents and channels and connexin expression, along with shortening of atrial and ventricular refractory periods with increased heterogeneity. Several shared comorbidities can contribute to, and modulate the impact of, arrhythmias and heart failure. Preemptive arrhythmia management can potentially mitigate effects on heart failure exacerbations. Similarly, optimal heart failure control could curtail its impact on arrhythmogenesis. Treatment strategies to prevent or treat heart failure in adults with CHD encompass pharmacological agents, catheter ablation, and device therapies including defibrillators, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and His bundle pacing. High-priority research avenues with major knowledge gaps include tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation, defibrillator indications in high-risk subsets, and the role of cardiac resynchronization therapy and His bundle pacing in diverse forms of CHD.

Left bundle branch pacing: An evolving site for physiological pacing

For patients with symptomatic bradyarrhythmia, cardiac pacing is the only appropriate treatment option. Electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony caused by traditional right ventricular apical pacing leads to left ventricular dysfunction and atrial arrhythmias. Physiological pacing stimulates natural cardiac conduction, resulting in synchronized ventricular contraction. Even if His bundle pacing (HBP) is an ideal physiological pacing modality, it is technically not always feasible because of high capture thresholds, disease in the distal His bundle, and follow-up troubleshooting issues. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been proposed as a viable alternative to HBP since it provides lead stability, a low and stable pacing threshold, and correction of distal conduction system disease.

Left bundle branch area pacing guided by continuous uninterrupted monitoring of unipolar pacing characteristics

INTRODUCTION

During left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) lead implantation, intermittent monitoring of unipolar pacing characteristics confirms LBB capture and can detect septal perforation. We aimed to demonstrate that continuous uninterrupted unipolar pacing from an inserted lead stylet (LS) is feasible and facilitates LBBAP implantation.

METHODS

Thirty patients (mean age 76 ± 14 years) were implanted with a stylet-driven pacing lead (Biotronik Solia S60). In 10 patients (comparison-group) conventional implantation with interrupted unipolar pacing was performed, with comparison of unipolar pacing characteristics between LS and connector-pin (CP)-pacing after each rotation step. In 20 patients (uninterrupted-group) performance and safety of uninterrupted implantation during continuous pacing from the LS were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the comparison group, LS and CP-pacing impedances were highly correlated (R²  = 0.95, p < .0001, bias 12 ± 37 Ω) with comparable sensed electrograms and paced QRS morphologies. In the uninterrupted group, continuous LS-pacing allowed beat-to-beat monitoring of impedance and QRS morphology to guide implantation. This resulted in successful LBBAP in all patients, after a mean of 1 ± 0 attempts, with mean threshold 0.81 ± 0.4 V, median sensing 6.5 mV [IQR 4.4-9.5], and mean impedance 624 ± 101 Ω. Positive LBBAP-criteria were seen in all patients with median paced QRS duration of 120 ms [IQR 112-152 ms] and median pLVAT 73 ms [IQR 68-80.5 ms]. No septal perforation occurred.

CONCLUSION

Unipolar pacing from the LS allows accurate determination of pacing impedance and generates similar paced QRS morphologies and sensed electrograms to CP pacing. Continuous LS pacing allows real-time monitoring of impedance and paced QRS morphology, which facilitates safe and successful LBBAP lead implantation.

A single-center experience with early adoption of physiologic pacing approaches

BACKGROUND

Increasing interest in physiological pacing has been countered with challenges such as accurate lead deployment and increasing pacing thresholds with His-bundle pacing (HBP). More recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative approach to physiologic pacing.

OBJECTIVE

To compare procedural outcomes and pacing parameters at follow-up during initial adoption of HBP and LBBAP at a single center.

METHODS

Retrospective review, from September 2016 to January 2020, identified the first 50 patients each who underwent successful HBP or LBBAP. Pacing parameters were then assessed at first follow-up after implantation and after approximately 1 year, evaluating for acceptable pacing parameters defined as sensing R-wave amplitude >5 mV, threshold <2.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and impedance between 400 and 1200 Ω.

RESULTS

The HBP group was younger with lower ejection fraction compared to LBBAP (73.2 ± 15.3 vs. 78.2 ± 9.2 years, p = .047; 51.0 ± 15.9% vs. 57.0 ± 13.1%, p = .044). Post-procedural QRS widths were similarly narrow (119.8 ± 21.2 vs. 116.7 ± 15.2 ms; p = .443) in both groups. Significantly fewer patients with HBP met the outcome for acceptable pacing parameters at initial follow-up (56.0% vs. 96.4%, p = .001) and most recent follow-up (60.7% vs. 94.9%, p ≤ .001; at 399 ± 259 vs. 228 ± 124 days, p ≤ .001). More HBP patients required lead revision due to early battery depletion or concern for pacing failure (0% vs. 13.3%, at a mean of 664 days).

CONCLUSION

During initial adoption, HBP is associated with a significantly higher frequency of unacceptable pacing parameters, energy consumption, and lead revisions compared with LBBAP.

Adopting permanent His bundle pacing: learning curves and medium-term outcomes

AIMS

This study aims to determine procedural characteristics, acute success rates, and medium-term outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing His bundle pacing (HBP); and learning curves of experienced electrophysiologists adopting HBP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive HBP patients at three hospitals were recruited. Clinical characteristics, acute procedural details, and medium-term outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records. Two hundred and thirty-three patients [mean age 74.6 ± 10.1 years, 48% female, 68% narrow QRS, 71% normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 55.8% atrioventricular block] underwent HBP. Acute procedural success was 81.1% (mean procedural and fluoroscopic times of 105.5 ± 36.5 and 13.8 ± 9.3 min). Broad QRS was associated with lower HBP success (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.02). Fluoroscopic and procedural times decreased and plateaued after 30-40 cases per operator. Implant HBP threshold was 1.3 ± 0.7 V at 1.0 ± 0.2 ms and R wave was 5.0 ± 3.9 mV. During follow-up, loss of HBP occurred in a further 12.4% and 11.3% of patients experienced a ≥1 V increase in HBP threshold. Five (2.6%) patients required HBP revision for pacing difficulties. About 8.6% of patients had a >50% decrease in R wave but lead revision for sensing issues was not necessary. On an intention to treat basis, 56.7% of patients in whom HBP was attempted had persisting HBP capture and thresholds of <2 V.

CONCLUSION

Physicians adopting HBP should be cognizant of the learning curve and preferentially select non-dependent patients with normal QRS and LVEF, to minimize risk of lead revision. Further rises in HBP threshold may increase battery drain and need for reoperations, important considerations when choosing HBP for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

ECG and Pacing Criteria for Differentiating Conduction System Pacing from Myocardial Pacing

During His-Purkinje conduction system (HPS) pacing, it is crucial to confirm capture of the His bundle or left bundle branch versus myocardialonly capture. For this, several methods and criteria for differentiation between non-selective (ns) capture - capture of the HPS and the adjacent myocardium - and myocardial-only capture were developed. HPS capture results in faster and more homogenous depolarisation of the left ventricle than right ventricular septal (RVS) myocardial-only capture. Specifically, the depolarisation of the left ventricle (LV) does not require slow cell-to-cell spread of activation from the right side to the left side of the interventricular septum but begins simultaneously with QRS onset as in native depolarisation. These phenomena greatly influence QRS complex morphology and form the basis of electrocardiographic differentiation between HPS and myocardial paced QRS. Moreover, the HPS and the working myocardium are different tissues within the heart muscle that vary not only in conduction velocities but also in refractoriness and capture thresholds. These last two differences can be exploited for the diagnosis of HPS capture using dynamic pacing manoeuvres, namely differential output pacing, programmed stimulation and burst pacing. This review summarises current knowledge of this subject.

Hemodynamic Effects of Permanent His Bundle Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing Assessed by Two-Dimensional Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography

We compared the effects of right ventricular (RVP; n = 26) and His bundle (HBP; n = 24) pacing in patients with atrioventricular conduction disorders and preserved LVEF. Postoperatively (1D), and after six months (6M), the patients underwent global longitudinal strain (GLS) and peak systolic dispersion (PSD) evaluation with 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography, assessment of left atrial volume index (LAVI) and QRS duration (QRSd), and sensing/pacing parameter testing. The RVP threshold was lower than the HBP threshold at 1D (0.65 ± 0.13 vs. 1.05 ± 0.20 V, p < 0.001), and then it remained stable, while the HBP threshold increased at 6M (1.05 ± 0.20 vs. 1.31 ± 0.30 V, p < 0.001). The RVP R-wave was higher than the HBP R-wave at 1D (11.52 ± 2.99 vs. 4.82 ± 1.41 mV, p < 0.001). The RVP R-wave also remained stable, while the HBP R-wave decreased at 6M (4.82 ± 1.41 vs. 4.50 ± 1.09 mV, p < 0.02). RVP QRSd was longer than HBP QRSd at 6M (145.0 ± 11.1 vs. 112.3 ± 9.3 ms, p < 0.001). The absolute value of RVP GLS decreased at 6M (16.32 ± 2.57 vs. 14.03 ± 3.78%, p < 0.001), and HBP GLS remained stable. Simultaneously, RVP PSD increased (72.53 ± 24.15 vs. 88.33 ± 30.51 ms, p < 0.001) and HBP PSD decreased (96.28 ± 33.99 vs. 84.95 ± 28.98 ms, p < 0.001) after 6 months. RVP LAVI increased (26.73 ± 5.7 vs. 28.40 ± 6.4 mL/m², p < 0.05), while HBP LAVI decreased at 6M (30.03 ± 7.8 vs. 28.73 ± 8.7 mL/m², p < 0.01). These results confirm that HBP does not disrupt ventricular synchrony and provides advantages over RVP.

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.

Impact of physiological pacing on functional mitral regurgitation in systolic dysfunction: Initial echocardiographic remodeling findings after His bundle pacing

Background

Although His bundle pacing (HBP) has been shown to improve left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), its impact on mitral regurgitation (MR) remains uncertain.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate change in functional MR after HBP in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction.

Methods

Paired echocardiograms were retrospectively assessed in patients with reduced LVEF (<50%) undergoing HBP for pacing or resynchronization. The primary outcomes assessed were change in MR, LVEF, LV volumes, and valve geometry pre- and post-HBP. MR reduction was characterized as a decline in ≥1 MR grade post-HBP in patients with ≥grade 3 MR at baseline.

Results

Thirty patients were analyzed: age 68 ± 15 years, 73% male, LVEF 32% ± 10%, 38% coronary artery disease, 33% history of atrial fibrillation. Baseline QRS was 162 ± 31 ms: 33% left bundle branch block, 37% right bundle branch block, 17% paced, and 13% narrow QRS. Significant reductions in LV end-systolic volume (122 mL [73–152 mL] to 89 mL [71–122 mL], P = .006) and increase in LV ejection fraction (31% [25%–37%] to 39% [30%–49%], P < .001) were observed after HBP. Ten patients had grade 3 or 4 MR at baseline, with reduction in MR observed in 7. In patients with at least grade 3 MR at baseline, reduction in LV volumes, improved mitral valve geometry, and greater LV contractility were associated with MR reduction. Greater reduction in paced QRS width was present in MR responders compared to non-MR responders (-40% vs -25%, P = .04).

Conclusions

In this initial detailed echocardiographic analysis in patients with LV systolic dysfunction, HBP reduced functional MR through favorable ventricular remodeling.