Feasibility and Acute Hemodynamic Effect of Left Ventricular Septal Pacing by Transvenous Approach Through the Interventricular Septum

The evolution of cardiac resynchronization therapy and an introduction to conduction system pacing: a conceptual review

In chronic systolic heart failure and conduction system disease, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the only known non-pharmacologic heart failure therapy that improves cardiac function, functional capacity, and survival while decreasing cardiac workload and hospitalization rates. While conventional bi-ventricular 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 CRT evolve around myocardial scar, fibrosis, and inability to effectively simulate diseased tissue. Studies have shown endocardial stimulation in closer proximity to the specialized conduction system is more effective when compared with epicardial stimulation. Several observational and acute haemodynamic studies have demonstrated improved electrical resynchronization and echocardiographic response with conduction system pacing (CSP). Our objective is to provide a systematic review of the evolution of CRT, and an introduction to CSP as an intriguing, though experimental physiologic alternative to conventional CRT.

A pilot study to determine if left ventricular activation time is a useful parameter for left bundle branch capture: Validated by ventricular mechanical synchrony with SPECT imaging

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing has emerged as a novel pacing modality. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was reported to be associated with the activation via LBB, but the value of LVAT for determining LBB pacing was unknown. We conducted a pilot study to determine if LVAT could define LBB capture by validating left ventricular (LV) mechanical synchrony.

METHODS

We analyzed LVAT in 68 bradycardia-indicated patients who received LBB pacing. LVAT was measured from the stimulus to R-wave peak in lead V5 and V6. LV mechanical synchrony assessed by SPECT MPI was compared according to the value of LVAT and the presence of LBB potential.

RESULTS

The mean LVAT was 75.4 ± 12.7 ms. LBB potential was recorded in 47 patients (69.1%). Patients with LVAT < 76 ms had better LV mechanical synchrony than those with LVAT ≥ 76 ms. Patients with LVAT < 76 ms or LBB potential had better mechanical synchrony than those with LVAT ≥ 76 ms and no potential. LVAT < 76 ms could predict the normal synchrony with a sensitivity of 88.9% and a specificity of 87.5%.

CONCLUSION

A short LVAT indicated favorable mechanical synchrony in SPECT imaging. LVAT < 76 ms might be a practical parameter for defining LBB capture.

Left bundle branch pacing compared to left ventricular septal myocardial pacing increases interventricular dyssynchrony but accelerates left ventricular lateral wall depolarization

BACKGROUND

Nonselective His-bundle pacing (nsHBp), nonselective left bundle branch pacing (nsLBBp), and left ventricular septal myocardial pacing (LVSP) are recognized as physiological pacing techniques.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare differences in ventricular depolarization between these techniques using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG).

METHODS

In patients with bradycardia, nsHBp, nsLBBp (confirmed concomitant left bundle branch [LBB] and myocardial capture), and LVSP (pacing in left ventricular [LV] septal position without proven LBB capture) were performed. Timings of ventricular activations in precordial leads were displayed using UHF-ECG, and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated as the difference between the first and last activation. Duration of local depolarization (Vd) was determined as width of the UHF-QRS complex at 50% of its amplitude.

RESULTS

In 68 patients, data were collected during nsLBBp (35), LVSP (96), and nsHBp (55). nsLBBp resulted in larger e-DYS than did LVSP and nsHBp [- 24 ms (-28;-19) vs -12 ms (-16;-9) vs 10 ms (7;14), respectively; P <.001]. nsLBBp produced similar values of Vd in leads V₅-V₈ (36-43 ms vs 38-43 ms; P = NS in all leads) but longer Vd in leads V₁-V₄ (47-59 ms vs 41-44 ms; P <.05) as nsHBp. LVSP caused prolonged Vd in leads V₁-V₈ compared to nsHBp and longer Vd in leads V₅-V₈ compared to nsLBBp (44-51 ms vs 36-43 ms; P <.05) regardless of R-wave peak time in lead V₅ or QRS morphology in lead V₁ present during LVSP.

CONCLUSION

nslbbp preserves physiological LV depolarization but increases interventricular electrical dyssynchrony. LV lateral wall depolarization during LVSP is prolonged, but interventricular synchrony is preserved.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: Current Knowledge and Future Prospects

Cardiac pacing is an effective therapy for treating patients with bradycardia due to sinus node dysfunction or atrioventricular block. However, traditional right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) causes electric and mechanical dyssynchrony, which is associated with increased risk for atrial arrhythmias and heart failure. Therefore, there is a need to develop a physiological pacing approach that activates the normal cardiac conduction and provides synchronized contraction of ventricles. Although His bundle pacing (HBP) has been widely used as a physiological pacing modality, it is limited by challenging implantation technique, unsatisfactory success rate in patients with wide QRS wave, high pacing capture threshold, and early battery depletion. Recently, the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), defined as the capture of left bundle branch (LBB) via transventricular septal approach, has emerged as a newly physiological pacing modality. Results from early clinical studies have demonstrated LBBP's feasibility and safety, with rare complications and high success rate. Overall, this approach has been found to provide physiological pacing that guarantees electrical synchrony of the left ventricle with low pacing threshold. This was previously specifically characterized by narrow paced QRS duration, large R waves, fast synchronized left ventricular activation, and correction of left bundle branch block. Therefore, LBBP may be a potential alternative pacing modality for both RVAP and cardiac resynchronization therapy with HBP or biventricular pacing (BVP). However, the technique's widespread adaptation needs further validation to ascertain its safety and efficacy in randomized clinical trials. In this review, we discuss the current knowledge of LBBP.

Innovations in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential for the management of a variety of cardiac conditions, including tachyarrhythmias, bradyarrhythmias, and medically refractory heart failure (HF). Recent advancements in CIED technology have led to innovative solutions that overcome shortcomings associated with traditional devices or address unmet needs. Leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and extravascular ICDs eliminate lead-related complications common with conventional pacemakers or ICDs. Conduction system pacing (His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing) is a more physiologic method of pacing and avoids the deleterious consequences associated with long-term right ventricular pacing. For HF-related devices, cardiac contractility modulation is an emerging therapy that bridges a gap for many patients ineligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy and has been shown to improve HF symptoms and decrease hospitalizations and mortality in select patients. Implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitors help guide HF management and reduce hospitalizations. Lastly, new phrenic nerve stimulating devices are being utilized to treat central sleep apnea, a common comorbidity associated with HF. While further long-term studies are still underway for many of these new technologies, it is anticipated that these devices will become indispensable therapeutics in the expanding cardiovascular armamentarium.

Comparing Ventricular Synchrony in Left Bundle Branch and Left Ventricular Septal Pacing in Pacemaker Patients

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been introduced as a novel physiological pacing strategy. Within LBBAP, distinction is made between left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP, no left bundle capture). Objective: To investigate acute electrophysiological effects of LBBP and LVSP as compared to intrinsic ventricular conduction. Methods: Fifty patients with normal cardiac function and pacemaker indication for bradycardia underwent LBBAP. Electrocardiography (ECG) characteristics were evaluated during pacing at various depths within the septum: starting at the right ventricular (RV) side of the septum: the last position with QS morphology, the first position with r’ morphology, LVSP and—in patients where left bundle branch (LBB) capture was achieved—LBBP. From the ECG’s QRS duration and QRS morphology in lead V1, the stimulus- left ventricular activation time left ventricular activation time (LVAT) interval were measured. After conversion of the ECG into vectorcardiogram (VCG) (Kors conversion matrix), QRS area and QRS vector in transverse plane (Azimuth) were determined. Results: QRS area significantly decreased from 82 ± 29 µVs during RV septal pacing (RVSP) to 46 ± 12 µVs during LVSP. In the subgroup where LBB capture was achieved (n = 31), QRS area significantly decreased from 46 ± 17 µVs during LVSP to 38 ± 15 µVs during LBBP, while LVAT was not significantly different between LVSP and LBBP. In patients with normal ventricular activation and narrow QRS, QRS area during LBBP was not significantly different from that during intrinsic activation (37 ± 16 vs. 35 ± 19 µVs, respectively). The Azimuth significantly changed from RVSP (−46 ± 33°) to LVSP (19 ± 16°) and LBBP (−22 ± 14°). The Azimuth during both LVSP and LBBP were not significantly different from normal ventricular activation. QRS area and LVAT correlated moderately (Spearman’s R = 0.58). Conclusions: ECG and VCG indices demonstrate that both LVSP and LBBP improve ventricular dyssynchrony considerably as compared to RVSP, to values close to normal ventricular activation. LBBP seems to result in a small, but significant, improvement in ventricular synchrony as compared to LVSP.

Novel left ventricular cardiac synchronization: left ventricular septal pacing or left bundle branch pacing?

It is well recognized that a high burden of right ventricular pacing results in deleterious clinical outcomes over the long term. His bundle pacing can achieve optimal ventricular synchronization; however, relatively high pacing thresholds, low R-wave amplitudes, and the long-term performance have been concerns. Recently, left ventricular (LV) septal endocardium pacing (LVSP) has demonstrated improved acute haemodynamics. Another novel technique of intraseptal left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) via transvenous approach has been adopted rapidly and has demonstrated its feasibility and effectiveness. This article reviews the clinical application and differences between LVSP and LBBP. Compared with LVSP, LBBP has strict criteria for left conduction system capture and lead location. In addition to LV septal capture it also stimulates the proximal left bundle branch, resulting in rapid and physiological LV activation. With a uniformity and standardization of the implant procedure and definitions, it may be possible to achieve widespread application of this form of physiological pacing.

Electrophysiological Insights into Three Modalities of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients Indicated for Pacing Therapy

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been adopted as a new pacing therapy whether in routine pacing or patients with heart failure, but the criteria for a completely captured LBBP are too complicated and have a low success rate in routine clinical practice.Consecutive patients with pacing therapy indications were enrolled. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) was conducted, and the presence of LBB potential, paced QRS duration, stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Stim-LVAT), and LBB potential to left ventricular activation time (LBB po-LVAT) were determined and utilized to characterize LBBAP modalities. Pacing parameters and safety were assessed at 6-month follow-up. LBBAP succeeded in 95.6% of patients (103/106) who completed the 6-month follow-up. Complete LBBP was achieved in 21 (20%) patients, characterized with a short Stim-LVAT equal to LBB po-LVAT. Incomplete LBBP was achieved in 58 (56%) patients with a short Stim-LVAT equal to LBB po-LVAT at a high pacing output and a relatively longer Stim-LVAT at a low pacing output. Deep septal pacing (DSP) characterized with no LBB potential and a longer Stim-LVAT (83.3 ± 7.7 ms) than that in LBBP (71.37 ± 7.1 ms, P < 0.01 versus DSP) was observed in 24 (23%) patients. Complete LBBP had a longer total procedure time and longer fluoroscopic time than the other two groups.This study describes the similarities and differences in electrophysiological characteristics and the possible mechanisms of the different types of LBBAP, classified into 3 modalities in routine clinical practice, each with narrow paced QRS duration and stable parameters, indicating LBBAP can be a near-physiological pacing modality.

His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing: State of the Art in 2020

Conduction system pacing involves directly stimulating the specialised His-Purkinje cardiac conduction system with the aim of activating the ventricles physiologically, in contrast to the dyssynchronous activation produced by conventional myocardial pacing. Since the first report of permanent His bundle pacing (HBP) in 2000, the stylet-driven technique of its earliest incarnation has been superseded by a more successful stylet-less approach. Widespread uptake has led to a much greater evidence base. Single-centre observational studies have now been supported by large multicentre, international registries, mechanistic studies and the first randomised controlled trials. New evidence has elucidated mechanisms of HBP and illustrated the nature and magnitude of its potential benefits for preventing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and correcting bundle branch block. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a newer technique in which the lead is fixed deep into the left side of the intraventricular septum to allow capture of the left bundle, distal to the His bundle. LBBP holds promise as a method for physiological pacing that overcomes some of the fixation, threshold and sensing challenges of HBP. In this state-of-the-art review of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing, the authors assess recent evidence and current practice and explore emerging and future directions in this rapidly evolving field.

LBBAP in patients with normal intrinsic QRS duration: Electrical and mechanical characteristics

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an innovative pacing technology, which needs further study.

METHODS

Seventy LBBAP patients with intrinsic QRS duration (QRSd) less than 120 ms were consecutively enrolled in our center. According to whether the left bundle branch potential (LBBp) was recorded or not, the patients were divided into the potential positive group (LBBAP+) and the potential negative group (LBBAP-). Electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters were used to evaluate electrical and mechanical characteristics. Lead parameters and complications were followed-up.

RESULTS

There were 52 patients in LBBAP+ and 18 patients in LBBAP-. The QRSd and the left ventricular activation time (LVAT) were wider after LBBAP. QRSd showed no significant difference between LBBAP+ and LBBAP-. LVAT was significantly shorter in LBBAP+ than in LBBAP-. Frontal QRS axis shifted leftward and the V1 morphologies changed after LBBAP. QRS axis and V1 morphologies showed no significant differences between two groups. Paced R-wave transition moved forward compared with intrinsic R-wave transition in both groups. Peak systolic strain of left ventricle (LVPSS) increased, and peak systolic dispersion of left ventricle (LVPSD) did not change significantly after LBBAP. Systolic and diastolic function as well as mechanical synchronism had no significant differences between two groups. LBBAP had great pacing parameters.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP changes electrical and mechanical characteristics and has good safety in patients with normal intrinsic QRSd. LBBAP+ and LBBAP- show no significant differences in mechanical synchronization and interventricular electrical synchronization. The LBBAP+ shows better left ventricular electrical synchronicity.

Novel bradycardia pacing strategies

The adverse effects of ventricular dyssynchrony induced by right ventricular (RV) pacing has led to alternative pacing strategies, such as biventricular, His bundle (HBP), LV septal (LVSP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Given the overlap, LVSP and LBBP are also collectively referred to as left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Although among these alternative pacing sites HBP is theoretically the ideal strategy as it maintains a physiological ventricular activation, its application requires more skills and is associated with the most complications. LBBAP, where the ventricular pacing lead is advanced through the interventricular septum to its left side, creates ventricular activation that is only slightly more dyssynchronous. Preliminary studies have shown that LBBAP is feasible, safe and encounters less limitations than HBP. Further studies are needed to differentiate between LVSP and LBBP with regard to acute functional and long-term clinical outcome.

Permanent left bundle branch area pacing utilizing intracardiac echocardiogram

Background

Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be feasible. However, the right ventricular (RV) implantation site for LBBAP remains elusive. We believe that the RV implantation site should be located at the posteromedial basal septum, and in this paper, we propose a new method to help guide lead implantation. The aim of this study is to demonstrate the feasibility of the proposed method.

Methods

The RV implantation site was positioned by a combination of a nine-grid system on fluoroscopy and the use of intracardiac echocardiogram (ICE) and then verified by ICE.

Results

Fifteen patients were enrolled for LBBAP using our method. The acute success rate was 86.7% (13/15), which demonstrated that our method is useful for assisting with lead implantation. According to ICE, the distance between the implantation site and apex (the front) and the distance between the implantation site and tricuspid annulus (the back) were 44.9 ± 10.7 and 33.2 ± 10.4 mm, respectively, and the ratio of the front and the back was 1.57 ± 0.80. The distance between the implantation site and the front junction point of the left-right ventricle (the upper) and the distance between the implantation site and the back junction point (the lower) were 33.4 ± 10.6 and 24.5 ± 10.2 mm, respectively. The ratio of the upper to the lower was 1.76 ± 1.36. These results suggest that the implantation site was at the posteromedial basal septum. The width of the QRS duration increased from 110.4 ± 33.1 ms at baseline to 114.1 ± 16.1 ms post LBBAP (P > 0.05). The operation time was 133 ± 32.9 min. The time of X-ray fluoroscopy was 21.2 ± 5.9 min. The mean time for lead positioning during LBBAP was 33.8 ± 16.6 min. During a follow-up of 3 months, the LBB capture threshold remained stable in 12 patients, except for one patient who had an increase in the LBB capture threshold to 3.0 v/0.4 ms.

Conclusions

Our preliminary results indicate that the posteromedial basal septum could be seen as the implantation site for LBBAP. As a technique for LBBAP, ICE is a useful method for assisting with lead implantation. It is feasible and safe to use a nine-grid system combined with ICE for LBBAP.

Short-Term Hemodynamic and Electrophysiological Effects of Cardiac Resynchronization by Left Ventricular Septal Pacing

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is usually performed by biventricular (BiV) pacing. Previously, feasibility of transvenous implantation of a lead at the left ventricular (LV) endocardial side of the interventricular septum, referred to as LV septal (LVs) pacing, was demonstrated.

OBJECTIVES

The authors sought to compare the acute electrophysiological and hemodynamic effects of LVs with BiV and His bundle (HB) pacing in CRT patients.

METHODS

Temporary LVs pacing (transaortic approach) alone or in combination with right ventricular (RV) (LVs+RV), BiV, and HB pacing was performed in 27 patients undergoing CRT implantation. Electrophysiological changes were assessed using electrocardiography (QRS duration), vectorcardiography (QRS area), and multielectrode body surface mapping (standard deviation of activation times [SDAT]). Hemodynamic changes were assessed as the first derivative of LV pressure (LVdP/dtmax).

RESULTS

As compared with baseline, LVs pacing resulted in a larger reduction in QRS area (to 73 ± 22 μVs) and SDAT (to 26 ± 7 ms) than BiV (to 93 ± 26 μVs and 31 ± 7 ms; both p < 0.05) and LVs+RV pacing (to 108 ± 37 μVs; p < 0.05; and 29 ± 8 ms; p = 0.05). The increase in LVdP/dtmax was similar during LVs and BiV pacing (17 ± 10% vs. 17 ± 9%, respectively) and larger than during LVs+RV pacing (11 ± 9%; p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between basal, mid-, or apical LVs levels in LVdP/dtmax and SDAT. In a subgroup of 16 patients, changes in QRS area, SDAT, and LVdP/dtmax were comparable between LVs and HB pacing.

CONCLUSIONS

LVs pacing provides short-term hemodynamic improvement and electrical resynchronization that is at least as good as during BiV and possibly HB pacing. These results indicate that LVs pacing may serve as a valuable alternative for CRT.

Defining Left Bundle Branch Block Patterns in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: A Return to His Bundle Recordings

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is associated with improved outcome after cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). One historical presumption of LBBB has been that the underlying pathophysiology involved diffuse disease throughout the distal conduction system. The ability to normalize wide QRS patterns with His bundle pacing (HBP) has called this notion into question. The determination of LBBB pattern is conventionally made by assessment of surface 12-lead ECGs and can include patients with and without conduction block, as assessed by invasive electrophysiology study (EPS). During a novel extension of the classical EPS to involve left-sided recordings, we found that conduction block associated with the LBBB pattern is most often proximal, usually within the left-sided His fibres, and these patients are the most likely to demonstrate QRS correction with HBP for resynchronisation. Patients with intact Purkinje activation and intraventricular conduction delay are less likely to benefit from HBP. Future EPS are required to determine the impact of newer approaches to conduction system pacing, including intraseptal or left ventricular septal pacing. Left-sided EPS has the potential to refine patient selection in CRT trials and may be used to physiologically phenotype distinct conduction patterns beyond LBBB pattern.

Perimembranous ventricular septal defect following His bundle lead implantation

His bundle pacing (HBP) offers physiologic pacing by placing the pacing lead directly to the His bundle. We present a case in which a HBP lead, implanted at the fragile membranous septum, resulted in a persistent restrictive perimembranous ventricular septal defect (VSD). This complication of HBP has not been reported before but brings new insights in the discussion regarding the optimal position of a pacing lead in the ventricular septum. The fragility of the membranous septum and low rate of spontaneous closure of membranous VSD, might favor lead placement in the muscular septum when aiming for physiologic pacing.

Programmed deep septal stimulation: A novel maneuver for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture during permanent pacing

INTRODUCTION

Permanent deep septal stimulation with capture of the left bundle branch (LBB) enables maintenance/restoration of the physiological activation of the left ventricle. However, it is almost always accompanied by the simultaneous engagement of the local septal myocardium, resulting in a fused (nonselective) QRS complex, therefore, confirmation of LBB capture remains difficult.

METHODS

We hypothesized that programmed extrastimulus technique can differentiate nonselective LBB capture from myocardial-only capture as the effective refractory period (ERP) of the myocardium is different from the ERP of the LBB. Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation underwent programmed stimulation delivered from the lead implanted in a deep septal position. Responses to programmed stimulation were categorized on the basis of sudden change in the QRS morphology of the extrastimuli, observed when ERP of LBB or myocardium was encroached upon, as: "myocardial," "selective LBB," or nondiagnostic (unequivocal change of QRS morphology).

RESULTS

Programmed deep septal stimulation was performed 269 times in 143 patients; in every patient with the use of a basic drive train of 600 milliseconds and in 126 patients also during intrinsic rhythm. The average septal-myocardial refractory period was shorter than the LBB refractory period: 263.0 ± 34.4 vs 318.0 ± 37.4 milliseconds. Responses diagnostic for LBB capture ("myocardial" or "selective LBB") were observed in 114 (79.7%) of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A novel maneuver for the confirmation of LBB capture during deep septal stimulation was developed and found to enable definitive diagnosis by visualization of both components of the paced QRS complex: selective paced LBB QRS and myocardial-only paced QRS.

Typical BBB morphology and implantation depth of 3830 electrode predict QRS correction by left bundle branch area pacing

AIM

Strict criteria of typical left bundle branch block (LBBB) can help with the prediction for cardiac resynchronization therapy response. The aim of this study is to determine whether the use of strict criteria for both LBBB and right bundle branch block (RBBB) predicts successful QRS correction (≤130 ms) by left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with pacemaker indications according to the present guideline who also underwent LBBAP implantation were retrospectively assessed. Inclusion criteria were patients with BBB and the baseline QRSd > 130 ms. Baseline characteristics and pacing parameters were compared between typical and atypical BBB groups. Multivariate logistic regression was used to adjust for covariates that were found in univariate analyses for successful QRS correction by LBBAP.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were enrolled. Among them, 10 (13.6%) had atypical BBB (5 LBBB and 5 RBBB) and 63 (86.4%) had typical BBB (30 LBBB and 33 RBBB). The rate of successful QRS correction was higher in typical-BBB patients (52/63; 82.5%) than that in atypical-BBB patients (3/10; 30%), P < .001. Paced QRSd was obviously narrower in patients with typical BBB than that in patients with atypical-BBB (118 ± 14 vs 133 ± 14 ms, P = .003). In multivariate logistic regression, only typical BBB morphology and the implantation depth of 3830 pacing electrode in the ventricular septum were independent predictors for successful QRS correction.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that patients with typical-BBB morphology benefit more from LBBAP for QRS correction. Typical BBB morphology together with deep penetration of 3830 ventricular electrode in the interventricular septum predicts the success of QRS correction by LBBAP.

Feasibility and cardiac synchrony of permanent left bundle branch pacing through the interventricular septum

Aims

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) recently emerges as a novel pacing modality. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and cardiac synchrony of permanent LBBP in bradycardia patients.

Methods and results

Left bundle branch pacing was successfully performed in 56 pacemaker-indicated patients with normal cardiac function. Left bundle branch pacing was achieved by penetrating the interventricular septum (IVS) into the left side sub-endocardium with the pacing lead. His-bundle pacing (HBP) was successfully performed in another 29 patients, 19 of whom had right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) for backup pacing. The QRS duration, left ventricular (LV) activation time (LVAT), and mechanical synchrony using phase analysis of gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging were evaluated. Paced QRS duration in LBBP group was significantly shorter than that in RVSP group (117.8 ± 11.0 ms vs. 158.1 ± 11.1 ms, P < 0.0001) and wider than that in HBP group (99.7 ± 15.6 ms, P < 0.0001). Left bundle branch potential was recorded during procedure in 37 patients (67.3%). Left bundle branch pacing patients with potential had shorter LVAT than those without potential (73.1 ± 11.3 ms vs. 83.2 ± 16.8 ms, P = 0.03). Left bundle branch pacing patients with potential had similar LV mechanical synchrony to those in HBP group. R-wave amplitude and capture threshold of LBBP were 17.0 ± 6.7 mV and 0.5 ± 0.1 V, respectively at implant and remained stable during a mean follow-up of 4.5 months without lead-related complications.

Conclusion

Permanent LBBP through IVS is safe and feasible in bradycardia patients. Left bundle branch pacing could achieve favourable cardiac electrical and LV mechanical synchrony.

EHRA White Paper: knowledge gaps in arrhythmia management—status 2019

Clinicians accept that there are many unknowns when we make diagnostic and therapeutic decisions. Acceptance of uncertainty is essential for the pursuit of the profession: bedside decisions must often be made on the basis of incomplete evidence. Over the years, physicians sometimes even do not realize anymore which the fundamental gaps in our knowledge are. As clinical scientists, however, we have to halt and consider what we do not know yet, and how we can move forward addressing those unknowns. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) believes that scanning the field of arrhythmia / cardiac electrophysiology to identify knowledge gaps which are not yet the subject of organized research, should be undertaken on a regular basis. Such a review (White Paper) should concentrate on research which is feasible, realistic, and clinically relevant, and should not deal with futuristic aspirations. It fits with the EHRA mission that these White Papers should be shared on a global basis in order to foster collaborative and needed research which will ultimately lead to better care for our patients. The present EHRA White Paper summarizes knowledge gaps in the management of atrial fibrillation, ventricular tachycardia/sudden death and heart failure.

Permanent His bundle pacing in heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the standard-of-care therapy for the patients with heart failure and left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony. However, approximately 30% of the patients show no response. Recent studies have shown that His bundle pacing (HBP) could be an alternative for the patients with CRT indications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of HBP in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase databases for studies evaluating HBP in patients with heart failure and LV dyssynchrony. The successful rate of implantation, QRS duration, pacing threshold, LV function at baseline and follow-up, and mortality rates were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 494 patients were included in this analysis. The overall successful rate for implantation was 82.4%. The main indications for HBP were CRT candidates and cardiomyopathy with atrial fibrillation undergoing atrioventricular node ablation. Permanent HBP resulted in narrow QRS duration of 116.3 ± 13.9 ms after implantation. LV functions, including echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes, significantly improved at follow-up (P < 0.001). However, there was a trend of increased capture and bundle branch block correction thresholds at follow-up compared to baseline (P = 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). During a mean follow-up of 23.7 months, 5.9% of the patients experienced heart failure-related hospitalization and the mortality rate was 9.1%.

CONCLUSION

Permanent HBP has shown promising results for heart failure patients in small observational studies. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy of HBP in these patients.

Heart failure and right ventricular pacing - how to avoid the need for cardiac resynchronization therapy

INTRODUCTION

Heart failure (HF) is a common finding in patients with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia, with cross-sectional and longitudinal studies contributing to the growing consensus that right ventricular pacing can cause adverse cardiac remodeling and left ventricular systolic dysfunction increasing the risk of hospitalization and death. An unselected approach using cardiac resynchronization therapy from the time of first implant in patients with heart block has produced equivocal results. Contemporary research has therefore begun to focus on the stratification of patients' risk of pacemaker-associated impairment to permit focused, personalized management.

AREAS COVERED

The present review will describe the incidence and relevance of HF in the pacemaker population and discuss current management options for such patients.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

At present there are few contemporary data to guide the identification of patients with and at risk of pacemaker-associated cardiac remodeling and dysfunction. Emphasis must be placed on precise and personalized treatment approaches which currently remain under-investigated due to a number of challenges, for example, small sample sizes, limited clarity on programmed settings, and short follow-up periods.

Optimal site selection and image fusion guidance technology to facilitate cardiac resynchronization therapy

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has emerged as one of the few effective treatments for heart failure. However, up to 50% of patients derive no benefit. Suboptimal left ventricle (LV) lead position is a potential cause of poor outcomes while targeted lead deployment has been associated with enhanced response rates. Image-fusion guidance systems represent a novel approach to CRT delivery, allowing physicians to both accurately track and target a specific location during LV lead deployment.

AREAS COVERED

This review will provide a comprehensive evaluation of how to define the optimal pacing site. We will evaluate the evidence for delivering targeted LV stimulation at sites displaying favorable viability or advantageous mechanical or electrical properties. Finally, we will evaluate several emerging image-fusion guidance systems which aim to facilitate optimal site selection during CRT.

EXPERT COMMENTARY

Targeted LV lead deployment is associated with reductions in morbidity and mortality. Assessment of tissue characterization and electrical latency are critical and can be achieved in a number of ways. Ultimately, the constraints of coronary sinus anatomy have forced the exploration of novel means of delivering CRT including endocardial pacing which hold promise for the future of CRT delivery.

Visualisation of coronary venous anatomy by computed tomography angiography prior to cardiac resynchronisation therapy implantation

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this study was to illustrate the additive value of computed tomography angiography (CTA) for visualisation of the coronary venous anatomy prior to cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implantation.

METHODS

Eighteen patients planned for CRT implantation were prospectively included. A specific CTA protocol designed for visualisation of the coronary veins was carried out on a third-generation dual-source CT platform. Coronary veins were semi-automatically segmented to construct a 3D model. CTA-derived coronary venous anatomy was compared with intra-procedural fluoroscopic angiography (FA) in right and left anterior oblique views.

RESULTS

Coronary venous CTA was successfully performed in all 18 patients. CRT implantation and FA were performed in 15 patients. A total of 62 veins were visualised; the number of veins per patient was 3.8 (range: 2-5). Eighty-five per cent (53/62) of the veins were visualised on both CTA and FA, while 10% (6/62) were visualised on CTA only, and 5% (3/62) on FA only. Twenty-two veins were present on the lateral or inferolateral wall; of these, 95% (21/22) were visualised by CTA. A left-sided implantation was performed in 13 patients, while a right-sided implantation was performed in the remaining 2 patients because of a persistent left-sided superior vena cava with no left innominate vein on CTA.

CONCLUSION

Imaging of the coronary veins by CTA using a designated protocol is technically feasible and facilitates the CRT implantation approach, potentially improving the outcome.

RIght VErsus Left Apical transvenous pacing for bradycardia: Results of the RIVELA randomized study

Aims

To compare cardiac function when pacing from the right or left ventricular apex in patients with preserved left ventricular systolic function, at 1-year follow-up.

Methods

Prospective, multicentre centre randomizing conventional right ventricular apical (RVA) versus left ventricular apical (LVA) pacing using a coronary sinus lead in patients requiring ventricular pacing for bradycardia. Follow-up was performed using 3D-echocardiography at 6 and 12 months.

Results

A total of 36 patients (age 75.4 ± 8.7 years, 21 males) were enrolled (17 patients in the RVA group and 19 patients in the LVA group). A right ventricular lead was implanted in 8 patients in the LVA group, mainly because of high capture thresholds. There were no differences in the primary endpoint of LVEF at 1 year (60.4 ± 7.1% vs 62.1 ± 7.2% for the RVA and LVA groups respectively, P = 0.26) nor in any of the secondary endpoints (left ventricular dimensions, left ventricular diastolic function, right ventricular systolic function and tricuspid/mitral insufficiency). LVEF did not change significantly over follow-up in either group. Capture thresholds were significantly higher in the LVA group, and two patients had unexpected loss of capture of the coronary sinus lead during follow-up.

Conclusions

Left univentricular pacing seems to be comparable to conventional RVA pacing in terms of ventricular function at up to 1 year follow-up, and is an option to consider in selected patients (e.g. those with a tricuspid valve prosthesis).