Left bundle branch area pacing delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy and comparison with biventricular pacing

Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing in older patients

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is safe and effective, but studies in older patients are lacking. This study compared the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients aged ≥75 years.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included older patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBAP or RVP between 2019 and 2022. Clinical data, including pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and device-related complications were collected. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

RESULTS

Of 267 included patients, 110 underwent LBBAP and 157 underwent RVP. LBBAP was successful in 109 patients (success rate: 99.1%), with one patient eventually undergoing RVP. The pacing parameters of LBBAP were similar to those of RVP, except for a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (112.8 ± 11.6 vs. 138.3 ± 23.9 ms, p < .001). Ventricular lead implanting procedural duration was longer for LBBAP than RVP (14.0 vs. 6.0 min, p < .001), as was the fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.0 min, p < .001). During a mean follow-up period of 31.0 ± 16.8 months, the primary outcome incidence was significantly lower following LBBAP than RVP (15.1% vs. 21.1%; hazard ratio, 0.471; 95% confidence interval, 0.215-1.032; p = .036) in 149 patients (55.8%) with ventricular pacing burden > 20%. RVP reduced LVEF from 62.7 ± 4.1% at baseline to 59.8 ± 7.8% at the final follow-up (p = .001), whereas LBBAP preserved LVEF (61.4 ± 6.3% vs. 60.1 ± 7.4%, p = .429).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared with RVP and maintained LVEF in older patients with high ventricular pacing burdens.

Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Analysis of LBBaP Versus BVP in Heart Failure Patients With LBBB

BACKGROUND

For the initial treatment strategy for patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indications, whether to choose left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) or biventricular pacing (BVP) remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of LBBaP and BVP in heart failure (HF) patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB).

METHODS

This observational study included HF patients with LBBB who underwent successful LBBaP or BVP. The primary outcomes were echocardiographic response (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] increase ≥5%), LVEF improvement, hospitalization costs, and CER (CER = cost/echocardiographic response rate). Secondary outcomes included other echocardiographic parameters, New York Heart Association (NYHA), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), pacemaker parameters, complications, ventricular arrhythmia (VA) events, HF hospitalization (HFH), and all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

A total of 130 patients (85 LBBaP and 45 BVP) were included (65.6 ± 10.0 years, 70.77% men). The median follow-up period was 16(12,30), months. Compared with BVP, the LBBaP group showed a greater increase in LVEF (20.2% ± 11.8% vs. 10.5% ± 13.9%; p < 0.001), higher echocardiographic response rate (86.1% vs. 57.8%; p < 0.001), and lower hospitalization costs [$9707.7 (7751.2, 18,088.5) vs. $20,046.1 (18,840.1, 22,447.3); p < 0.0001]. The CER was 112.7 and 346.8 in LBBaP and BVP, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = △cost/△echocardiographic response rate) was $-365.3/per 1% increase in effectiveness. LBBaP improved cardiac function more significantly than BVP. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBaP-CRT is more cost-effective than BVP, offering greater LVEF improvement, higher echocardiographic response rates, lower hospitalization costs, and more significantly improved cardiac function. These findings need large randomized clinical trials for further confirmation.

Relationship of different left bundle branch pacing sites and clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing modality. However, whether it delivers comparable efficacy with different capture sites in patients with heart failure remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the association between different pacing sites and the response of LBBP.

METHODS

Forty-three consecutive patients with heart failure, referred for successful LBBP implantation, were prospectively recruited in this study. Patients were assigned to 3 subgroups according to the paced QRS complex morphology (left bundle branch trunk pacing [LBTP], left posterior fascicular pacing, or left anterior fascicular pacing groups). Echocardiograms and electrocardiograms were recorded and analyzed at baseline and 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The response rate was 95.0%, 88.2%, and 83.3% in LBTP, left posterior fascicular pacing, and left anterior fascicular pacing groups, respectively. All subgroups were efficient in narrowing the QRS complex (QRS complex narrowing: 38.1 ± 10.8 ms, 36.4 ± 12.6 ms, and 40.8 ± 10.8 ms) and improving cardiac function (LVEF improvement： 25.7% ± 8.1%, 15.3% ± 8.1%, and 18.8% ± 4.4%). Compared with left fascicular pacing, LBTP resulted in longer peak left ventricular activation time (76.5 ± 10.2 ms vs 82.3 ± 6.5 ms; P = .037) and shorter duration from intrinsicoid deflection in V1 or V2 to QRS end (128.0 ± 6.0 ms vs 113.3 ± 5.2 ms; P＜.0001), along with better improvement in septal systolic longitudinal strain (P = .007) and lateral-septal myocardial loading inhomogeneity (P = .036). Linear regression analysis further revealed that left bundle branch capture sites were strongly associated with the improvement in peak strain dispersion (model R2 = 0.586; P = .042) and LVEF (model R2 = 0.425; P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Different left bundle branch capture sites led to a subtle difference in mechanical synchrony, which may, in turn, affect LVEF improvement in patients with heart failure.

Improved all-cause mortality with left bundle branch area pacing compared to biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiological alternative pacing strategy to biventricular pacing (BIVP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to assess the impact of LBBAP vs. BIVP on all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization in patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

Studies comparing LBBAP and BIVP for CRT in patients with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were included. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included procedural and fluoroscopy time, change in QRS duration, and change in LVEF.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies (12 observational and 1 RCT, n = 3239; LBBAP = 1338 and BIVP = 1901) with a mean follow-up duration of 25.8 months were included. Compared to BIVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant absolute risk reduction of 3.2% in all-cause mortality (9.3% vs 12.5%, RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.57-0.86, p < 0.001) and an 8.2% reduction in HF-related hospitalization (11.3% vs 19.5%, RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.71, p < 0.00001). LBBAP also resulted in reductions in procedural time (mean weighted difference- 23.2 min, 95% CI - 42.9 to - 3.6, p = 0.02) and fluoroscopy time (- 8.6 min, 95% CI - 12.5 to - 4.7, p < 0.001) as well as a significant reduction in QRS duration (mean weighted difference:- 25.3 ms, 95% CI - 30.9 to - 19.8, p < 0.00001) and a greater improvement in LVEF of 5.1% (95% CI 4.4-5.8, p < 0.001) compared to BIVP in the studies that reported these outcomes.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-analysis, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality as well as HF-related hospitalization when compared to BIVP. Additional data from large RCTs is warranted to corroborate these promising findings.

The Loop Technique in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Prospective Cohort Study

Objective

A new approach called the loop technique has been proven safe and effective for repeated intraoperative transvenous left ventricular (LV) lead dislocations during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in a 3-year follow-up. This study aimed to report on the 5-year safety and effectiveness of the loop technique.

Methods

This study was a prospective cohort study. Forty-four patients who underwent CRT device implantation at the Cardiology Department of Shaanxi Provincial People's Hospital between January 2013 and June 2019 were included. Data on patient demographics, medical history, laboratory test results, and echocardiography images at admission were collected. The loop technique was performed with repeated intraoperative dislocations of the LV lead. The intraoperative CRT parameters were also recorded. All patients were followed for 5 years. Several auxiliary examinations were performed during follow-up.

Results

The 44 patients were divided into the traditional operation group (n=36, 81.8%) and loop technique group (n=8, 18.2%). The baseline patient characteristics were almost balanced. During the 5-year follow-up, 8 (22.2%) patients in the traditional operation group and 2 (25.0%) patients in the loop technique group died. No lead dislocation or other complications related to CRT were observed. There were no significant differences in mortality rate (P=0.87), cardiac function (P=0.56), echocardiographic indices, threshold (P=0.58), or impedance (P=0.22) of the LV lead. There were no significant differences in the threshold and impedance between postoperative, 3-year, and 5-year follow-ups in the loop technique group (P=0.53).

Conclusion

The loop technique is an ideal solution for repeated intraoperative LV lead dislocation during CRT implantation.

Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing is an alternative to biventricular pacing. In this study, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP).

OBJECTIVES

The study summarizes the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP).

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and concomitant LBBB. Recently LBBAP has been studied as a more physiological alternative to achieve CRT.

METHOD

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify studies examining the role of LBBAP for CRT in heart failure. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 4 was used for meta-regression to examine variables that contribute to data heterogeneity.

RESULT

Eighteen studies, 17 observational and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were examined. A total of 3906 HF patients who underwent CRT (2036 LBBAP vs. 1870 biventricular pacing [BVP]) were included. LBBAP was performed successfully in 90.4% of patients. Compared to baseline, LBBAP was associated with a reduction in QRS duration (MD: -47.23  ms 95% confidence interval [CI]: -53.45, -41.01), an increase in LVEF (MD: 15.22%, 95% CI: 13.5, 16.94), and a reduction in NYHA class (MD: -1.23, 95% CI: -1.41, -1.05). Compared to BVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in QRS duration (MD: -20.69 ms, 95% CI: -25.49, -15.88) and improvement in LVEF (MD: 4.78%, 95% CI: 3.30, 6.10). Furthermore, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.56) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.86) compared to BVP.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with improved ventricular electrical synchrony compared to BVP, as well as better echocardiographic and clinical outcomes.

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Is conduction system pacing a panacea for pacemaker therapy?

INTRODUCTION

While supported by robust evidence and decades of clinical experience, right ventricular apical pacing for bradycardia is associated with a risk of progressive left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction can result in limited electrical resynchronization due to anatomical constraints and epicardial stimulation. In both settings, directly stimulating the conduction system below the atrio-ventricular node (either the bundle of His or the left bundle branch area) has potential to overcome these limitations. Conduction system pacing has met with considerable enthusiasm in view of the more physiological electrical conduction pattern, is rapidly becoming the preferred option of pacing for bradycardia, and is gaining momentum as an alternative to conventional biventricular pacing.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a review of the current efficacy and safety data for both people requiring treatment for bradycardia and the management of heart failure with conduction delay and discusses the possible future roles for conduction system pacing in routine clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Conduction system pacing might be the holy grail of pacemaker therapy without the disadvantages of current approaches. However, hypothesis and enthusiasm are no match for robust data, demonstrating at least equivalent efficacy and safety to standard approaches.

Enhancing cardiac pacing strategies: a review of conduction system pacing compared with right and biventricular pacing and their influence on myocardial function

Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been linked to the deterioration of both left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. This worsening often culminates in elevated rates of hospitalization due to heart failure, an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, and increased morbidity. While biventricular pacing (BVP) has demonstrated clinical and echocardiographic improvements in patients afflicted with heart failure and left bundle branch block, it has also encountered significant challenges such as a notable portion of non-responders and procedural failures attributed to anatomical complexities. In recent times, the interest has shifted towards conduction system pacing, initially, His bundle pacing, and more recently, left bundle branch area pacing, which are seen as promising alternatives to established methods. In contrast to other approaches, conduction system pacing offers the advantage of fostering more physiological and harmonized ventricular activation by directly stimulating the His-Purkinje network. This direct pacing results in a more synchronized systolic and diastolic function of the left ventricle compared with RVP and BVP. Of particular note is the capacity of conduction system pacing to yield a shorter QRS, conserve left ventricular ejection fraction, and reduce rates of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation when compared with RVP. The efficacy of conduction system pacing has also been found to have better clinical and echocardiographic improvement than BVP in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization. This review will delve into myocardial function in conduction system pacing compared with that in RVP and BVP.

Heart failure in China: epidemiology and current management

The Annual Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China (2022) intricate landscape of cardiovascular health in China. In connection with the previous section, this sixth section of the report offers a comprehensive analysis of heart failure (HF) in China. HF is one of the most important cardiovascular disease in the 21st century. Its mortality is equivalent to that of cancer. It is an important public health problem that seriously affects the health of Chinese residents. In recent years, with the deepening of understanding, the change of treatment principles, the innovation of treatment methods and the update of treatment guidelines, the in-hospital mortality of HF patients has declined, and the long-term prognosis is also improving. However, there are still differences in the management level of HF among different hospitals in China. How to improve the standardized diagnosis and treatment level of HF in China remains an important challenge.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) nonresponders in the contemporary era: A state-of-the-art review

In the 2000s, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) became a revolutionary treatment for heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) and wide QRS. However, about one-third of CRT recipients do not show a favorable response. This review of the current literature aims to better define the concept of CRT response/nonresponse. The diagnosis of CRT nonresponder should be viewed as a continuum, and it cannot rely solely on a single parameter. Moreover, baseline features of some patients might predict an unfavorable response. A strong collaboration between heart failure specialists and electrophysiologists is key to overcoming this challenge with multiple strategies. In the contemporary era, new pacing modalities, such as His-bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, represent a promising alternative to CRT. Observational studies have demonstrated their potential; however, several limitations should be addressed. Large randomized controlled trials are needed to prove their efficacy in HFrEF with electromechanical dyssynchrony.

Complications of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of procedure-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled 668 consecutive patients (mean age 71.2 ± 10.0 years; 52.2% male; 59.4% with New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure symptoms) with left ventricular ejection fraction 33.4% ± 4.3% who underwent BVP (n = 561) or LBBAP (n = 107) for a class I or II indication for CRT. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 93 matched pairs. The rate and nature of intraprocedural and long-term post-procedural complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 18 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 16 patients: 12 in BVP (12.9%) and 4 in LBBAP (4.3%) (P = .036). Compared with patients who underwent LBBAP, those who underwent BVP showed a lower complication-free survival (P = .032). In multivariate analysis, BVP resulted an independent predictive factor associated with a higher risk of complications (hazard ratio 3.234; P = .042). Complications related to the coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in patients who underwent BVP (50.0% of all complications).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT.

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 Area Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Morbidity and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the morbidity and mortality associated with LBBAP versus BVP in patients undergoing CRT implantation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who received CRT from two high-volume implantation centers were retrospectively recruited. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization, and the secondary endpoint was all-cause death.

RESULTS

A total of 491 patients receiving CRT (154 via LBBAP and 337 via BVP) were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. The primary endpoint was reached by 21 (13.6%) patients in the LBBAP group, as compared with 74 (22.0%) patients in the BVP group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.14, P = 0.15]. There were 10 (6.5%) deaths in the LBBAP group, as compared with 31 (9.2%) in the BVP group (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.86, P = 0.79). No significant difference was observed in the risk of either the primary or secondary endpoint between LBBAP and BVP after multivariate Cox regression (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.23, P = 0.24, and HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.67, P = 0.51, respectively) or propensity score matching (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.29, P = 0.28, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.29-1.65, P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a comparable effect on morbidity and mortality relative to BVP in patients with indications for CRT.

Implantable Cardiac Devices in Patients with Brady- and Tachy-Arrhythmias: An Update of the Literature

Implantable cardiac devices are a vital treatment option in the management of tachy/brady-arrhythmias and heart failure with conduction disease. In the recent years, these devices have become increasingly sophisticated, with high implantation success rates and longevity. However, these devices are not without risks and complications, which need to be carefully considered before implantation. In an era of rapidly evolving cardiac device therapies, this review article will provide an update on the literature and outline some of the emerging technologies that aim to maximise the efficiency of implantable devices and reduce complications. We discuss novel pacing techniques, including alternative pacing sites in anti-bradycardia and biventricular pacing, as well as the latest evidence surrounding leadless device technologies and patient selection for implantable device therapies.

Clinical and Electrophysiological Outcomes of Left Bundle Area Pacing Compared to Biventricular Pacing: An Updated Meta-analysis

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing strategy that uses the conduction system distal to the left bundle branch block level for direct activation of the left bundle and right ventricular myocardium. Our meta-analysis compared the structural, electrophysiological, clinical, and procedural outcomes of LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BVP). The meta-analysis included two randomized controlled trials and showed significant reductions in the left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic volumes with LBBAP compared to BVP, together with statistically significant reductions in the QRS duration, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. The fluoroscopic time was also significantly shorter in the LBBAP group. However, no significant change in the LV ejection fraction was noted. Procedural complications were slightly higher in the LBBAP group, albeit not to a statistically significant degree. Our findings suggest that LBBAP may be a superior alternative to standard BVP in improving the structural, electrophysiological, and clinical components of cardiomyopathy, including the NYHA class and HF hospitalizations. LBBAP is a more physiological pacing strategy that results in normal ventricular activation and may be a viable alternative to BVP for cardiac synchronization therapy.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Study to Analyse the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Used in Young Children

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) in young children. From September 2020 to May 2021, a total of 31 children (≤ 7 years) with complete atrioventricular block were included. All patients were scheduled to undergo LBBaP. Pacing parameters, and cardiac function and synchrony were evaluated during follow-up. LBBaP succeeded in 21 children (3.3 ± 2.1 years old), with a success rate of 70.9%. LBBaP failed in nine children, who eventually received right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP). The average postoperative QRS duration in patients of LBBaP group was narrower than that of RVSP group: 100.9 ± 9.1 versus 114.2 ± 11.9 ms (P = 0.002). The median follow-up duration was 12 [interquartile range (IQR) 6-15] months. At last time of follow-up, the capture threshold of ventricular electrode in patients of LBBaP group were significantly lower than that of RVSP group (0.70 ± 0.25 versus 1.39 ± 0.94 V, P = 0.011). The echo-left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients in the LBBaP group was better than that in the RVSP group (66.1 ± 3.3 versus 63.1 ± 2.2%, P = 0.025). LBBaP can be safely and effectively administered in young children. Satisfactory pacing parameters, and narrow QRS durations were obtained.

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

BACKGROUND

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Beyond biventricular pacing: Exploring the advantages of his-bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing in heart failure-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compares His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP), a novel cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) technique that targets the intrinsic conduction system of the heart, with conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP) in heart failure (HF) patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and dyssynchrony.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases up to May 2023 and identified 18 studies (five randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies) involving 1291 patients. The outcome measures were QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) change, HF hospitalization, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improvement. We used a random-effects model to calculate odds ratios (OR), and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We also assessed the methodological quality of the studies.

RESULTS

The mean LVEF was 30.7% and the mean follow-up duration was 8.1 months. Among LBBP, HBP, and BiVP, HBP provided the shortest QRS duration [MD: -18.84 ms, 95% CI: -28.74 to -8.94; p = 0.0002], while LBBP showed the greatest improvement in LVEF [MD: 5.74, 95% CI: 2.74 to 7.46; p < 0.0001], LVEDD [MD: -5.55 mm, 95% CI: -7.51 to -3.59; p < 0.00001], and NYHA functional class [MD: -0.58, 95% CI: -0.80 to --0.35; p < 0.00001]. However, there was no significant difference in HF hospitalization between HPSP and BiVP.

CONCLUSION

LBBP as modality of HPSP demonstrated superior outcomes in achieving electrical ventricular synchrony and systolic function, as well as alleviating HF symptoms, compared to other pacing techniques.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing: Prognosis and specific applications

Cardiac pacing has become a widely accepted treatment strategy for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure. However, conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with electrical dyssynchrony, which may result in atrial fibrillation and heart failure. To achieve physiological pacing, Deshmukh et al. reported the first case of His bundle pacing (HBP) in 2000. This strategy was reported to have preserved ventricular synchronization by activating the conventional conduction system. Nonetheless, due to the anatomical location of the His bundle (HB), several issues such as high pacing thresholds, lead fixation, and early battery depletion may pose a challenge. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy to achieve conduction system pacing by capturing the left bundle branch through the deep septum. Additionally, several studies have investigated the clinical outcomes of LBBAP. In this paper, we describe the pacing parameters, QRS duration (QRSd), cardiac function, complications, and specific applications of LBBAP in recent years.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

The Emerging Role of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of heart failure-related hospitalisations and all-cause mortality, as well as improving quality of life and functional status in patients with persistent heart failure symptoms despite optimal medical treatment and left bundle branch block. CRT has traditionally been delivered by implanting a lead through the coronary sinus to capture the left ventricular epicardium; however, this approach is associated with significant drawbacks, including a high rate of procedural failure, phrenic nerve stimulation, high pacing thresholds and lead dislodgement. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients fail to derive any significant benefit. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a suitable alternative to traditional CRT. By stimulating the cardiac conduction system physiologically, LBBAP can result in a more homogeneous left ventricular contraction and relaxation, thus having the potential to improve outcomes compared with conventional CRT strategies. In this article, the evidence supporting the use of LBBAP in patients with heart failure is reviewed.

Effectiveness of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) is ineffective in approximately one-third of patients. CRT with Conduction system pacing (CSP-CRT) may achieve greater synchronization. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CRT with His pacing (His-CRT) or left bundle branch pacing (LBB-CRT) in lieu of biventricular CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched until August 19, 2023, for original studies including patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who received His- or LBB-CRT, that reported either CSP-CRT success, LVEF, QRS duration (QRSd), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Effect measures were compared with frequentist network meta-analysis. Thirty-seven publications, including 20 comparative studies, were included. Success rates were 73.5% (95% CI: 61.2-83.0) for His-CRT and 91.5% (95% CI: 88.0-94.1) for LBB-CRT. Compared to BiV-CRT, greater improvements were observed for LVEF (mean difference [MD] for His-CRT +3.4%; 95% CI [1.0; 5.7], and LBB-CRT: +4.4%; [2.5; 6.2]), LV end-systolic volume (His-CRT:17.2mL [29.7; 4.8]; LBB-CRT:15.3mL [28.3; 2.2]), QRSd (His-CRT: -17.1ms [-25.0; -9.2]; LBB-CRT: -17.4ms [-23.2; -11.6]), and NYHA (Standardized MD [SMD]: His-CRT:0.4 [0.8; 0.1]; LBB-CRT:0.4 [-0.7; -0.2]). Pacing thresholds at baseline and follow-up were significantly lower with LBB-CRT versus both His-CRT and BiV-CRT. CSP-CRT was associated with reduced mortality (R = 0.75 [0.61-0.91]) and hospitalizations risk (RR = 0.63 [0.42-0.96]).

CONCLUSION

This study found that CSP-CRT is associated with greater improvements in QRSd, echocardiographic, and clinical response. LBB-CRT was associated with lower pacing thresholds. Future randomized trials are needed to determine CSP-CRT efficacy.

Left bundle branch area pacing vs biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may offer greater physiological benefits than traditional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, there are limited data comparing the efficacy of LBBAP vs BiVP in patients with systolic heart failure (HF).

Objective

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the feasibility and electromechanical and clinical outcomes of both LBBAP and BiVP.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies retrieved from various databases including PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) published up to May 22, 2023. The risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

Results

We included 12 studies with a total of 3004 patients (LBBAP = 1242, BiVP = 1762). Pooled results showed that LBBAP resulted in a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.25, 0.54, P < .00001), echocardiographic response (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.29, P < .0001), improvement in New York Heart Association functional class (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23, P < .0001), QRS duration reduction (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.66, P < .00001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduction (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.05, P = .02), fewer HF hospitalizations (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62, 0.85, P < .0001), and improved survival (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.92, P = .007). In addition, LBBAP was associated with shorter fluoroscopy time (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.47, P < .0001) and lower pacing threshold at implantation (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.74, P < .00001) and at 6 months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.77, P < .0001) as compared with BiVP.

Conclusion

Compared with BiVP, LBBAP was associated with better electromechanical and clinical outcomes, including left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS duration, echocardiographic response, New York Heart Association functional class, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality in patients with systolic HF.

Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared with Biventricular Pacing in Patients with Heart Failure Requiring Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Biventricular pacing (BVP) is recommended for patients with heart failure (HF) who require cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing strategy that appears to ensure better electrical and mechanical synchrony in these patients. Our aim was to systematically review and meta-analyze the existing evidence regarding the clinical outcomes of LBBAP-CRT compared with BVP-CRT.

Methods

Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Web of Science databases were searched for studies comparing LBBAP-CRT with BVP-CRT. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies with participants that had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and (i) symptomatic HF or (ii) expected ventricular pacing > 40%. Random and fixed effects models pairwise meta-analysis was conducted. Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 assessment tool (ROB 2.0) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale (NOS) were used to assess the quality of the studies.

Results

Eleven studies (10 observational studies and 1 RCT) with 3141 patients were included in the analysis. Compared with BVP-CRT, LBBAP-CRT was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR): 0.71, 95% CI: 0.57 to 0.87; p = 0.001), lower risk of HFH (RR: 0.59, 95% CI: 0.50 to 0.71; p < 0.00001) and more improvement in NYHA class (weighed mean difference (WMD): -0.36, 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.13; p < 0.00001) compared with patients who received BVP-CRT.

Conclusions

Compared with BVP-CRT, receipt of LBBAP-CRT in patients with HF is associated with a lower risk of mortality, and HFH and greater improvement in NHYA class.

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.

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.

Comparison of the left ventricular dyssynchrony between stylet-driven and lumen-less lead technique in left bundle branch area pacing using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing method to reduce left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony due to ventricular pacing. Only lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with fixed helixes could achieve LBBAP previously, but recently, LBBAP has been performed using stylet-driven leads (SDLs). This study aimed to evaluate the LV dyssynchrony between SDLs and LLLs techniques in LBBAP.

Methods

We retrospectively evaluated patients who underwent LBBAP with either SDLs or LLLs. We compared both groups' electrocardiogram (ECG) findings and LV dyssynchrony parameters derived from myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. LV dyssynchrony parameters consisted of phase analysis and regional wall motion analysis. We evaluated bandwidth, phase standard deviation (PSD), and entropy in the phase analysis. The time to the end-systolic frame (TES) was calculated in regional wall motion analysis using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT). We also evaluated the maximum differences between segmental TES (MDTES), the standard deviation of TES (SDTES), and the difference in the TES between the lateral wall and septum (DTES-LS).

Results

In total, 97 patients were enrolled. The success rate of LBBAP did not differ between the groups [SDLs: 47/48 patients (98%) vs. LLLs: 47/51 patients (92%), P=0.36]. The paced QRS duration and the stimulus to the peak LV activation time (stim-LVAT) also did not differ between SDL and LLL groups (122±10 vs. 119±12 ms, P=0.206; 69±12 vs. 66±13 ms, P=0.31, respectively). There were no differences in bandwidth, PSD, and entropy between SDL and LLL groups (73°±37° vs. 86°±47°, P=0.18; 19°±8.5° vs. 21°±9.7°, P=0.19; 0.57±0.08 vs. 0.59±0.08, P=0.17, respectively). The regional wall motion analysis parameters MDTES, SDTES, and DTES-LS also did not differ between SDL and LLL groups (19%±10% vs. 20%±10%, P=0.885; 5.0%±2.5% vs. 5.0%±2.5%, P=0.995; 5.0%±3.7% vs. 4.8%±4.2%, P=0.78, respectively).

Conclusions

LBBAP using SDLs was comparable to LV electrical and mechanical synchrony with LLLs.

Left bundle branch area pacing for heart failure patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBP) is a novel conduction system pacing method to achieve effective physiological pacing and an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We conduted this meta-analysis and systemic review to review current data comparing BVP and LBBP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the inception of the database to November 2022. All studies that compared LBBP with BVP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT were included. Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with the Mantel-Haenszel method and mean difference (MD) with inverse variance using random effect models. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index, with I2  > 50% indicating significant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ten studies (9 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial; 616 patients; 15 centers) published between 2020 and 2022 were included. We observed a shorter fluoroscopy time (MD: 9.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.49-14.87, I2  = 95%, p < .01, minutes) as well as a shorter procedural time (MD 33.68, 95% CI: 17.80-49.55, I2  = 73%, p < .01, minutes) during the implantation of LBBP CRT compared to conventional BVP CRT. LBBP was shown to have a greater reduction in QRS duration (MD 25.13, 95% CI: 20.06-30.20, I2  = 51%, p < .01, milliseconds), a greater left ventricular ejection fraction improvement (MD: 5.80, 95% CI: 4.81-6.78, I2  = 0%, p < .01, percentage), and a greater left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduction (MD: 2.11, 95% CI: 0.12-4.10, I2  = 18%, p = .04, millimeter). There was a greater improvement in New York Heart Association function class with LBBP (MD: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.05-0.68, I2  = 61%, p = .02). LBBP was also associated with a lower risk of a composite of heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.90, I2  = 0%, p = .02) driven by reduced HFH (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.82, I2  = 0%, p = .01). However, all-cause mortality rates were low in both groups (1.52% vs. 1.13%) and similar (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.21-4.68, I2  = 0%, p = .87).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of primarily nonrandomized studies suggests that LBBP is associated with a greater improvement in left ventricular systolic function and a lower rate of HFH compared to BVP. There was uniformity of these findings in all of the included studies. However, it would be premature to conclude based solely on the current meta-analysis alone, given the limitations stated. Dedicated, well-designed, randomized controlled trials and observational studies are needed to elucidate better the comparative long-term efficacy and safety of LBBP CRT versus BIV CRT.

Septal scar as a barrier to left bundle branch area pacing

BACKGROUND

The use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization is increasing, but implants are not always successful. We prospectively studied consecutive patients to determine whether septal scar contributes to implant failure.

METHODS

Patients scheduled for bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy were prospectively enrolled. Recruited patients underwent preprocedural scar assessment by cardiac MRI with late gadolinium enhancement imaging. LBBAP was attempted using a lumenless lead (Medtronic 3830) via a transeptal approach.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were recruited: 29 male, mean age 68 years, 10 ischemic, and 16 non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Pacing indication was bradycardia in 26% and cardiac resynchronization in 74%. The lead was successfully deployed to the left ventricular septum in 30/35 (86%) and unsuccessful in the remaining 5/35 (14%). Septal late gadolinium enhancement was significantly less extensive in patients where left septal lead deployment was successful, compared those where it was unsuccessful (median 8%, IQR 2%-18% vs. median 54%, IQR 53%-57%, p < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

The presence of septal scar appears to make it more challenging to deploy a lead to the left ventricular septum via the transeptal route. Additional implant tools or alternative approaches may be required in patients with extensive septal scar.

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.

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.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is observed to produce greater improvements in echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, whether these surrogate endpoints directly translate to improvements in hard clinical outcomes such as death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) with CSP remains uncertain as studies reporting these outcomes are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the existing data to compare the clinical outcomes of CSP versus BiVP.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Embase and PubMed database was performed for studies comparing CSP and BiVP for patients indicated to receive a CRT device. The coprimary endpoints were all-cause mortality and HFH. Other secondary outcomes included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), change in NYHA class, and increase in NYHA class ≥1. A random-effects model was chosen a priori to analyze the composite effects given the anticipated heterogeneity of included trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (4 randomized and 17 observational) were identified reporting either primary outcome and were included in the meta-analysis. In total 1960 patients were assigned to CSP and 2367 to BiVP. Median follow-up time was 10.1 months (ranging 2-33 months). CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.83) and HFH (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.63). Mean improvement in LVEF was also greater with CSP (mean difference 4.26, 95% CI: 3.19-5.33). Reduction in NYHA class was significantly greater with CSP (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.22) and the number of patients with an increase in NYHA class ≥1 was significantly greater with CSP (OR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.70-2.40).

CONCLUSIONS

CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and HFH when compared to conventional BiVP for CRT. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to verify these observations.

Consecutive Experience with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in a High-Volume Australian Centre

INTRODUCTION

Left-bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a relatively new technique for conduction system pacing. Australian safety and efficacy data is currently lacking. We aim to evaluate the learning curve, medium-term safety, and lead performance in a high-volume Australian setting.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 200 consecutive LBBAP procedures performed by a single operator at two centres between January 2019 and May 2020. Left bundle branch area pacing was performed predominantly via left subclavian access using a 69 cm Medtronic SelectSecure 3830 pacing lead and a preformed non-steerable C315-His sheath. Procedural success was defined as evidence of left septal or left bundle branch area capture as evidenced by a right bundle branch block-like paced morphology. Procedural characteristics, and follow-up (including lead performance) data were collected. Procedural efficiency over time, as well as safety data, were collected.

RESULTS

Median age was 78.26 years (interquartile range [IQR] 71-85), 37% were female. Atrial fibrillation was present in 22%. The left ventricular ejection fraction <50% in 24%, atrioventricular (AV) block was present in 43.5%, left bundle branch block in 22.5% and right bundle branch block in 24.5%. Acute procedural success was 91.5%. Implant threshold was 0.6V @ 0.5 ms, and 0.75V @ 0.5 ms at 11.9 months of follow-up. The QRS was significant reduced (baseline 134 ms vs implant 114 ms, p<0.001) There was a reduction in procedural time and X-ray dose over the course of the study. There were no complications specific to LBBAP.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP appears to be a safe and effective pacing strategy. The QRS duration was significantly reduced compared to baseline. There appears to be an early learning curve with LBBAP.

His-Purkinje system pacing versus biventricular pacing in clinical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP), including his-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP), imitates the natural conduction of the heart as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the feasibility and efficacy of HPSP were currently only evidenced by studies with a limited sample size, so this study aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

In order to compare the clinical outcomes associated with HPSP and BVP in patients for CRT, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science database were searched from inception to April 10, 2023. Clinical outcomes of interest including QRS duration (QRSd), left ventricular (LV) function and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, pacing threshold, echocardiographic and clinical response, hospitalization rate of HF and all-cause mortality were also extracted and summarized for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies (ten observational studies and three randomized studies) involving 1,121 patients were finally included. The patients were followed up for 6-27 months. Compared with BVP, CRT patients treated by HPSP presented shorter QRSd [mean difference (MD): -26.23 ms, 95% confidence interval (CI): -34.54 to -17.92, P < 0.001, I² = 91%], greater LV functional improvement with increased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD: 6.01, 95% CI: 4.81 to 7.22, P < 0.001, I² = 0%), decreased left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (MD: -2.91, 95% CI: -4.86 to -0.95, P = 0.004, I² = 35%), and more improved NYHA functional classification (MD: -0.45, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.23, P < 0.001, I² = 70%). In addition, HPSP was more likely to have higher echocardiographic [odds ratio (OR): 2.76, 95% CI: 1.74 to 4.39, P < 0.001, I² = 0%], clinical (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.80, P = 0.01, I² = 0%) and super clinical (OR: 3.17, 95% CI: 2.09 to 4.79, P < 0.001, I² = 0%) responses than BVP, and a lower hospitalization rate of HF (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.51, P < 0.001, I² = 0%), while presented no difference (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.06, P = 0.09, I² = 0%) in all-cause mortality compared with BVP. With threshold change taking into account, BVP was less stable than LBBaP (MD: -0.12 V, 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.03, P = 0.01, I² = 57%), but had no difference with HBP (MD: 0.11 V, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.31, P = 0.28, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

The present findings suggested that HPSP was associated with greater improvement of cardiac function in patients with indication for CRT and was a potential alternative to BVP to achieve physiological pacing through native his-purkinje system.

Reverse of left ventricular remodeling in heart failure patients with left bundle branch area pacing: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently become a promising option for the near-natural restoration of electrical activation. However, the clinical relevance of therapeutic effects in individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and dyssynchrony remains unknown.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until June 2022. Data from each study was combined using a random-effects model, the generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird, to calculate standard mean differences and pooled incidence ratio, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 772 HFrEF patients were analyzed from 15 observational studies per protocol. The success rate of LBBAP implantation was 94.8% (95% CI 89.9-99.6, I2 = 79.4%), which was strongly correlated with shortening QRS duration after LBBAP implantation, with a mean difference of -48.10 ms (95% CI -60.16 to -36.05, I2 = 96.7%). Over a period of 6-12 months of follow-up, pacing parameters were stable over time. There were significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) with mean difference of 16.38% (95% CI 13.13-19.63, I2 = 90.2%), -46.23 ml (95% CI -63.17 to -29.29, I2 = 86.82%), -7.21 mm (95% CI -9.71 to -4.71, I2 = 84.6%), and -44.52 ml (95% CI -64.40 to -24.64, I2 = 85.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP was associated with improvements in both cardiac function and electrical synchrony. The benefits of LBBAP in individuals with HFrEF and dyssynchrony should be further validated by randomized studies.

Outcomes of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure: A multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

Whether conduction system pacing (CSP) is an alternative option for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure remains an area of active investigation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of CSP compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included patients who fulfilled CRT indications and received CSP. Patients with CSP were matched using propensity score matching and compared in a 1:1 ratio to patients who received BiVP. Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Response to CRT was defined as an absolute increase of ≥5% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months post-CRT.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients were included. Mean age was 69.8 ± 12.5 years, and 66 (27.7%) were female. Sixty-nine patients (29%) had His-bundle pacing, 50 (21%) had left bundle branch area pacing, and 119 (50%) had BiVP. Mean follow-up duration in the CSP and BiVP groups was 269 ± 202 days and 304 ± 262 days, respectively (P = .293). The proportion of CRT responders was greater in the CSP group than in the BiVP group (74% vs 60%, respectively; P = .042). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the time to first heart failure hospitalization (log-rank P = .78) and overall survival (log-rank P = .68) between the CSP and BiVP groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, CSP resulted in greater improvement in LVEF compared to BiVP. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these outcomes and further investigate the different options available for CSP.

Improved Outcomes of Conduction System Pacing in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Conduction system pacing (CSP) - His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) - are emerging alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure. However, evidence is largely limited to small and observational studies. We conducted a meta-analysis including a total of 15 randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compare CSP (HBP & LBBAP) with BVP in patients with CRT indications. We assessed the mean differences in QRS duration (QRSd), pacing threshold, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class score. CSP resulted in a pooled mean QRSd improvement of -20.3 ms (95% CI -26.1 - -14.5, p<0.05, I²=87.1%) versus BVP. For LVEF, a weighted mean increase of 5.2% (95% CI 3.5-6.9, p<0.05, I²=55.6) was observed following CSP versus BVP. The mean NYHA score was reduced by -0.40 (95% CI -0.6 - -0.2, p<0.05, I²=61.7) post-CSP versus BVP. Subgroup analysis of outcomes by LBBAP and HBP demonstrated statistically significant weighted mean improvements from both CSP modalities for QRSd and LVEF compared to BVP. LBBAP resulted in NYHA improvement compared to BVP without differences between CSP subgroups. LBBAP is associated with a significantly lowered mean pacing threshold of -0.51V (95% CI -0.68 - -0.38) whilst HBP had increased the mean threshold (0.62V, 95% CI -0.03 - 1.26) compared to BVP, however, this was associated with significant heterogeneity. Overall, both CSP techniques are feasible and effective CRT alternatives for heart failure. Further RCTs are needed to establish long-term efficacy and safety.

Left bundle branch area pacing in mildly reduced heart failure: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) strategy for heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is controversial. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging pacing modality and an alternative option to CRT. This analysis aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the impact of the LBBAP strategy in HFmrEF, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 35% and 50%. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP from inception to July 17, 2022. The outcomes of interest were QRS duration and LVEF at baseline and follow-up in mid-range heart failure. Data were extracted and summarized. A random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to synthesize the results. Out of 1065 articles, 8 met the inclusion criteria for 211 mid-range heart failure patients with an implant LBBAP across the 16 centers. The average implant success rate with lumenless pacing lead use was 91.3%, and 19 complications were reported among all 211 enrolled patients. During the average follow-up of 9.1 months, the average LVEF was 39.8% at baseline and 50.5% at follow-up (MD: 10.90%, 95% CI: 6.56-15.23, p < .01). Average QRS duration was 152.6 ms at baseline and 119.3 ms at follow-up (MD: -34.51 ms, 95% CI: -60.00 to -9.02, p < .01). LBBAP could significantly reduce QRS duration and improve systolic function in a patient with LVEF between 35% and 50%. Application of LBBAP as a CRT strategy for HFmrEF may be a viable option.

Conduction system pacing is superior to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: Insights from the pooled clinical studies

Background: The effects of conduction system pacing (CSP) compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BVP) on heart function in patients with heart failure remain elusive. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane's Library and Web of science databases were searched up to 1 October 2022 for pertinent controlled studies. Random or fixed-effect model were used to synthesize the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to screen the potential confounding factors. Results: Fifteen studies including 1,347 patients were enrolled. Compared with BVP, CSP was significantly associated with shortened QRS duration [WMD -22.51 ms; p = 0.000], improved left ventricular ejection fraction [WMD 5.53%; p = 0.000], improved NYHA grade [WMD -0.42; p = 0.000], higher response rate and lower heart failure rehospitalization rate. CSP resulted in better clinical outcomes in higher male proportion group than lower one compared with BVP. No significant differences of clinical outcomes were observed between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) and his bundle pacing (HBP) except the pacing threshold. The pacing threshold of LBBaP was significantly lower than those in BVP and HBP. Conclusion: This study suggests that CSP might be superior to conventional BVP for HF patients. In a higher male proportion group, CSP may be associated with more benefits than BVP. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022355991; Identifier: CRD42022355991.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Left bundle branch pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality in HF patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the gold standard for achieving CRT, but about 30%-40% of patients do not respond to BVP-CRT. Recent studies showed that left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provided remarkable results in CRT. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to December 29, 2022 and focusing on LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients. The primary endpoint was HF hospitalization. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Risk Ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD).

RESULTS

Ten studies enrolling 1063 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to BVP-CRT, LBBP-CRT led to significant reduction in HF hospitalization [7.9% vs.14.5%; RR: 0.60 (95%CI: 0.39-0.93); p = .02], QRSd [MD: 30.26 ms (95%CI: 26.68-33.84); p < .00001] and pacing threshold [MD: -0.60 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.48); p < .00001] at follow up. Furthermore, LBBP-CRT improved LVEF [MD: 5.78% (95%CI: 4.78-6.77); p < .00001], the rate of responder [88.5% vs.72.5%; RR: 1.19 (95%CI: 1.07-1.32); p = .002] and super-responder [60.8% vs. 36.5%; RR: 1.56 (95%CI: 1.27-1.91); p < .0001] patients and the NYHA class [MD: -0.42 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.14); p < .00001] compared to BVP-CRT.

CONCLUSION

In HF patients, LBBP-CRT was superior to BVP-CRT in reducing HF hospitalization. Further significant benefits occurred within the LBBP-CRT group in terms of QRSd, LVEF, pacing thresholds, NYHA class and the rate of responder and super-responder patients.

Proarrhythmic effect of bipolar epicardial left ventricular stimulation in CRT resolved maintaining biventricular pacing with unipolar-cathodical configuration: A peculiar case report

Background

The effect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) on the risk of ventricular arrhythmias is controversial. Several studies reported a decreased risk, but some studies reported a potential proarrhythmic effect of epicardial left ventricular pacing resolved upon discontinuation of biventricular pacing (BiVp).

Case Summary

A 67-year-old woman with a history of heart failure due to nonischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block was hospitalized for CRT device implantation. Unpredictably, as soon as the leads have been connected to the generator, an electrical storm (ES) occurred with relapsing self-resolving polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (PVT) triggered by ventricular extra beats with short-long-short sequences. The ES was resolved without interrupting BiVp switching to unipolar left ventricular (LV) pacing. This allowed to keep CRT active with extreme clinical benefit for the patient and to demonstrate that the cause of the PVT was the anodic capture of bipolar LV stimulation. Reverse electrical remodeling was also demonstrated after 3 months of effective BiVp.

Discussion

Proarrhythmic effect of CRT is a rare but significant complication of CRT, and it may compel to discontinuation of the BiVp. The reversal of the physiological transmural activation sequence of epicardial LV pacing and subsequent prolonging of corrected QT interval have been speculated as the most probable explanation, but our case highlights the possibility that the anodic capture may play a relevant role in PVT genesis.

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing-cardiac resynchronization therapy in elderly patients

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging technique to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its feasibility and safety in elderly patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block is hardly investigated.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for CRT comparing pacing parameters and complication rates of LBBAP-CRT in elderly patients (≥ 75 years) versus younger patients (< 75 years) over a 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successful in 55/60 enrolled patients (92%), among which 25(45%) were elderly. In both groups, LBBAP significantly reduced the QRS duration (elderly group: 168 ± 15 ms to 136 ± 12 ms, p < 0.0001; younger group: 166 ± 14 ms to 134 ± 11 ms, p < 0.0001) and improved LVEF (elderly group: 28 ± 5% to 40 ± 7%, p < 0.0001; younger group: 29 ± 5% to 41 ± 8%, p < 0.0001). The pacing threshold was 0.9 ± 0.8 V in the elderly group vs. 0.7 ± 0.5 V in the younger group (p = 0.350). The R wave was 9.5 ± 3.9 mV in elderly patients vs. 10.7 ± 2.7 mV in younger patients (p = 0.341). The fluoroscopic (elderly: 13 ± 7 min vs. younger: 11 ± 7 min, p = 0.153) and procedural time (elderly: 80 ± 20 min vs. younger: 78 ± 16 min, p = 0.749) were comparable between groups. Lead dislodgement occurred in 2(4%) patients, 1 in each group (p = 1.000). Intraprocedural septal perforation occurred in three patients (5%), 2(8%) in the elderly group (p = 0.585). One patient (2%) in the elderly group had a pocket infection.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP is a feasible and safe technique for delivering physiological pacing in elderly patients who are candidates for CRT with suitable pacing parameters and low complication rates.

Resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes during left bundle branch area pacing with and without conduction system capture

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) includes left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular (LV) septal myocardial pacing (LVSP).

HYPOTHESIS

The study aimed to assess resynchronization effects and clinical outcomes by LBBAP in heart failure (HF) patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indications.

METHODS

LBBAP was successfully performed in 29 consecutive patients and further classified as the LBBP-group (N = 15) and LVSP-group (N = 14) based on the LBBP criteria and novel LV conduction time measurement (LV CT, between LBBAP site and LV pacing (LVP) site). AV-interval optimized LBBP or LVSP, or LVSP combined with LVP (LVSP-LVP) was applied. LV electrical and mechanical synchrony and clinical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

All 15 patients in the LBBP-group received optimized LBBP while 14 patients in the LVSP-group received either optimized LVSP (5) or LVSP-LVP (9). The LV CT during LBBP was significantly faster than that during LVP (p < .001), while LV CT during LVSP were similar to LVP (p = .226). The stimulus to peak LV activation time (Stim-LVAT, 71.2 ± 8.3 ms) and LV mechanical synchrony (TSI-SD, 35.3 ± 9.5 ms) during LBBP were significantly shorter than those during LVSP (Stim-LVAT 89.1 ± 19.5 ms, TSI-SD 49.8 ± 14.4 ms, both p < .05). Following 17(IQR 8) months of follow-up, the improvement of LVEF (26.0%(IQR 16.0)) in the LBBP-group was significantly greater than that in the LVSP-group (6.0%(IQR 20.8), p = .001).

CONCLUSIONS

LV activation in LBBP propagated significantly faster than that of LVSP. LBBP generated superior electrical and mechanical resynchronization and better LVEF improvement over LVSP in HF patients with CRT indications.

Comparison of the safety and efficiency of temporary cardiac pacing methods during left bundle branch pacemaker implantation: Femoral vein pacing versus atrial spiral pacing with electrodes placed at the ventricle

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacemakers (LBBPs) can better maintain ventricular electrical synchronization than traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Temporary cardiac pacing (TCP) is needed to ensure the safety of the operation in patients undergoing LBBP. Currently, there are two methods of installing TCP in conventional permanent pacemaker implantation.

HYPOTHESIS

To evaluate the safety and efficiency of replacing femoral vein pacing with atrial spiral pacing in the right ventricle for temporary cardiac pacing (TCP) during left bundle branch pacemaker (LBBP) implantation.

METHOD

A total of 179 patients who underwent TCP during LBBP were selected for retrospective analysis from April 2019 to 2021 and divided into two groups: the atrial spiral electrode group (n = 76) and the femoral vein electrode group (n = 103). The following were observed: operation time; radiation dose; radiation time; operation expenses; hospitalization time; pacemaker parameters immediately after the operation and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the operation; operation complications and femoral vein puncture point complications were observed in the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared to the femoral vein electrode group, the atrial electrode group had significantly lower operation times ([116.86 ± 24.63] versus [128.94 ± 25.27] min, p < 0.05), radiation doses ([805.07 ± 132.94] versus [846.42 ± 87.37] mgy, p < 0.05), and decreased risk of a displaced or dislodged temporary pacing electrode during the operation ([0.00%] versus [4.85%], p < 0.05). The atrial electrode group did not have significant operation costs or material costs associated with femoral vein temporary pacing electrode implantation. In addition, the atrial electrode group did not have an increased risk of pacemaker-related infections, and the parameters of the pacemaker were unaffected. However, some puncture point complications appeared in the femoral vein electrode group (8 cases of local subcutaneous hematoma, 3 cases of pseudoaneurysms, 3 cases of arteriovenous fistula).

CONCLUSION

The replacement of the femoral vein pacing electrode with an atrial spiral pacing electrode in the right ventricle for TCP during LBBP implantation was safe and effective.

Success rates, challenges and troubleshooting of left bundle branch area pacing as a cardiac resynchronization therapy for treating patients with heart failure

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important treatment of heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and asynchrony of cardiac electromechanical activity. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a novel physiological pacing modality that appears to be an effective method for CRT. LBBaP has several advantages over the traditional biventricular-CRT (BiV-CRT), including a low and stable pacing capture threshold, a high success rate of implantation, a short learning curve, and high economic feasibility. However, LBBaP is not suitable for all heart failure patients needing a CRT and the success rates of LBBaP in heart failure patients is lower because of myocardial fibrosis, non-specific intraventricular conduction disturbance (IVCD), enlargement of the right atrium or right ventricle, etc. In this literature review, we summarize the success rates, challenges, and troubleshooting of LBBaP in heart failure patients needing a CRT.

Left ventricular pacing in the treatment of pediatric cardiac dysfunction caused by idiopathic complete left bundle branch block

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of transthoracic epicardial dual-chamber pacemaker implantation in the treatment of cardiac dysfunction caused by idiopathic complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) in children.

METHODS

Nine children diagnosed with cardiac dysfunction due to idiopathic CLBBB were included in this study. All patients underwent transthoracic epicardial dual-chamber pacemaker implantation. Cardiac function was evaluated using echocardiography during the follow-up. Additionally, intraventricular synchronization parameters were assessed using two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography (STE).

RESULTS

Nine children (mean age, 3.0 ± 2.6 years) were included in this study. The median follow-up duration was 2 (interquartile range, 1-3) years. The cardiac function of all patients recovered to normal levels within 1 year postoperatively. The postoperative QRS duration on electrocardiography (142 ± 21 ms) was significantly shorter than that at baseline (106 ± 12 ms) (p < .05). Cardiac dyssynchrony in patients who manifested preoperatively achieved complete correction after pacemaker implantation. The comparison of preoperative and postoperative (last follow-up visit) synchronization parameters were as follows: longitudinal standard deviation of the time to peak strain, 99.0 ± 41.9 versus 36.8 ± 5.0 ms (p = .004); delay time of peak longitudinal strain, 252.2 ± 131.4 versus 35.0 ± 22.9 ms (p = .002); and longitudinal systolic dyssynchrony index, 2.8 ± 0.8% versus 1.0 ± 0.3% (p = .001), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Transthoracic epicardial dual-chamber pacemaker implantation (with left atrial sensing and left ventricular single-site pacing) can be used for the treatment of cardiac dysfunction caused by idiopathic CLBBB in children.