His bundle pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Review of Atrioventricular Node Ablation Combined with Permanent His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure

With the advancement of pacing technologies, His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) has been increasingly recognized as superior to conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) and biventricular pacing (BVP). This method is characterized by a series of strategies that either strengthen the native cardiac conduction system or fully preserve physical atrioventricular activation, ensuring optimal clinical outcomes. Treatment with HPCSP is divided into two pacing categories, His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and when combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA), can significantly improve left ventricular (LV) function. It effectively prevents tachycardia and regulates ventricular rates, demonstrating its efficacy and safety across different QRS wave complex durations. Therefore, HPCSP combined with AVNA can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) who are unresponsive to multiple radiofrequency ablation, particularly those with concomitant heart failure (HF) who are at risk of further deterioration. As a result, this "pace and ablate" strategy could become a first-line treatment for refractory AF. As a pacing modality, HBP faces challenges in achieving precise localization and tends to increase the pacing threshold. Thus, LBBP has emerged as a novel approach within HPCSP, offering lower thresholds, higher sensing amplitudes, and improved success rates, potentially making it a preferable alternative to HBP. Future large-scale, prospective, and randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate patient selection and implantation technology, aiming to clarify the differential clinical outcomes between pacing modalities.

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

BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.

Cardiac Resynchronisation with Conduction System Pacing

To date, biventricular pacing (BiVP) has been the standard pacing modality for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. However, it is non-physiological, with the activation spreading between the left ventricular epicardium and right ventricular endocardium. Up to one-third of patients with heart failure who are eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy do not derive benefit from BiVP. Conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, has emerged as an alternative to BiVP for cardiac resynchronisation. There is mounting evidence supporting the benefits of CSP in achieving synchronous ventricular activation and repolarisation. The aim of this review is to summarise the current options and outcomes of CSP when used for cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure.

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.

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.

Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Pacing: Where Have We Been and What Lies Ahead?

The history of cardiac pacing dates back to the 1930s with externalized pacing and has evolved to incorporate transvenous, multi-lead, or even leadless devices. Annual implantation rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices have increased since the introduction of the implantable system, likely related to expanding indications, and increasing global life expectancy and aging demographics. Here, we summarize the relevant literature on cardiac pacing to demonstrate the enormous impact it has had within the field of cardiology. Further, we look forward to the future of cardiac pacing, including conduction system pacing and leadless pacing strategies.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: State of the art, current controversies, and future perspectives

Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the established treatment to perform cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, BVP is an unnatural pacing modality still conditioned by the high percentage of non-responders and coronary sinus anatomy. Conduction system pacing (CSP)-His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)- upcomes as the physiological alternative to BVP in the quest for the optimal CRT. CSP showed promising results in terms of better electro-mechanical ventricular synchronization compared to BVP. However, only a few randomized control trials are currently available, and technical challenges, along with the lack of information on long-term clinical outcomes, limit the establishment of a primary role for CSP over conventional BVP in CRT candidates. This review provides a comprehensive literature revision of potential applications of CSP for CRT in diverse clinical scenarios, underlining the current controversies and prospects of this technique.

Alternative pacing strategies for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) improves morbidity, mortality, and quality of life, especially in subsets of patients with impaired cardiac function and wide QRS. However, the rate of unsuccessful or complicated left ventricular (LV) lead placement through coronary sinus is 5-7%, and the rate of "CRT non-response" is approximately 30%. These reasons have pushed physicians and engineers to collaborate to overcome the challenges of LV lead implantation. Thus, various alternatives to BVP have been proposed to improve CRT effectiveness. His bundle pacing (HBP) has been increasingly used by activating the His-Purkinje system but is constrained by challenging implantation, low success rates, high and often unstable thresholds, and low perception. Therefore, the concept of pacing a specialized conduction system distal to the His bundle to bypass the block region was proposed. Multiple clinical studies have demonstrated that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has comparable electrical resynchronization with HBP but is superior in terms of simpler operation, higher success rates, lower and stable capture thresholds, and higher perception. Despite their well-demonstrated effectiveness, the transvenous lead-related complications remain major limitations. Recently, leadless LV pacing has been developed and demonstrated effective for these challenging patient cohorts. This article focuses on the current state and latest progress in HBP, LBBAP, and leadless LV pacing as alternatives for failed or non-responsive conventional CRT as well as their limits and prospects.

Atrial fibrillation in cardiac resynchronization therapy

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) were largely excluded from the major clinical trials of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), despite the presence of AF in up to 40% of patients receiving CRT in clinical practice. AF appears to attenuate the response to CRT, by the combination of a reduction in biventricular pacing and the loss of atrioventricular synchrony. In addition, remodeling secondary to CRT may influence the progression of AF. Management options for patients with AF and CRT include rate control, with drugs or atrioventricular node ablation, or rhythm control, with electrical cardioversion and antiarrhythmic therapy, or AF catheter ablation. The evidence for these therapies in patients with CRT is largely limited to observational studies or inferred from randomized studies in the general heart failure population. In this review, we explore the complex interaction between AF, heart failure, and CRT and discuss the evidence for the treatment options in this difficult patient cohort.

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

BACKGROUND

The clinical benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) has been demonstrated. However, a non-response rate of CRT nearly 1/3. Recent studies have reported left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has achieved remarkable effect in CRT. This study aim to explore the efficacy and safety of LBBP in heart failure patients with LBBB.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of science and CNKI databases for studies about LBBP in heart failure patients with LBBB. QRS duration (QRSd), New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) concentration, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing threshold and other related data were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

A total of 6 studies were included, and the success rate of LBBP was 93.2%. Compared with baseline, LBBP could shorten QRSd (MD = 61.23, 95%CI: 58.21 ∼ 64.25, P < 0.01). Echocardiographic parameters including LVEF and LVEDD significantly improved (both with P < 0.01). Clinical outcomes including NYHA classification and BNP dramatically reduced (both with P < 0.01). Compared with biventricular pacing (BVP), LBBP could further improve QRSd, LVEF, LVEDD, and NYHA classification (all with P < 0.01). However, the pacing threshold at follow-up was 0.06V higher than that at baseline (P < 0.01), and the incidence of complications was 2.4%.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP is effective and safe in heart failure patients with LBBB, whether it is better than BVP needs to be verified by randomized controlled trials. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Is His-optimized superior to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy in improving heart failure? Results from a propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP), alone or optimized in association with coronary sinus pacing (HBP+LV) has recently been proposed as an alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, there is lack of controlled studies that assessed clinical outcome.

METHODS

We did a single-center, propensity-score matched, case-control study of comparison of HBP and HBP+LV versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure (HF) and standard indications for CRT. The study group patients were consecutively enrolled in the year 2019. The control group patients were selected, by propensity score matching, among those CRT implantations performed in the years 2015-2018.

RESULTS

There were 27 patients in each group. In the active group, 12 (44%) patients received HBP alone and 12 (44%) patients HBP+LV pacing. HBP failed in three (11%) patients. In the control group, conventional CRT was achieved in 26 (96%) patients and failed in one. Paced QRS width was shorter in the active than in the control group (128 ± 18 vs. 148 ± 27 ms, p = .004). During a mean of 9.6 months of follow-up, a composite clinical outcome of death, hospitalization for HF or worsening HF occurred in three (11%) in the active group and in four (15%) in the control group, p = .58. No difference was also observed with softer endpoints: NYHA class (1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.1 ± 0.7), subjective improvement (74% vs. 74%) and LV ejection fraction (40.7% vs. 40.7%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional CRT, a shorter QRS width can be obtained with HBP alone or in association with coronary sinus pacing but we were unable to show a better clinical outcome. There is urgent need for large, randomized trials.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a recently proposed method for conduction system pacing. We performed a meta-analysis of controlled studies to compare the clinical outcome in patients who received LBBAP vs. biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

Methods: PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane's Library databases were searched for relevant controlled studies. A random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to synthesize the results.

Results: Four non-randomized controlled studies including 249 patients with heart failure (HF) for CRT were included, and the patients were followed for 6–12 months. Compared with BVP, LBBAP was associated with significantly shortened QRS duration [mean difference (MD): −29.18 ms, 95% confidence interval (CI): −33.55–24.80, I² = 0%, P < 0.001], improved left ventricular ejection fraction (MD: 6.93%, 95% CI: 4.69–9.17, I² = 0%, P < 0.001), reduced left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (MD: −2.96 mm, 95% CI: −5.48 to −0.44, I² = 0%, P = 0.02), and improved New York Heart Association class (MD: −0.54, 95% CI: −0.84 to −0.24, I² = 65%, P < 0.001). Moreover, patients who received LBBAP were more likely to achieve echocardiographic [odds ratio (OR): 5.04, 95% CI: 2.17–11.69, I² = 0%, P < 0.001] and clinical (OR: 7.33, 95% CI: 1.62–33.16, I² = 0%, P = 0.01) CRT responses.

Conclusion: Current evidence from non-randomized studies suggests that LBBAP appears to be a promising method for CRT, which is associated with more remarkable improvements of symptoms and cardiac function in HF patients with indication for CRT.

His Bundle Pacing – Stand-alone or adjunctive physiological pacing: a systematic review

His-bundle pacing (HBP) appears to be a viable stand-alone or adjunctive physiological pacing therapy in pacemaker dependent patients. It could also serve as an effective adjunct or alternative pacing therapy for heart failure patients who require cardiac resynchronization therapy or pacemaker upgrade. His-bundle pacing has demonstrated improvement of His-Purkinje conduction, left ventricular electrical / mechanical synchronization, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) compared with right ventricle pacing. Patients who have high pacing dependence and/or LVEF impairment would benefit most from HBP in terms of heart failure hospitalization and LVEF improvement. Mortality benefit has not been consistently demonstrated in latest meta-analysis. The long-term clinical benefit and safety profile of HBP remains to be explored in future studies.  Key words: His bundle pacing, physiologic pacing, upgrade pacing