Safety and efficacy of His-bundle pacing/left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Is left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) associated with better depolarization and repolarization kinetics than right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP)? - Comparison of frontal QRS -T angle in patients with LBBP, RVSP and normal ventricular conduction

AIMS

To assess the frontal QRS- T angle (f QRS- T angle) in patients with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) as compared to right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP) implanted for symptomatic high degree atrioventricular (AV) block and to compare with control subjects with normal ventricular conduction (CSNVC) METHODS: A total of one-fifty subjects were chosen (50 patients with LBBP, 50 patients with RVSP and 50 CSNVC). The indication for pacemaker implantation was symptomatic high degree AV block. Baseline clinical and electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters like QRS duration (QRSD), QRS axis and f QRS-T angle and Ejection Fraction (EF) were assessed. f QRS-T angle was measured as the difference between the computerised mean frontal QRS and T wave axes in the limb leads. If the difference between the QRS axis and T-wave axis exceeds 180°, then the resultant QRS-T angle would be calculated as 360° minus the absolute angle to obtain a value between 0° and 180°. Baseline, immediate post procedural and 6 month follow up (f/u) ECGs and EF were chosen for the analysis.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent LBBP had significantly shorter paced QRSD than patients who had undergone RVSP (112 ± 12 ms vs 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 43, -31; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the QRSD before and after LBBP. The QRSD before and after pacing in RVSP was 111 ± 27 ms and 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % CI: 43, -28; p < 0.001. The QRSD in control patients with NVC was 82.94 ± 9.59 ms. RVSP was associated with wider f QRS-T angle when compared with LBBP (103 ± 53° vs 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 39, -1.0; p = 0.037). The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in LBBP was 70 ± 48° and 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 31, 5.3; p = 0.2. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle was 61 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 8.5, 35; p=0.002. The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in RVSP was 67 ± 51° and 103 ± 53°; 95 % CI: 54, -17; p < 0.001. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle in RVSP group was 87 ± 58°; 95 % CI: 2.6, 29; p = 0.020. The f QRS T angle in control patients with NVC was 24 ± 16°. When subgroup analysis was done the difference in the f QRS-T angle was significant between RVSP and LBBP groups only in patients who had wide QRS escape. The mean LVEF at 6-month follow-up in LBBP vs RVSP was 61 ± 3.7 % vs 57.1 ± 7.8 %; 95 % CI:1.48, 6.32, p = 0.002. In the RVSP group, three patients developed pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PIC) whereas no patients in the LBBP group developed PIC at 6-month follow-up; p=0.021. One patient with PIC had deterioration of functional status with new onset HF symptoms. The patient symptoms improved with medical therapy and needed no hospitalisation. The patient declined further interventions including upgradation to CRT or LBB pacing. No deaths or ventricular arrhythmias were observed during the study period.

CONCLUSION

LBBP is associated with narrower f QRS-T angle as compared to RVSP both at post implant period and at 6 month f/u period. These findings might be due to the more physiological depolarization and repolarization kinetics associated with LBBP. RVSP was associated with 6 % incidence of PIC. Hence wide f QRS-T angle might be a predictor of PIC.

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.

Association between sick sinus syndrome and atrial fibrillation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Sick sinus syndrome (SSS) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexist and show a bidirectional relationship. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to decipher the precise relationship between SSS and AF, further exploring and comparing different therapy strategies on the occurrence or progression of AF in patients with SSS.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A systematic literature search was conducted until November 2022. A total of 35 articles with 37,550 patients were included. Patients with SSS were associated with new-onset AF compared to those without SSS. Catheter ablation was associated with a lower risk of AF recurrence, AF progression, all-cause mortality, stroke and hospitalization of heart failure compared to pacemaker therapy. Regarding the different pacing strategies for SSS, VVI/VVIR has higher risk of new-onset AF than DDD/DDDR. No significant difference was found between AAI/AAIR and DDD/DDDR, as well as between DDD/DDDR and minimal ventricular pacing (MVP) for AF recurrence. AAI/AAIR was associated with higher risk of all-cause mortality when compared to DDD/DDDR, but lower risk of cardiac death when compared to DDD/DDDR. Right atrial septum pacing was associated with a similar risk of new-onset AF or AF recurrence compared to right atrial appendage pacing.

CONCLUSION

SSS is associated with a higher risk of AF. For patients with both SSS and AF, catheter ablation should be considered. This meta-analysis re-emphasizes that high percentage of ventricular pacing should be avoided in patients with SSS in order to decrease AF burden and mortality.

Rate and nature of complications of conduction system pacing compared with right ventricular pacing: results of a propensity-matched analysis from a multicentre registry

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Comparative data on the risk of complications between CSP and RVP are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to compare the long-term risk of device-related complications between CSP and RVP.

METHODS

A total of 1,029 consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation with CSP (including HBP and LBBAP) or RVP were enrolled. Propensity matching for baseline characteristics yielded 201 matched pairs. Rate and nature of device-related complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 18 months, device-related complications were observed in 19 patients: 7 in RVP (3.5%), and in 12 in CSP (6.0%) (p=0.240). Dividing the matched cohort in three groups with similar baseline characteristics according to the pacing modality (RVP, n=201; HBP, n=128; LBBAP, n=73), HBP patients showed a rate of device-related complications significantly higher compared to RVP patients (8.6 vs. 3.5%; p=0.047), and to LBBAP patients (8.6 vs. 1.3%; p=0.034). LBBAP patients showed a rate of device-related complications similar to that of RVP patients (1.3 vs. 3.5%, p=0.358). Most of the complications observed in HBP patients (63.6%) were lead-related.

CONCLUSIONS

Globally, CSP was associated with a risk of complications similar to that of RVP. Considering separately HBP and LBBAP, HBP showed a significantly higher risk of complications than both RVP and LBBAP, whereas LBBAP showed a risk of complications similar to RVP.

Conduction system pacing learning curve: Left bundle pacing compared to His bundle pacing

Introduction

Conduction system pacing (CSP), consisting of His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a rapidly developing field. These pacing techniques result in single lead left ventricular resynchronisation. Understanding of the associated learning curve of the two techniques is an important consideration for new implanters/implanting centres.

Methods

We conducted a review of the first 30 cases of both HBP and LBBAP at The Royal Brompton Hospital. The procedural duration and fluoroscopy time were used as surrogates for the learning curve of each technique.

Results

Patient characteristics were similar in HBP and LBBAP groups; LV ejection fraction (46% vs 54%, p = 0.08), pre-procedural QRS duration (119 ms vs 128 ms, p = 0.32).Mean procedural duration was shorter for LBBAP than for HBP (87 vs 107mins, p = 0.04) and the drop in procedural duration was more marked in LBBAP, plateauing and remaining low at 80mins after the initial 10 cases. Fluoroscopic screening time mirrored procedural duration (8 min vs 16 min, p < 0.01).

Discussion/Conclusion

Our data suggest that the CSP learning curve was shorter for LBBAP than for HBP and appears to plateaux after the first 10 cases, however the HBP learning curve is longer with continued improvement over the first 30 cases. The shorter learning curve of LBBAP in conjunction with the superior electrical parameters and simplified programming mean the establishment of a CSP program is potentially easier with LBBAP compared to with HBP.

Incidence and predictors of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy with right ventricular pacing: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to evaluate the incidence and predictors of PICM in patients undergoing right ventricular pacing.

AREAS COVERED

A literature review was conducted using Mesh terms (Right ventricular pacing, Pacemaker-related cardiomyopathy, Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy) in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library until October 2021. All data reporting the incidence of PICM after implantation of right-sided pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) were retrieved from the eligible studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Out of 3,625 articles, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria that included 5,381 patients with PICM. The mean age of the patients ranged between 55.8 ± 13.5 and 77.4 ± 10.8 years. The mean incidence of PICM was 25.7%. Mean EF at baseline ranged from 48 ± 1% and 62.1 ± 11.2%, while mean EF at follow up ranged between 33.7± 7.4% and 53.2 ± 8.2%. Three studies reported a decline of >20% EF at follow-up. RV pacing was associated with a considerable risk of PICM, with biological factors such as male gender, old age, increased QRS duration, and chronic RV pacing burden playing an important role in the development of disease.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing: A systematic review and network meta-analysis in bradycardia and conduction disorders

BACKGROUND

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) has emerged as an effective alternative to overcome the limitations of right ventricular pacing (RVP) via physiological left ventricular activation, but there remains a paucity of comparative information for His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP).

METHODS

A Bayesian random-effects network analysis was conducted to compare the relative effects of HBP, LBBP, and RVP in patients with bradycardia and conduction disorders. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched from database inception until September 21, 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 4160 patients were included in this meta-analysis. LBBP significantly improved success rate, pacing threshold, pacing impedance, and R-wave amplitude compared with HBP. LBBP also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend towards superior outcomes of lead complications, heart failure hospitalization, atrial fibrillation, and all-cause death. However, HBP was associated with significantly shorter paced QRS duration relative to LBBP. Despite higher success rates, shorter procedure/fluoroscopy duration, and fewer lead complications, patients receiving RVP were more likely to experience reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, longer paced QRS duration, and higher rates of heart failure hospitalization than those receiving HPCSP. No statistical differences were observed in the remaining outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis demonstrates the efficacy and safety of HPCSP for the treatment of bradycardia and conduction disorders, with differences in pacing parameters, electrophysiology characteristics, and clinical outcomes between HBP and LBBP. Larger-scale, long-term comparative studies are warranted for further verification.