Physiology of Left Ventricular Septal Pacing and Left Bundle Branch Pacing

Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

The outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) in patients with heart failure remain to be learned.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP, LVSP, and deep septal pacing (DSP).

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who met the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and underwent attempted LBBP in 5 Mayo centers. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were collected at baseline and follow-up.

Results

A total of 91 consecutive patients were included in the study. A total of 52 patients had LBBP, 25 had LVSP, and 14 had DSP. The median follow-up duration was 307 (interquartile range 208, 508) days. There was significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement in the LBBP and LVSP groups (from 35.9 ± 8.5% to 46.9 ± 10.0%, P < .001 in the LBBP group; from 33.1 ± 7.5% to 41.8 ± 10.8%, P < .001 in the LVSP group) but not in the DSP group. A unipolar paced right bundle branch block morphology during the procedure in lead V1 was associated with higher odds of CRT response. There was no significant difference in heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths between the LBBP and LVSP groups. The rate of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths were increased in the DSP group compared with the LBBP group (hazard ratio 5.10, 95% confidence interval 1.14-22.78, P = .033; and hazard ratio 7.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38-44.32, P = .020, respectively).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing CRT, LVSP had comparable CRT outcomes compared with LBBP.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Atrioventricular Node Ablation in a Single-Procedure Approach for Elderly Patients with Symptomatic Atrial Fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Implantation of a permanent pacemaker and atrioventricular (AV) node ablation (pace-and-ablate) is an established approach for rate and symptom control in elderly patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a physiological pacing strategy that might overcome right ventricular pacing-induced dyssynchrony. In this study, the feasibility and safety of performing LBBAP and AV node ablation in a single procedure in the elderly was investigated.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with symptomatic AF referred for pace-and-ablate underwent the treatment in a single procedure. Data on procedure-related complications and lead stability were collected at regular follow-up at one day, ten days and six weeks after the procedure and continued every six months thereafter.

RESULTS

25 patients (mean age 79.2 ± 4.2 years) were included and underwent successful LBBAP. In 22 (88%) patients, AV node ablation and LBBAP were performed in the same procedure. AV node ablation was postponed in two patients due to lead-stability concerns and in one patient on their own request. No complications related to the single-procedure approach were observed with no lead-stability issues at follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP combined with AV node ablation in a single procedure is feasible and safe in elderly patients with symptomatic AF.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: present and future

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. Despite the long-standing clinical evidence, as well as the familiarity of cardiac electrophysiologists with the implantation technique, CRT via BVP cannot be achieved or may result ineffective in up to one-third of the patients. Therefore, new alternative techniques, such as conduction system pacing and left ventricular pacing, are emerging as potential alternatives to this technique, not only in case of BVP failure, but also as a stand-alone first choice due to several potential advantages over traditional CRT. Specifically, due to its procedural characteristics, left bundle branch area pacing appears to be the most convincing technique, showing comparable efficacy outcomes when compared with traditional CRT, not increasing short-term device-related complications, as well as improving procedural times. However, transvenous leads remain a major limitation of all these pacing modalities. To overcome this limit, a leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing has been developed as an additional tool to achieve a left endocardial activation, although being still associated with non-negligible pitfalls, limiting its current use in clinical practice. This article focuses on the current state and latest progresses in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Pacing of the specialized His-Purkinje conduction system: 'back to the future'

The conduction system of the human heart is composed of specialized cardiomyocytes that initiate and propagate the electric impulse with consequent rhythmic and synchronized contraction of the atria and ventricles, resulting in the normal cardiac cycle. Although the His-Purkinje system (HPS) was already described more than a century ago, there has been a recent resurgence of conduction system pacing (CSP), where pacing leads are positioned in the His bundle region and left bundle branch area to provide physiological cardiac activation as alternatives to the unnatural myocardial stimulation obtained with conventional right ventricular and biventricular pacing. In this review, we describe the fundamental anatomical and pathophysiological aspects of the specialized HPS along with the CSP technique's nuts and bolts to highlight its potential benefits in everyday clinical practice.

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.