What Have We Learned in the Last 20 Years About CRT Non-Responders?

Left bundle branch pacing set to outshine biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy?

The deleterious effects of long-term right ventricular pacing necessitated the search for alternative pacing sites which could prevent or alleviate pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Until recently, biventricular pacing (BiVP) was the only modality which could mitigate or prevent pacing induced dysfunction. Further, BiVP could resynchronize the baseline electromechanical dssynchrony in heart failure and improve outcomes. However, the high non-response rate of around 20%-30% remains a major limitation. This non-response has been largely attributable to the direct non-physiological stimulation of the left ventricular myocardium bypassing the conduction system. To overcome this limitation, the concept of conduction system pacing (CSP) came up. Despite initial success of the first CSP via His bundle pacing (HBP), certain drawbacks including lead instability and dislodgements, steep learning curve and rapid battery depletion on many occasions prevented its widespread use for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Subsequently, CSP via left bundle branch-area pacing (LBBP) was developed in 2018, which over the last few years has shown efficacy comparable to BiVP-CRT in small observational studies. Further, its safety has also been well established and is largely free of the pitfalls of the HBP-CRT. In the recent metanalysis by Yasmin et al, comprising of 6 studies with 389 participants, LBBP-CRT was superior to BiVP-CRT in terms of QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac chamber dimensions, lead thresholds, and functional status amongst heart failure patients with left bundle branch block. However, there are important limitations of the study including the small overall numbers, inclusion of only a single small randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a small follow-up duration. Further, the entire study population analyzed was from China which makes generalizability a concern. Despite the concerns, the meta-analysis adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of LBBP-CRT. At this stage, one must acknowledge that the fact that still our opinions on this technique are largely based on observational data and there is a dire need for larger RCTs to ascertain the position of LBBP-CRT in management of heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.

Advances in cardiac pacing with leadless pacemakers and conduction system pacing

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of cardiac pacing has undergone significant evolution with the introduction and adoption of conduction system pacing (CSP) and leadless pacemakers (LLPMs). These innovations provide benefits over conventional pacing methods including avoiding lead related complications and achieving more physiological cardiac activation. This review critically assesses the latest advancements in CSP and LLPMs, including their benefits, challenges, and potential for future growth.

RECENT FINDINGS

CSP, especially of the left bundle branch area, enhances ventricular depolarization and cardiac mechanics. Recent studies show CSP to be favorable over traditional pacing in various patient populations, with an increase in its global adoption. Nevertheless, challenges related to lead placement and long-term maintenance persist. Meanwhile, LLPMs have emerged in response to complications from conventional pacemaker leads. Two main types, Aveir and Micra, have demonstrated improved outcomes and adoption over time. The incorporation of new technologies allows LLPMs to cater to broader patient groups, and their integration with CSP techniques offers exciting potential.

SUMMARY

The advancements in CSP and LLPMs present a transformative shift in cardiac pacing, with evidence pointing towards enhanced clinical outcomes and reduced complications. Future innovations and research are likely to further elevate the clinical impact of these technologies, ensuring improved patient care for those with conduction system disorders.

Cardiac resynchronization using fusion pacing during exercise

INTRODUCTION

Fusion pacing requires correct timing of left ventricular pacing to right ventricular activation, although it is unclear whether this is maintained when atrioventricular (AV) conduction changes during exercise. We used cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to compare cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using fusion pacing or fixed AV delays (AVD).

METHODS

Patients 6 months post-CRT implant with PR intervals < 250 ms performed two CPET tests, using either the SyncAV™ algorithm or fixed AVD of 120 ms in a double-blinded, randomized, crossover study. All other programming was optimized to produce the narrowest QRS duration (QRSd) possible.

RESULTS

Twenty patients (11 male, age 71 [65-77] years) were recruited. Fixed AVD and fusion programming resulted in similar narrowing of QRSd from intrinsic rhythm at rest (p = .85). Overall, there was no difference in peak oxygen consumption (V̇O2 PEAK , p = .19), oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold (VT1, p = .42), or in the time to reach either V̇O2 PEAK (p = .81) or VT1 (p = .39). The BORG rating of perceived exertion was similar between groups. CPET performance was also analyzed comparing whichever programming gave the narrowest QRSd at rest (119 [96-136] vs. 134 [119-142] ms, p < .01). QRSd during exercise (p = .03), peak O2 pulse (mL/beat, a surrogate of stroke volume, p = .03), and cardiac efficiency (watts/mL/kg/min, p = .04) were significantly improved.

CONCLUSION

Fusion pacing is maintained during exercise without impairing exercise capacity compared with fixed AVD. However, using whichever algorithm gives the narrowest QRSd at rest is associated with a narrower QRSd during exercise, higher peak stroke volume, and improved cardiac efficiency.