Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Nonrandomized On-Treatment Comparison With His Bundle Pacing and Biventricular Pacing

Sex differences outcomes in conduction system pacing for patients with typical left bundle branch block

BACKGROUND

Biventricular pacing (BVP) appears to confer more pronounced advantages in women, yet the impact of conduction system pacing (CSP) remains insufficiently characterized. This investigation seeks to elucidate sex-specific disparities in clinical outcomes among patients with typical left bundle branch block (LBBB) undergoing CSP, with a particular focus on assessing contributory factors.

METHODS

Consecutive patients diagnosed with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, exhibiting left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%, and manifesting typical LBBB as Strauss criteria, underwent CSP. Subsequent longitudinal monitoring assessed improvements in LVEF and the composite endpoint of mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HFH).

RESULTS

Among the included 176 patients, women (n = 84, mean age: 69.5 ± 8.8 years) displayed smaller heart size (LVEDd, 62.0 ± 8.3 mm vs. 64.8 ± 7.9 mm, P = 0.023) and shorter baseline QRSd (163.5 ± 17.7 ms vs. 169.7 ± 15.1 ms; P = 0.013) than men. Of the 171 patients who completed the follow-up, super-response was observed in 120 (70%), with a higher occurrence in women than men (78.3% vs. 62.5%, P = 0.024). The incidence of death or HFH was numerically lower in women (7.1% Vs 13%, Log-rank P = 0.216). Notably, the super-response showed a significant difference in women compared to men at the same electrocardiography and/or echocardiographic parameters value. Mediation analysis between sex and super-response revealed that LVEDd and pQRSd play an intermediary role, with the mediation proportion of 26.07% and 27.98%, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Women may derive more benefits from CSP, and pQRSd and LVEDd partly drive this difference.

Left bundle branch area pacing for atrioventricular block and mild to moderately reduced left ventricular systolic function

INTRODUCTION

The clinical efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has not been fully elucidated in patients with atrioventricular block and mild to moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This study evaluated the impact of LBBAP on patients with an LVEF of ≤50% and dependent on ventricular pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients with atrioventricular block underwent successful LBBAP. All patients had a reduced LVEF of 36%-50% and underwent pacemaker implantation. Ventricular pacing was performed using the LBBAP alone throughout the follow-up period. Clinical outcomes, including death from any cause, fatal ventricular arrhythmias, hospitalization for heart failure, and echocardiographic improvements after 1 year, were assessed. Thirty-three (89%) patients were free from the composite endpoint during a median follow-up of 36 months, whereas four patients experienced noncardiovascular deaths or hospitalization for heart failure. No fatal ventricular arrhythmias occurred. LVEF was improved using LBBAP from 42.6 ± 4.7% to 52.1 ± 9.1% (p < .001). LVEF normalization (>50%) was achieved in 64.5% of patients, while in 11 patients LVEF remained stable demonstrating no deterioration (from 42.5 ± 4.7% to 42.4 ± 6.3%). Nonischemic cardiomyopathy (odds ratio, 21.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.96-236.45) and Pre-existing bundle branch block (odds ratio, 11.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-125.75) were independent preoperative predictors of LVEF normalization using LBBAP.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP significantly improved cardiac systolic dysfunction without causing fatal ventricular arrhythmias. Moreover, LBBAP may provide a promising alternative to biventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block and a reduced LVEF of 36%-50%.

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.

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.

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.

Comparison of electrocardiogram parameters and echocardiographic response between distinct left bundle branch area pacing modes in heart failure patients

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has become an alternative method for cardiac resynchronization therapy. Various modes of LBBAP have been determined, including left bundle trunk pacing (LBTP), left anterior branch pacing (LAFP) and left posterior branch pacing (LPFP). However, whether the outcomes of various pacing modes differ in heart failure (HF) patients is still unclear. This study aimed to compare the electrophysiological characteristics and echocardiographic response rate among those distinct modes of LBBAP.

Methods

HF patients undergoing successful LBBAP were retrospectively included. Distinct modes of pacing were determined based on paced QRS morphology. The fluoroscopic images were collected to compare the lead tip position between the groups. The electrocardiograms (ECG) before and after LBBAP were used to measure the depolarization (QRS duration [QRSd] and the interventricular delay [IVD]), and the repolarization parameters [QTc, TpeakTend(TpTe), and TpTe/QTc]. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) of patients were also recorded. In addition, the lead parameters and certain complications were compared.

Results

A total of 64 HF patients were finally included, consisting of 16 (25.0%) patients in the LBTP group, 22 (34.4%) patients in the LAFP group, and 26 (40.6%) patients in the LPFP group. The distribution features of LBBAP lead tips were significantly related to pacing modes: LBTP was more likely to be in zone 4 while LAFP or LPFP was prone to locate in zone 5. After LBBAP, the ventricular ECG parameters were significantly improved, regardless of pacing modes. Besides, the LVEF of the patients was significantly increased (P < 0.001), and LVEDD was significantly decreased (P < 0.001). There was no difference in the response rate and super-response rate among groups (P > 0.05). In addition, the lead parameters remained stable and no significant difference was observed among groups.

Conclusion

LPFP was the main pacing mode among HF patients after LBBAP. The paced QRS morphology was significantly related to the position of lead tips. After LBBAP, the ventricular depolarization synchronization and repolarization stability were both significantly improved, regardless of pacing modes. There was no significant difference in the echocardiographic response rate among distinct LBBAP modes.

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Relatively High His-Bundle Capture Threshold After Permanent His-Bundle Pacing - A Multicenter Clinical Study

Background

Outcomes in patients with relatively high His-bundle (HB) capture thresholds at implantation are unknown. This study aimed to compare changes in the HB capture threshold and prognosis between patients with a relatively high threshold and those with a low threshold.

Methods and Results

Forty-nine patients who underwent permanent HB pacing (HBP) were divided into two groups: low (<1.25 V at 1.0 ms; n=35) and high (1.25-2.49 V; n=14) baseline HB capture threshold groups. The HB capture threshold was evaluated at implantation, and after 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter. HB capture threshold rise was defined as threshold rise ≥1.0 V at 1.0 ms compared with implantation measures. We compared outcomes between the groups. During a mean follow-up period of 34.6 months, the high-threshold group showed a trend toward a higher incidence of HB capture threshold of ≥2.5 V (50% vs. 14%; P=0.023), HBP abandonment (29% vs. 8.6%; P=0.091), lead revision (21% vs. 2.9%; P=0.065), and clinical events (all-cause death, heart failure hospitalization, and new-onset or progression of atrial fibrillation; 50% vs. 23%; P=0.089) than the low-threshold group. A baseline HB capture threshold of ≥1.25V was an independent predictor of clinical events.

Conclusions

A relatively high HB capture threshold is associated with increased risk of HBP abandonment, lead revision, and poor clinical outcomes.

The association between paced left ventricular activation time and cardiac reverse remodeling in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block

INTRODUCTION

The association between paced LVAT and cardiac structure and function at baseline, as well as whether longer LVAT is associated with worse cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) has not been well investigated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the association between paced LVAT and baseline echocardiographic parameters and cardiac reverse remodeling at follow-up.

METHODS

Patients with HF and LBBB receiving successful left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) from June 2018 to April 2023 were enrolled and grouped based on paced LVAT. NT-proBNP and echocardiographic parameters were recorded during routine follow-up. The relationships between paced LVAT and echocardiographic parameters at baseline and follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients were enrolled (48 males, aged 65 ± 9.8, mean LVEF 32.1 ± 7.5%, mean LVEDD 63.0 ± 8.5 mm, median NT-proBNP 1057[513-3158] pg/mL). The paced QRSd was significantly decreased (177 ± 17.9 vs. 134 ± 18.5, p < .001) and median paced LVAT was 80[72-88] ms. After a median follow-up of 12[9-29] months, LVEF increased to 52.1 ± 11.2%, LVEDD decreased to 52.6 ± 8.8 mm, and NT-proBNP decreased to 215[73-532]pg/mL. Patients were grouped based on paced LVAT: LVAT < 80 ms (n = 39); 80 ≤ LVAT < 90 ms (n = 24); LVAT ≥ 90 ms (n = 20). Patients with longer LVAT had larger LVEDD and lower LVEF (LVEDDbaseline: p < .001; LVEFbaseline: p = .001). The difference in LVEF6M was statistically significant among groups (p < .001) and patients with longer LVAT had lower LVEF6M, while the difference in LVEF1Y was not seen (p = .090). There was no significant correlation between ΔLVEF6M-baseline, ΔLVEF1Y-6M and LVAT respectively (ΔLVEF6M-baseline: p = .261, r = -.126; ΔLVEF1Y-6M: p = .085, r = .218).

CONCLUSION

Long paced LVAT was associated with worse echocardiographic parameters at baseline, but did not affect the cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with HF and LBBB. Those with longer LVAT required longer time to recover.

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.

[New pacing strategies for heart failure]

In patients with a reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function (ejection fraction < 35%) and a left bundle branch block with a QRS duration > 130 ms, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can contribute to an improvement in the quality of life and a reduction in mortality. The resynchronization is mostly achieved by pacing via an epicardial LV lead in the coronary sinus; however, this approach is often limited by the patient's venous anatomy and an increase in the stimulation threshold over time. In addition, up to 30% of patients do not respond to the intervention. New treatment approaches involve direct stimulation of the conduction system by pacing of the bundle of His or left bundle branch. This enables a more physiological propagation of the stimulus. Pacing of the left bundle branch is achieved by advancing the lead into the right ventricle and screwing it deep into the interventricular septum. Due to the relatively large target area of the left bundle branch the success rate is very high (currently > 90%). Observational studies have shown a greater reduction in the QRS duration, a more pronounced improvement in systolic function and a lower hospitalization rate for heart failure associated with conduction system pacing compared to CRT using a coronary sinus lead. These findings have been confirmed in small randomized trials. Therefore, the use of left bundle branch pacing should be considered not only as a bail out in the case of failed resynchronization using coronary sinus lead placement but increasingly also as an initial pacing strategy. The results of the first large randomized trials are expected to be released in late 2024.

Current Role of Conduction System Pacing in Patients Requiring Permanent Pacing

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) are novel methods of pacing directly pacing the cardiac conduction system. HBP while developed more than two decades ago, only recently moved into the clinical mainstream. In contrast to conventional cardiac pacing, conduction system pacing including HBP and LBBP utilizes the native electrical system of the heart to rapidly disseminate the electrical impulse and generate a more synchronous ventricular contraction. Widespread adoption of conduction system pacing has resulted in a wealth of observational data, registries, and some early randomized controlled clinical trials. While much remains to be learned about conduction system pacing and its role in electrophysiology, data available thus far is very promising. In this review of conduction system pacing, the authors review the emergence of conduction system pacing and its contemporary role in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Evolution and prognosis of tricuspid and mitral regurgitation following cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS

Significant changes in tricuspid regurgitation (TR) and mitral regurgitation (MR) post-cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are increasingly recognized. However, uncertainty remains as to whether the risk of CIED-associated TR and MR differs with right ventricular pacing (RVP) via CIED with trans-tricuspid RV leads, compared with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), conduction system pacing (CSP), and leadless pacing (LP). The study aims to synthesize extant data on risk and prognosis of significant post-CIED TR and MR across pacing strategies.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases published until 31 October 2023. Significant post-CIED TR and MR were defined as ≥ moderate. Fifty-seven TR studies (n = 13 723 patients) and 90 MR studies (n = 14 387 patients) were included. For all CIED, the risk of post-CIED TR increased [pooled odds ratio (OR) = 2.46 and 95% CI = 1.88-3.22], while the risk of post-CIED MR reduced (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.58-0.94) after 12 and 6 months of median follow-up, respectively. Right ventricular pacing via CIED with trans-tricuspid RV leads was associated with increased risk of post-CIED TR (OR = 4.54, 95% CI = 3.14-6.57) and post-CIED MR (OR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.18-4.26). Binarily, CSP did not alter TR risk (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.13-1.02), but significantly reduced MR (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.62). Cardiac resynchronization therapy did not significantly change TR risk (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.55-2.17), but significantly reduced MR with prevalence pre-CRT of 43%, decreasing post-CRT to 22% (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.40-0.61). There was no significant association of LP with post-CIED TR (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.83-1.59) or MR (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.72-2.39). Cardiac implantable electronic device-associated TR was independently predictive of all-cause mortality [pooled hazard ratio (HR) = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.40-1.90] after median of 53 months. Mitral regurgitation persisting post-CRT independently predicted all-cause mortality (HR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.57-2.55) after 38 months.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that, when possible, adoption of pacing strategies that avoid isolated trans-tricuspid RV leads may be beneficial in preventing incident or deteriorating atrioventricular valvular regurgitation and might reduce mortality.

Impact of left bundle branch block or permanent pacemaker after transcatheter aortic valve replacement on mid-term left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Conduction disturbances have uncertain implications for long-term left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR). We aimed to examine LVEF changes in patients up to two years post-TAVR.

METHODS

We examined patients who underwent TAVR between 2012 and 2020 and underwent echocardiography follow-up. Patients were categorized into four groups: 1) Those without a permanent pacemaker (PPM) or left bundle branch block (LBBB) pre- or post-TAVR; 2) Patients with pre- and post-TAVR LBBB; 3) Individuals with preexisting PPM; and 4) Patients requiring new PPM after TAVR. LVEF was assessed at the outset of TAVR, at 30 days, 1-year, and 2-years post-TAVR.

RESULTS

The study included 730 patients: 421 (57.6 %) without conduction abnormalities, 151 (20.7 %) with post-TAVR LBBB (48 pre-existing, 103 new-onset), 63 (8.6 %) with pre-existing PPM, and 95 (13.1 %) requiring new PPM. At discharge, patients without conduction abnormalities exhibited the highest LVEF (57.4 ± 11.5 %), whereas those with pre-existing PPM had the lowest (48.1 ± 15.5 %). Over two years, LVEF remained constant in patients without conduction issues and in those with pre-existing PPM. However, patients with new LBBB experienced a 6.3 % decrease in LVEF, and those requiring new PPM showed a 4.1 % reduction.

CONCLUSION

New conduction abnormalities, such as LBBB or the need for PPM, induce a decline in LVEF post-TAVR. It is imperative to focus on the long-term monitoring of left ventricular function in patients experiencing new conduction disturbances post-TAVR.

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.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing to Overcome Coronary Sinus Anatomy-Related Technical Problems Encountered during Implantation of Biventricular CRT-A Case Report

The results of clinical trials show that up to one-third of patients who are eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) do not benefit from biventricular pacing. The reasons vary, including technical problems related to left ventricle pacing lead placement in the appropriate branch of the coronary sinus. Herein, we present a case report of a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, in whom a poor coronary sinus bed made implantation of classic biventricular CRT impossible, but in whom, alternatively, rescue-performed left bundle branch area pacing allowed effective electrical and mechanical cardiac resynchronization. The report confirms that left bundle branch area pacing may be a rational alternative in such cases.

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.

Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications.

RESULTS

Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08-1.22); p < 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.78); p = 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21-0.72); p = 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.35); p < 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.

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.

Comparative Analysis of Response to Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy Upgrades in Patients with Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillators and Pacemakers

Introduction: The efficacy of de novo cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure (HF), left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD), and a broad QRS morphology is well established. However, the optimal stage for upgrading patients with existing pacemakers (PPMs) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and HF with high-burden right ventricular (RV) pacing remains uncertain. Thus, this multicentre retrospective analysis compared patients with pre-existing PPMs or ICDs who underwent CRT upgrades to investigate the appropriate stage for CRT implantation in these patients and to assess the validity of treating both PPM and ICD recipients under the same recommendation level in the current guidelines. Materials and Methods: A total of 151 participants underwent analysis in this study, comprising 93 upgrades to cardiac resynchronisation therapy with pacemaker (CRT-P) and 58 upgrades to cardiac resynchronisation therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) across three centres in the UK. The aim of the study was to investigate the safety and efficacy of upgrading to CRT from an existing conventional pacemaker or an ICD in the context of high-burden RV pacing. The analysis was conducted separately for each group, assessing changes in echocardiographic parameters, functional New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and procedure-related complications. Results: The PPM group had a higher percentage RVP burden compared to the ICD group. Post-upgrade, NYHA functional class and EF and LV volumes improved in both groups; however, the response to an upgrade from a pacemaker was greater compared to an upgrade from an ICD. Post-procedural complication risks were similar across the two subgroups but significantly higher compared to de novo implantation. Conclusions: Within the CRT-P subgroup, participants exhibited better responses than their CRT-D counterparts, evident both in echocardiographic improvements and clinical outcomes. Furthermore, patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) were better responders than those with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. These findings suggest that international guidelines should consider approaching each subgroup separately in the future.

Left bundle branch block-induced dilated cardiomyopathy: Definitions, pathophysiology, and therapy

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is a frequent finding in patients with heart failure (HF), particularly in those with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). LBBB has been commonly described as a consequence of DCM development. However, a total recovery of left ventricular (LV) function after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), observed in patients with LBBB and DCM, has led to increasing acknowledgement of LBBB-induced dilated cardiomyopathy (LBBB-iDCM) as a specific pathological entity. Its recognition has important clinical implications, as LBBB-iDCM patients may benefit from an early CRT strategy rather than medical HF therapy only. At present, there are no definitive diagnostic criteria enabling the universal identification of LBBB-iDCM, and no defined therapeutic approach in this subgroup of patients. This review compiles the main findings about LBBB-iDCM pathophysiology and the current proposed diagnostic criteria and therapeutic approach.

Device therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction

Device therapy is a nonpharmacological approach that presents a crucial advancement for managing patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). This review investigated the impact of device-based interventions and emphasized their potential for optimizing treatment for this complex patient demographic. Cardiac resynchronization therapy, augmented by atrioventricular node ablation with His-bundle pacing or left bundle-branch pacing, is effective for enhancing cardiac function and establishing atrioventricular synchrony. Cardiac contractility modulation and vagus nerve stimulation represent novel strategies for increasing myocardial contractility and adjusting the autonomic balance. Left ventricular expanders have demonstrated short-term benefits in HFpEF patients but require more investigation for long-term effectiveness and safety, especially in patients with AF. Research gaps regarding complications arising from left ventricular expander implantation need to be addressed. Device-based therapies for heart valve diseases, such as transcatheter aortic valve replacement and transcatheter edge-to-edge repair, show promise for patients with AF and HFpEF, particularly those with mitral or tricuspid regurgitation. Clinical evaluations show that these device therapies lessen AF occurrence, improve exercise tolerance, and boost left ventricular diastolic function. However, additional studies are required to perfect patient selection criteria and ascertain the long-term effectiveness and safety of these interventions. Our review underscores the significant potential of device therapy for improving the outcomes and quality of life for patients with AF and HFpEF.

Assessing Torque Transfer in Conduction System Pacing: Development and Evaluation of an Ex Vivo Model

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) faces challenges in achieving reliable and safe deployments. Complex interactions between tissue and lead tip can result in endocardial entanglement, a drill effect that prevents penetration. No verified ex vivo model exists to quantitatively assess this relationship.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively characterize CSP lead tip to tissue responses for 4 commonly used leads.

METHODS

CSP leads (from Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Abbott) were examined for helix rotation efficiency in ex vivo ovine right ventricular septa. A custom jig was utilized for rotation measurements. Fifteen turns were executed, documenting tissue-interface changes every 90° using high-resolution photography. Response curves (input rotation vs helix rotation) were evaluated using piecewise linear regression, with a focus on output vs input response slopes and torque breakpoint events.

RESULTS

We analyzed 3,840 quarter-turn CSP insertions with 4 different lead types. Helix rotations were consistently less than input: Abbott Tendril = 0.21:1, Medtronic 3830 = 0.21:1, Biotronik Solia = 0.47:1, and Boston Scientific Ingevity = 0.56:1. Torque breakpoint events were observed on average 7.22 times per insertion (95% CI: 6.08-8.35; P = NS) across all leads. In 57.8% of insertions (37 of 64), uncontrolled torque breakpoint events occurred, signaling unexpected excess helix rotations.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a robust ex vivo model, we revealed a muted helix rotation response compared with input turns on the lead, and frequent torque change events during insertion. This is critical for CSP implanters, emphasizing the potential for unexpected torque breakpoint events, and suggesting the need for novel lead designs or deployment methods to enhance CSP efficiency and safety.

Left bundle branch area pacing improving the left atrial outcomes in pace-dependent patients compared with right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing

BACKGROUND

Recent studies suggested that the left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has a better efficacy to reduce QRS duration and produce a lower pacing threshold than the conventional right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing (RVOP), which resulted in a better cardiac function and ventricular synchronization. However, whether the LBBAP has a better efficacy in improving left atrial structure, function in pace-dependent patients compared with RVOP has not been well studied.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the atrial outcomes of pace-dependent patients who received LBBAP or RVOP procedures.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 72 patients (including II° AVB, high AVB, and III° AVB, excluding atrial fibrillation patients with atrioventricular block) consecutively enrolled in this single-center prospective clinical study and randomly assigned to the RVOP group and the LBBP group with 36 patients. All patients were pace-dependent. The changes in echocardiogram, speckle-tracking echocardiography, brain natriuretic peptide (BNP), and 6-min walking distance were documented and compared between two groups at baseline, 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after the implantation. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between the two groups. The results of the study were as following: (1) left atrial structure index: Our study indicated that there are no significant differences in left atrial anteroposterior dimension (LAAPD), left atrial superoinferior dimension, and left atrial mediolateral dimension between two groups. While the LAAPD in the LBBAP group was significantly reduced at 6 months after implantation ([38.22 ± 2.17] mm vs. [34.13 ± 1.59] mm, p < .05). (2) Left atrial strain index: We observed that the S% was significantly improved in both groups at 3 and 6 months after implantation but more prominent in the LBBAP group at 6 months (36.94 ± 11.67 vs. 25.87 ± 8.93, p = .01). SRs, SRe were improved in the RVOP group at 6 months after implantation but was further significantly increased in the LBBAP group. Similarly, the SRa in the LBBAP group was significantly better than the RVOP group after 6 months (-2.11 ± 0.75 vs. -2.51 ± 0.70, p = .04). (3) Left atrial ejection index: LAEF% in the LBBAP group was significantly improved compared with the RVOP group (60.02 ± 1.88 vs. 53.65 ± 2.45, p = .047) and baseline (60.02 ± 1.88 vs. 49.68 ± 2.75, p < .05) at 6 months after the surgery. (4) Left ventricular ejection index: The LVEF% in the LBBAP group was significantly increased than the RVOP group after 6 months (69.14 ± 4.99 vs. 64.60 ± 4.84, p = .01) and the BNP level was significantly lower in the LBBAP group compared with the RVOP group at 7 days, 1, 3, and 6 months after implantation (p < .05). (5) 6-min walking distance: the 6-min walking distance was significantly increased at 3 and 6 months after implantation compared with that before (p < .05) in both groups, but was more prominent in LBBAP groups ([483.03 ± 11.02] m vs. [431.09 ± 10.69] m,p < .05).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the traditional RVOP, the LBBAP procedure increased left atrial myocardial stress as well as left atrial ejection in pace-dependent patients at follow-up to 6 months.

Evolving Concepts in Cardiac Physiologic Pacing in the Era of Conduction System Pacing

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP) has become a well-established therapy for patients with cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) in the presence of a left bundle branch block. In addition, CPP can be highly beneficial in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and patients with existing cardiomyopathy expected to have a right ventricular pacing burden of >40%. The benefits of CPP with traditional biventricular pacing are only realized if adequate resynchronization can be achieved. However, left ventricular lead implantation can be limited by individual anatomic variation within the coronary venous system and can be adversely affected by underlying abnormal myocardial substrate (i.e., scar tissue), especially if located within the basal lateral wall. In the last 7 years the investigation of conduction system pacing (CSP) and its potential salutary benefits are being realized and have led to a rapid evolution in the field of cardiac resynchronization pacing. However, supportive evidence for CSP for patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization remains limited compared with data available for biventricular cardiac resynchronization, mostly derived from leading CSP investigative centers. In this review, we perform an up-to-date comprehensive review of the available literature on CPP.

Optimizing conduction system pacing lead placement utilizing the image overlay technique

The His-bundle has several locations from which conduction system pacing can be achieved. Some locations offer better sensing, thresholds and paced QRS durations. Existing techniques to aid repositioning of an already deployed, but sub-optimally placed lead, include either simple memory of the initial lead position combined with its observation on an x-ray review screen or utilizing an additional vascular access and pacing lead with the first lead serving as a real-time marker (Two-lead technique). We describe a novel, readily available, cost-efficient, imaging-based approach to assist in the re-positioning of a pacing lead for His-bundle pacing (the Image Overlay Technique).

Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing

Cardiac pacing to treat bradyarrhythmias has evolved in recent decades. Recognition that a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients can develop heart failure due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from traditional right ventricular apical pacing has led to development of more physiologic pacing methods that better mimic normal cardiac conduction and provide synchronized ventricular contraction. Conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease but can be limited by scarring and fibrosis. His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing are novel techniques that can provide more physiologic ventricular activation as an alternative to conventional or biventricular pacing. Leadless pacing has emerged as another alternative pacing technique to overcome limitations in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Our objective is to review the evolution of cardiac pacing and explore these new advances in pacing strategies.

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.

Conduction system pacing: how far are we from the "electrical" bypass?

Conduction system pacing is an alternative practice to conventional right ventricular apical pacing. It is a method that maintains physiologic ventricular activation, based on a correct pathophysiological basis, in which the pacing lead bypasses the lesion of the electrical fibers and the electrical impulse transmits through the intact adjacent conduction system. For this reason, it might be reasonably characterized by the term "electrical bypass" compared to the coronary artery bypass in revascularization therapy. In this review, reference is made to the sequence of events in which conventional right ventricular pacing may cause adverse outcomes. Furthermore, there is a reference to alternative strategies and pacing sites. Interest focuses on the modalities for which there are data from the literature, namely for the right ventricular (RV) septal pacing, the His bundle pacing (HBP), and the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). A more extensive reference is about the HBP, for which there are the most updated data. We analyze the considerations that limit HBP-wide application in three axes, and we also present the data for the implantation and follow-up of these patients. The indications with their most important studies to date are then described in detail, not only in their undoubtedly positive findings but also in their weak aspects, because of which this pacing mode has not yet received a strong recommendation for implementation. Finally, there is a report on LBBP, focusing mainly on its points of differentiation from HBP.

Outcomes of Upgrading to LBBP in CRT Nonresponders: A Prospective, Multicenter, Nonrandomized, Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) nonresponders account for nearly 30% of CRT candidates. Left-bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an alternative to CRT.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, clinical efficacy, and outcomes of upgrading to LBBP in CRT nonresponders, using propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

CRT nonresponders were defined as those with an implantable CRT-pacemaker or CRT-defibrillator for more than 12 months who remained nonresponsive (a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume of <15% or a left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] absolute increase of <5%) after optimal medical therapy and device optimization compared with baseline. In total, 145 CRT nonresponders were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups: upgraded to LBBP (n = 48), and continuing biventricular pacing (BVP) (control; n = 97). PSM was performed at a 1:1 ratio, and clinical evaluation and echocardiographic assessments were compared at baseline and follow-up in paired cohorts. The primary composite endpoint for clinical outcomes (heart failure-related rehospitalization events, all-cause death, or heart transplantation) was analyzed.

RESULTS

Successful upgrading to LBBP was achieved in 48/49 patients (97.96%), with a significant decrease in QRS duration (P < 0.001). In the paired LBBP group, LVEF significantly increased (baseline: 29.75% ± 7.79%; 6 months: 37.78% ± 9.25% [P < 0.001]; 12 months: 38.84% ± 12.13% [P < 0.001]) with 21/44 patients (47.73%) classified as echocardiographically responsive, whereas in the BVP control group, no significant improvement was observed (29.55% ± 6.74% vs 29.22% ± 8.10%; P = 0.840). In a multivariate logistic regression model, LV end-diastolic volume and baseline LBBB QRS morphology were independent predictors of echocardiographic response after upgrading to LBBP. At a median 24 months, the primary composite endpoint was significantly lower in the LBBP group (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14-0.72; log-rank P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading to LBBP is feasible and effective in achieving significant heart function improvement and better clinical outcomes in CRT nonresponders, making it a reasonable and promising pacing strategy. (LBBP in CRT Non-Response patients; ChiCTR1900028131).

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.

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.

Cardiac magnetic resonance-derived myocardial scar is associated with echocardiographic response and clinical prognosis of left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but the impact of myocardial substrate on its effect is poorly understood. This study aims to assess the association of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived scar burden and the response of CRT via LBBAP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with CRT indications who underwent CMR examination and successful LBBAP-CRT were retrospectively analysed. Cardiac magnetic resonance late gadolinium enhancement was used for scar assessment. Echocardiographic reverse remodelling and composite outcomes (defined as all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization) were evaluated. The echocardiographic response was defined as a ≥15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume. Among the 54 patients included, LBBAP-CRT resulted in a 74.1% response rate. The non-responders had higher global, septal, and lateral scar burden (all P < 0.001). Global, septal, and lateral scar percentage all predicted echocardiographic response [area under the curve (AUC): 0.857, 0.864, and 0.822; positive likelihood ratio (+LR): 9.859, 5.594, and 3.059; and negative likelihood ratio (-LR): 0.323, 0.233, and 0.175 respectively], which was superior to QRS morphology criteria (Strauss left bundle branch abnormality: AUC: 0.696, +LR 2.101, and -LR 0.389). After a median follow-up time of 20.3 (11.5-38.7) months, higher global, lateral and septal scar burdens were all predictive of the composite outcome (hazard ratios: 4.996, 7.019, and 4.741, respectively; P's < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lower scar burden was associated with higher response rate of LBBAP-CRT. The pre-procedure CMR scar evaluation provides further useful information to identify potential responders and clinical outcomes.

Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing compared with right ventricular pacing in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Right Ventricular Pacing (RVP) may have detrimental effects in ventricular function. Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) is a new pacing strategy that appears to have better results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of LBBAP vs RVP in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Pubmed databases were searched for studies comparing LBBAP with RVP. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and complications. QRS duration, mechanical synchrony and LVEF changes were also assessed. Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using random and fixed effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials with 4250 patients (2127 LBBAP) were included in the analysis. LBBAP was associated with lower risk for HFH (RR:0.33, CI 95%:0.21 to 0.50; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (RR:0.52 CI 95%:0.34 to 0.80; p = 0.003), and AF occurrence (RR:0.43 CI 95%:0.27 to 0.68; p < 0.001) than RVP. Lead related complications were not different between the two groups (p = 0.780). QRSd was shorter in the LBBAP group at follow-up (WMD: -32.20 msec, CI 95%: -40.70 to -23.71; p < 0.001) and LBBAP achieved better intraventricular mechanical synchrony than RVP (SMD: -1.77, CI 95%: -2.45 to -1.09; p < 0.001). LBBAP had similar pacing thresholds (p = 0.860) and higher R wave amplitudes (p = 0.009) than RVP.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP has better clinical outcomes, preserves ventricular electrical and mechanical synchrony and has excellent pacing parameters, with no difference in complications compared to RVP.

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.

Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing as a primary pacing strategy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Novel pacing technologies, such as His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP), have emerged to maintain physiological ventricular activation. We investigated the outcomes of LBBP with HBP for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing LBBaP with HBP until March 01, 2023 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included pacing metrics, QRS duration, lead revision, procedure parameters, all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Overall, 10 studies with 1596 patients were included. Implant success rate was higher in LBBaP compared with HBP (RR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.42, p = .002). LBBaP was associated with lower capture threshold at implantation (mean difference (MD) -0.62 V, 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.51 V, p < .0001) and at follow-up (MD -0.74 V, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.53, p < .0001), shorter procedure duration (MD -14.66 min, 95% CI: -23.54 to -5.78, p = .001) and shorter fluoroscopy time (MD -4.2 min, 95% CI: -8.4 to -0.0, p = .05). Compared with HBP, LBBaP was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.77, p = .002) and HFH (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.00, p = .05). No statistical differences were found in lead revisions and QRS duration before and after pacing.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found that LBBaP was superior to HBP regarding pacing metrics and implant success rate as an initial pacing strategy, although absence of head-to-head randomized comparison warrants caution in interpretation of the results.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay

The efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) is well established with Class I or IIa recommendation according to 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and CRT, whereas non-LBBB morphology is less recommended. There is insufficient evidence that proves patients with NICD could benefit from CRT. As patients with NICD are characterized by heterogeneity, the effect of CRT on these patients is still controversial. Although the proportion of NICD in the population is lower than that of LBBB patients, it is still worth investigating the effects of CRT on patients with NICD in an era of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP).

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.

Conduction System Pacing Upgrade in Chronic Heart Failure with Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Chronic Atrial Fibrillation

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a standard treatment for patients with severe congestive heart failure. However, one-third of patients receiving CRT are non-responders. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has become an alternative to CRT therapy. Furthermore, CRT therapy with CSP has shown to be more effective than CRT alone. When an implantable cardiac defibrillator or CRT-defibrillator is implanted with CSP, the problem of which port the HBP lead and LBBAP lead should be connected to arises. We report 2 cases of upgrading to CRT with CSP by utilizing the atrial ports for HBP and LBBAP leads. The procedure is a simple, reasonable, and effective therapy for end-stage heart failure.