Effect of pacing mode and pacing site on torsional and strain parameters and on coronary flow

[Not Available]

Abnormalities of the sinus node, atrial tissue, atrioventricular node tissue, and specialized conduction system can all contribute to bradycardia. For this reason, the diagnosis and treatment of bradycardia have become challenging. In order to further optimize the assessment and treatment of patients with bradycardia, new guidelines on cardiac pacemaker therapy and cardiac resynchronization therapy were published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) last year. These include new recommendations for diagnostics, dealing with reflex syncope and treatment algorithms for syncope and bundle branch block. The use of leadless pacemakers is being discussed in selected and especially multimorbid patients as an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemaker implantation. Conduction system pacing as a physiological form of stimulation was included in the guidelines for the first time.

[His bundle and left bundle branch pacing]

Cardiac pacemakers are an extremely effective treatment for bradycardia but can, however, cause desynchronization of ventricular contraction leading to cardiomyopathy. Pacing of the conduction system can prevent and even reverse desynchronization, which is impressively visible in echocardiography with speckle tracing. His' bundle and left bundle branch pacing requires a specific implantation technique, sheaths and leads which can achieve successful stimulation of the conduction system in up to 98% of cases. Data on conduction system pacing have been acquired in numerous studies but only a few randomized outcome studies. Therefore, in the current European guidelines His' bundle and left bundle branch pacing only have a low level recommendation. The guidelines recommend His' bundle pacing in patients in whom a coronary sinus lead cannot be implanted and in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and planned atrioventricular (AV) node ablation for heart rate control. Additionally, conduction system pacing appears to be meaningful in patients with an AV block who require pacing of the ventricle for ≥20% of the time or who already show a slightly or moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (36-50%). Even in patients scheduled for generator replacement who have developed a cardiac pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, the opportunity should not be missed to upgrade the system by implantation of a His' bundle electrode.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with atrioventricular block

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can produce near normalization of QRS duration. This has recently emerged as alternative technique to right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing.

Hypothesis

The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of LBBP compared to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP).

Methods

A total of 70 AVB patients with indications for ventricular pacing were retrospectively studied. LBBP was attempted in 33 patients, classified as LBBP group. The other patients were classified as RVAP group. Pacing parameters, electrocardiogram and echocardiogram characteristics, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and atrial fibrillation (AF) were evaluated perioperatively and at follow‐ups. Patients were followed in the device clinic for a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months at a 3–6 monthly interval.

Results

LBBP was successful in 29 of 33(87.9%) patients while all 37 of the remaining patients successfully underwent RVAP. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower in the LBBP group compare to RVAP(110.75 ± 6.77 ms vs. 154.29 ± 6.96 ms, p = .000) at implantation, and the difference persisted during follow‐ups. Pacing thresholds (at implantation: 0.68 ± 0.22 V in the LBBP group and 0.73 ± 0.23 V in the RVAP group, p = .620) remained low and stable during follow‐ups. The cardiac function in the LBBP group remained stable during follow‐ups (LVEF%:55.08 ± 4.32 pre‐operation and 54.17 ± 4.34 at the end of follow‐up, p = .609), and better than RVAP group (LVEF%: 54.17 ± 4.34 vs. 50.14 ± 2.14, p = .005). Less HFH was observed in the LBBP group (2/29,6.89%) compared to RVAP group (10/37,27.03%).

Conclusions

The present investigation demonstrates the safety and feasibility of LBBP that produces narrower paced QRS duration than RVAP. LBBP is associated with reduction in the occurrence of pacing‐induced left ventricular dysfunction and HFH compared to RVAP in patients requiring permanent pacemakers.