How to perform permanent His bundle pacing in routine clinical practice

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

Is Conduction System Pacing Going to Be the New Gold Standard for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?

The current gold standard in device therapy for advanced heart failure (HF), which has been firmly established in HF management for more than 25 years, is classical biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT). In the last decade, a new pacing modality called conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a variant for advanced cardiac device therapy. It provides pacing with preserved intrinsic cardiac activation by direct stimulation of the specific cardiac conduction system. The term CSP integrates the modalities of HIS bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), both of which have provided convincing data in smaller randomized and big non-randomized studies for the prevention of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy and for providing effective cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with classical CRT-indication (primary approach or after failed CRT). Recent American guidelines proposed the term "cardiac physiological pacing" (CPP), which summarizes CSP including left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), a technical variant of LBBAP together with classical BiV-CRT. The terms HOT-CRT (HIS-optimized CRT) and LOT-CRT (LBBP-optimized CRT) describe hybrid technologies that combine CSP with an additional coronary-sinus electrode, which is sometimes useful in patients with advanced HF and diffuse interventricular conduction delay. If CSP continues providing promising data that can be confirmed in big, randomized trials, it is likely to become the new gold standard for patients with an expected high percentage of pacing (>20%), possibly also for cardiac resynchronization therapy. CSP is a sophisticated new treatment option that has the potential to raise the term "cardiac resynchronization therapy" to a new level. The aim of this review is to provide basic technical, anatomical, and functional knowledge of these new pacemaker techniques in order to facilitate the understanding of the different modalities, as well as to provide an up-to-date overview of the existing randomized and non-randomized evidence, particularly in direct comparison to right ventricular and classical biventricular pacing.

Output-dependent His bundle pacing: Unexpected His-Purkinje system pathology unmasking

The anatomy of the His-Purkinje system has been studied, yet there remains a knowledge gap regarding the impact of His bundle pacing and its electrocardiographic implications. This case report highlights the presence of His-Purkinje system pathology without apparent clues on the surface electrocardiogram (EKG). By observing identical QRS morphology with varying HV intervals resulting from different pacing outputs, we demonstrate the presence of an electrical propagation block within the His bundle.

Translation of Tools and Techniques from the Adult Electrophysiology World to Pediatric Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

This article reviews various opportunities to translate established and novel tools and techniques used in adult electrophysiology to pediatrics and the adult congenital heart disease population. There is a specific focus on preoperative management of special population, implantation techniques, and postoperative programming of devices.

Left bundle branch pacing preserved left ventricular myocardial work in patients with bradycardia

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. Left ventricular (LV) myocardial work (MW) incorporates afterload and LV global longitudinal strain to estimate global and segmental myocardial contractility. However, the effect of LBBP on LV MW remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of LBBP on LV MW in patients receiving pacemaker for bradyarrhythmia.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 70 bradycardia patients with normal LV systolic function receiving LBBP (n = 46) and non-selective His-bundle pacing (NS-HBP) (n = 24). For comparative analysis, patients receiving right ventricular pacing (RVP) (n = 16) and control subjects (n = 10) were enrolled. Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography was performed. The LV pressure-strain loop was non-invasively constructed to assess global LV MW.

Results

After 6-month follow-up, LBBP group (with >40% ventricular pacing during 6 months) had shorter peak strain dispersion (PSD) compared with RVP group, and higher LV global longitudinal strain compared with RVP group and NS-HBP group, but had no difference in left intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony, including septal-to-posterior wall motion delay and PSD, compared with NS-HBP group. During ventricular pacing, LBBP group had higher global MW index (GWI) (2,189 ± 527 vs. 1,493 ± 799 mmHg%, P = 0.002), higher global constructive work (GCW) (2,921 ± 771 vs. 2,203 ± 866 mmHg%, P = 0.009), lower global wasted work (GWW) (211 ± 161 vs. 484 ± 281 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher global MW efficiency (GWE) (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 80.9 ± 8.3%, P < 0.001) compared with RVP group, and had lower GWW (211 ± 161 vs. 406 ± 234 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher GWE (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 86.4 ± 8.1%, P < 0.001) compared with NS-HBP group.

Conclusions

In this study we found that in patients with mid-term (6-month) high ventricular pacing burden (>40%), LBBP preserved more LV MW compared with NS-HBP and RVP. Further studies are warranted to assess the association between LV MW and long-term clinical outcomes in LBBP with high ventricular pacing burden.

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.

A conversion CRT strategy combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative for heart failure patients with persistent atrial fibrillation

Heart failure (HF) combined with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist and may promote the pathological conditions of cardiac dysfunction, leading to poor prognosis. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) combined with atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) is a highly effective treatment for HF patients with underlying AF who either have failed or are not suitable for catheter ablation. The CRT-AVJA combination therapy can improve clinical outcomes in HF patients. Currently, clinical CRT methods are categorized into biventricular pacing (BVP) - based and conduction system pacing (CSP) - based methods. These procedures have inherent advantages and disadvantages, in addition to their considerable differences in clinical applications. This article aims to review the clinical progress of AVJA combined with different CRT strategies for treating HF patients with persistent AF and propose that conversion CRT strategy (BVP/CSP-CRT) combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative. Meanwhile, we generalize that 7 categories of HF patients with persistent AF may need to consider the CRT-AVJA combination therapy.

His-Purkinje system pacing reduced tricuspid regurgitation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery

Background & objective

Tricuspid regurgitation after left-sided valve surgery was a common and difficult problem. Atrial fibrillation was considered to be an important etiology of tricuspid regurgitation. His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) was a physiological pacing method, which could prevent and treat heart failure and might reduce tricuspid regurgitation. Our study aimed to investigate the effect of HPSP on tricuspid regurgitation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery.

Methods

This study was a retrospective study. The 3-year patient review focused on those who underwent permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation of HPSP after mitral valve and/or aortic valve replacement from Jan 1st, 2019 to Jan 1st, 2022. HPSP included His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Clinical data collected included electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, ultrasonic cardiogram parameters and chest x-ray at implantation and 3-month follow up. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis of tricuspid regurgitation velocity were performed.

Results

A total of 44 patients was retrospectively reviewed. Eight patients who had undergone implantation of HPSP after left-sided heart valve replacement were enrolled in the study. All patients had persistent atrial fibrillation. Three of them received HBP and five underwent LBBP. At 3-month follow-up, the tricuspid regurgitation grade was significantly lower than that before implantation (P = 0.007). The tricuspid regurgitation velocity significantly decreased (317 ± 74 cm/s vs. 261 ± 52 cm/s, P = 0.022) and tricuspid valve pressure gradient (PG) reduced (42 ± 21 mmHg vs. 28 ± 10 mmHg, P = 0.040). The cardiothoracic ratio of patients was significantly lower than that before implantation (0.61 ± 0.08 vs. 0.64 ± 0.09, P = 0.017). The NYHA classification of patients also improved (P = 0.013). In multivariate liner regression analysis, the pacing ratio (β = 0.736, P = 0.037) was an independent determinant of tricuspid regurgitation velocity variation.

Conclusion

HPSP might reduce tricuspid regurgitation and improve cardiac function in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery.

The Impact of Cardiac Chamber Volumes on Permanent His Bundle Pacing Procedural Outcomes-A Single Center Experience

His bundle pacing (HBP) has several pitfalls, such as the inability to identify the His bundle and lack of capture at acceptable thresholds. The majority of data regarding HBP were obtained using a dedicated non-deflectable delivery system. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of cardiac chamber dimensions on permanent HBP procedural outcomes when using this type of fixed-curve catheter. Seventy-two patients subjected to HBP from the 1st of January to the 31st of December 2021 at our institution were retrospectively reviewed. The baseline clinical characteristics and echocardiographic measurements of all the cardiac chambers were recorded, as well as procedural outcomes (HB electrogram identification and overall procedural success). During the procedure, the HB electrogram was recorded in 59 patients (81.9%) and successful permanent HBP was achieved in 33 patients, representing 45.8% of all the studied patients. Left atrial (LA) and right atrial (RA) volumes were significantly higher in patients without HB electrogram identification. Only LA and RA volumes were statistically associated with HB electrogram localization, while there was no significant association between the echocardiographic parameters and procedural success. LA volumes above 93 mL and RA volumes above 60 mL had an 8.81 times higher chance of failure to localize the HB electrogram compared with patients with lower volumes (p < 0.001). When considering non-deflectable delivery catheters for HBP, careful preprocedural echocardiographic analysis of the atrial volumes could help in the proper selection of implanting tools, thus optimizing the procedural outcomes and costs.

The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is among the most common right ventricular pacing complications. Upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the recommended treatment option. Conduction system pacing with His bundle pacing (HBP) has the potential to restore synchronous ventricular activation and can be an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). Patients with PICM scheduled for a system upgrade to CRT were included in the prospective cohort study. Either HBP or BVP was used for CRT. Electrocardiographic, clinical, and echocardiographic measurements were recorded at baseline and six-month follow-up. HBP was successful in 44 of 53 patients (83%). Thirty-nine patients with HBP and 22 with BVP completed a 6-month follow-up. HBP led to a higher reduction in QRS duration than BVP, 118.3 ± 14.20 ms vs. 150.5 ± 18.64 ms, p < 0.0001. The improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class by one or two was more common in patients with HBP than those with BiV (p = 0.04). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in BVP patients from 32.9 ± 7.93% to 43.9 ± 8.07%, p < 0.0001, and in HBP patients from 34.9 ± 6.45% to 48.6 ± 7.73%, p < 0.0001. The improvement in LVEF was more considerable in HBP patients than in BVP patients, p = 0.019. The improvement in clinical outcomes and left ventricle reverse remodeling was more significant with HBP than BVP. HBP can be a valid alternative to BVP for upgrade procedures in PICM patients.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and bundle branch block or indication for pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a safe and more physiological alternative to BVP.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

This observational study included consecutive patients with LVEF ≤35% and class I or II indications for CRT who underwent successful BVP or CSP at 2 major health care systems. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included subgroup analysis in left bundle branch block as well as individual endpoints of death and HFH.

RESULTS

A total of 477 patients (32% female) met inclusion criteria (BVP 219; CSP 258 [HBP 87, LBBAP 171]). Mean age was 72 ± 12 years, and mean LVEF was 26% ± 6%. Comorbidities included hypertension 70%, diabetes mellitus 45%, and coronary artery disease 52%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower than BVP (133 ± 21 ms vs 153 ± 24 ms; P <.001). LVEF improved in both groups during mean follow-up of 27 ± 12 months and was greater after CSP compared to BVP (39.7% ± 13% vs 33.1% ± 12%; P <.001). Primary outcome of death or HFH was significantly lower with CSP vs BVP (28.3% vs 38.4%; hazard ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval 1.082-2.087; P = .013).

CONCLUSION

CSP improved clinical outcomes compared to BVP in this large cohort of patients with indications for CRT.

Tricuspid regurgitation in His bundle pacing: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to explore an association of new TR and its quantification in patients undergoing His bundle pacing (HBP).

METHODS

A literature review was conducted using Mesh terms (His bundle pacing, tricuspid regurgitation, tricuspid valve incompetence, etc.) in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library till October 2021. Relevant studies evaluating tricuspid regurgitation in HBP were included and information regarding TR and its related factors (ejection fraction (EF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class) were retrieved from the eligible studies.

RESULTS

Out of 196 articles, 10 studies met the inclusion criteria, which consisted of 546 patients with HBP. The mean age of the patients ranged between 61.2 ± 12.3 and 75.1 ± 7.9 years with 54.1% males. The overall implant success rate was 79.2%. Only one study reported a 5% incidence of TR, while 9 studies reported no new TR after HBP. Four studies reported overall decrease in TR by 1 grade and 3 studies demonstrated increased TR from baseline. Two studies showed no change from baseline TR.

CONCLUSION

HBP causes improvement in TR grade after HBP for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) as well as atrioventricular block (AVB). Further studies in the form of randomized controlled trials are required to further evaluate the effect of HBP on tricuspid valve functioning.

Clinical Outcomes Of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared To His Bundle Pacing

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiologic form of pacing and has been associated with reduced risk for heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and mortality compared to right ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a safe and effective alternative option for patients needing ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between LBBAP and HBP among a large cohort of patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

This observational registry included consecutive patients with AV block/AV node ablation who underwent de novo permanent pacemaker implantations with successful LBBAP or HBP between April 2018 to October 2020. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death from any cause or HFH. Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with prespecified ventricular pacing burden and individual outcomes.

RESULTS

The study population included 359 patients who met the inclusion criteria (163 in the HBP and 196 in the LBBAP group). Paced QRSd during LBBAP was similar to HBP (125 ± 20.2 vs 126 ± 23.5 ms, p=0.643). There were no statistically significant differences in the primary composite outcome in LBBAP (17.3%) compared to HBP (24.5%) (HR 1.15, CI 0.72-1.82, p = 0.552). Secondary outcomes of death (10 vs 17%; HR 1.3, CI 0.73-2.33, p=0.38) and HFH (10 vs 12%; HR 1.02,CI 0.54-1.94, p=0.94) were not different among both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical outcomes of death or HFH in LBBAP when compared to HBP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

The clinical utility of direct His-bundle pacing in patients with heart failure and permanent atrial fibrillation

In patients with significantly impaired left ventricle function permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexists with symptoms of heart failure. Based on various studies, it is assumed that in patients with heart failure in functional class III and IV AF occurs in 40-50% of patients. AF adversely affects cardiac hemodynamics, and its harmfulness increases particularly in the failing heart. The lack of mechanical function of the left atrium, the usually fast ventricular rate and the irregular sequence of ventricular contraction constitute the spectrum of harmful effects of this arrhythmia. Therefore, the only way to address the underlying problem of AF, which is irregular ventricular rhythm, is to pace the ventricles and to slow or block the AV conduction. Classic, right ventricular pacing is contraindicated in this population as it promotes the abovementioned disorders by initiating additional dyssynchrony of left ventricular contraction with reduction of its contractility and aggravation of AF-related mitral regurgitation. The possibility of direct His bundle pacing (DHBP) significantly extended the clinical armamentarium of cardiac pacing. The restoration of the physiological electrical activation could significantly contribute to echocardiographic and clinical improvement. With time and the development of dedicated tools for direct His bundle pacing the success rate of implantations became more than 90% and the acceptable pacing thresholds under 2.0 V (1 ms) could be achieved in most patients. This contributed to the broader clinical application of DHBP in different patient' groups with various pacing indications. The authors of the paper discuss different electrocardiographic and clinical indications for DHBP.

His bundle pacing guided by automated intrinsic morphology matching is feasible in patients with narrow QRS complexes

Pace mapping and visual comparison of the local pacing response with the intrinsic QRS morphology form the mainstay of His bundle pacing (HBP). We evaluated the performance of a surface lead morphology match algorithm for automated classification of the pacing response in patients with narrow intrinsic QRS undergoing electroanatomic mapping (EAM)-guided HBP. HBP was attempted in 43 patients. In 28 cases with narrow QRS, the EnSite AutoMap Module was used for automated assessment of the QRS morphology resulting from pace mapping in the His cloud area with either a diagnostic catheter or the His lead. An intrinsic morphology match score (IMS) was calculated for 1.546 QRS complexes and assessed regarding its accuracy and performance in classifying the individual pacing response as either selective HBP (S-HBP), nonselective HBP (NS-HBP) or right ventricular stimulation. Automated morphology comparison of 354 intrinsic beats with the individual reference determined a test accuracy of 99% (95% CI 98.96–99.04) and a precision of 97.99–99.5%. For His-lead stimulation, an IMS ≥ 89% identified S-HBP with a sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value of 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) and a negative predictive value of 0.99 (0.98, 1.00). An IMS between 78 and < 89% indicated NS-HBP with a sensitivity and specificity of 1.00 (0.99, 1.00) and 0.99 (0.98, 1.00), respectively. IMS represents a new automated measure for standardized individual morphology classification in patients with normal QRS undergoing EAM-guided HBP.

Clinical trial registration: NCT04416958.

Septal Flash Correction with His-Purkinje Pacing Predicts Echocardiographic Response in Resynchronization Therapy

Background

His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) has been proposed as an alternative to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT); however, predictors of echocardiographic response have not been described in this population. Septal flash (SF), a fast contraction and relaxation of the septum, is a marker of intraventricular dyssynchrony.

Methods

The study aimed to analyze whether HPCSP corrects SF in patients with CRT indication, and if correction of SF predicts echocardiographic response. This retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data included 30 patients. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured with echocardiography at baseline and at 6‐month follow‐up. Echocardiographic response was defined as increase in five points in LVEF.

Results

HPCSP shortened QRS duration by 48 ± 21 ms and SF was significantly decreased (baseline 3.6 ± 2.2 mm vs. HPCSP 1.5 ± 1.5 mm p < .0001). At 6‐month follow‐up, mean LVEF improvement was 8.6% ± 8.7% and 64% of patients were responders. There was a significant correlation between SF correction and increased LVEF (r = .61, p = .004). A correction of ≥1.5 mm (baseline SF – paced SF) had a sensitivity of 81% and 80% specificity to predict echocardiographic response (area under the curve 0.856, p = .019).

Conclusion

HPCSP improves intraventricular dyssynchrony and results in 64% echocardiographic responders at 6‐month follow‐up. Dyssynchrony improvement with SF correction may predict echocardiographic response at 6‐month follow‐up.

His Bundle Pacing: A promising alternative strategy for Antibradycardic-pacing. Report of a single center-experience

His Bundle Pacing (HBP) is proven to be a safe and effective alternative pacing modality that, in addition, avoids Pacemaker-induced Cardiomyopathy (PICM) by achieving a ''physiological'' ventricular stimulation, via the native conduction system. Indications include various causes of bradycardia requiring antibradycardic pacing, inadequately controlled Atrial Fibrillation requiring AV node ablation and established PICM. In addition, HBP may also be used as an alternative therapy for patients with Heart Failure (HF) and an indication for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. Available data show a benefit from HBP with regard to preservation or restoration of intra- and inter-ventricular synchronization, improvement in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction, functional status and Quality of Life, decrease in atrial fibrillation incidence and improvement in HF hospitalization rates, compared to conventional pacing. Nevertheless, superiority in terms of mortality rates has not been consistently demonstrated and long-term efficacy and safety remains to be proven. In the present manuscript, we review the status of HBP and we present our current experience with this novel pacing modality.

Adopting permanent His bundle pacing: learning curves and medium-term outcomes

AIMS

This study aims to determine procedural characteristics, acute success rates, and medium-term outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing His bundle pacing (HBP); and learning curves of experienced electrophysiologists adopting HBP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive HBP patients at three hospitals were recruited. Clinical characteristics, acute procedural details, and medium-term outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records. Two hundred and thirty-three patients [mean age 74.6 ± 10.1 years, 48% female, 68% narrow QRS, 71% normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 55.8% atrioventricular block] underwent HBP. Acute procedural success was 81.1% (mean procedural and fluoroscopic times of 105.5 ± 36.5 and 13.8 ± 9.3 min). Broad QRS was associated with lower HBP success (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.02). Fluoroscopic and procedural times decreased and plateaued after 30-40 cases per operator. Implant HBP threshold was 1.3 ± 0.7 V at 1.0 ± 0.2 ms and R wave was 5.0 ± 3.9 mV. During follow-up, loss of HBP occurred in a further 12.4% and 11.3% of patients experienced a ≥1 V increase in HBP threshold. Five (2.6%) patients required HBP revision for pacing difficulties. About 8.6% of patients had a >50% decrease in R wave but lead revision for sensing issues was not necessary. On an intention to treat basis, 56.7% of patients in whom HBP was attempted had persisting HBP capture and thresholds of <2 V.

CONCLUSION

Physicians adopting HBP should be cognizant of the learning curve and preferentially select non-dependent patients with normal QRS and LVEF, to minimize risk of lead revision. Further rises in HBP threshold may increase battery drain and need for reoperations, important considerations when choosing HBP for cardiac resynchronization therapy.

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.

His bundle pacing capture threshold stability during long-term follow-up and correlation with lead slack

AIMS

His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiologic form of pacing. Long-term HBP capture threshold stability and its relation to lead characteristics at the time of implantation have not been adequately described. The aim of this study was to characterize HB capture threshold in follow-up and to identify potential lead characteristics predictive of lead capture instability.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with successful HBP for bradycardia indications were identified from the Geisinger HBP registry. His bundle capture thresholds, baseline comorbidities, and radiographic lead slack characteristics were analysed. An increase in HB capture threshold ≥1 V above implant values at any time during follow-up was tracked. Forty-four of the 294 studied (15%) experienced HB capture threshold increase by ≥ 1 V. Threshold increase was seen early (41% by 8 weeks, 66% by 1 year). Eighteen (6%) patients required lead revision in follow-up. Abnormal slack shape was associated with a trend toward capture threshold increase [hazard ratio (HR) 2.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9-4.6; P = 0.08]. Non-perpendicular angle of lead insertion on radiography was associated with the capture threshold increase (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.4-5.8; P < 0.01).

CONCLUSION

His bundle capture threshold remains stable in the majority (85%) of patients. Implant characteristics may predict the threshold rise. Further evaluation of the aetiology of threshold increase and design changes in lead and delivery systems may lead to chronically stable capture thresholds.

His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing in Atrioventricular Block: New Insights into Site of Conduction Block

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the safety and feasibility of achieving His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) in consecutive patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and to describe the site of conduction block in patients with infranodal AVB.

BACKGROUND

HPCSP has evolved as the preferred form of physiologic pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an effective alternative to His bundle pacing (HBP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with AVB referred for pacemaker implantation were included in the study. HBP or LBBAP was attempted in all patients. Site of conduction block was identified as nodal or infranodal (intra-Hisian or infra-Hisian) AVB.

RESULTS

HPCSP was attempted in 333 consecutive patients with AVB and was successful in 322 (97%) patients. HBP was achieved in 140 patients, LBBAP in 179 patients, and both in 3 patients. Site of conduction block was nodal in 55% and infranodal in 45% (intra-Hisian 89%; infra-Hisian 4%; indeterminate 7%). QRS duration at baseline was 111±27 versus 129±31 (P < 0.001) compared to 126 ± 24 vs 125 ± 21 milliseconds (P = 0.75) during HBP and LBBAP, respectively. HBP thresholds at implant were higher compared to LBBAP (1.2 ± 0.7 V at 0.9 milliseconds vs 0.6 ± 0.3 V at 0.5 milliseconds; P < 0.001) but remained stable during follow-up. Lead revision was required in 3% and 2% of patients with HBP and LBBAP, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

HPCSP pacing was successfully performed in 97% of unselected patients with AVB irrespective of the site of conduction block. True infra-Hisian block (distal His-Purkinje conduction disease) is rare. HBP and LBBAP were complementary in achieving stable and low capture thresholds.

A network meta-analysis and systematic review of change in QRS duration after left bundle branch pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing, or right ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacemaker

Cardiac dyssynchrony is the proposed mechanism for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, which can be prevented by biventricular pacing. Left bundle branch pacing and His bundle pacing are novel interventions that imitate the natural conduction of the heart with, theoretically, less interventricular dyssynchrony. One of the surrogate markers of interventricular synchrony is QRS duration. Our study aimed to compare the change of QRS duration before and after implantation between types of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): left bundle branch pacing versus His bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing and conventional right ventricular pacing. A literature search for studies that reported an interval change of QRS duration after CIED implantation was conducted utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. All relevant works from database inception through November 2020 were included in this analysis. A random-effects model, Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to analyze QRS duration changes (eg, electrical cardiac synchronization) across different CIED implantations. The mean study sample size, from 14 included studies, was 185 subjects. The search found 707 articles. After exclusions, 14 articles remained with 2,054 patients. The His bundle pacing intervention resulted in the most dramatic decline in QRS duration (mean difference, - 53 ms; 95% CI - 67, - 39), followed by left bundle branch pacing (mean difference, - 46 ms; 95% CI - 60, - 33), and biventricular pacing (mean difference, - 19 ms; 95% CI - 37, - 1.8), when compared to conventional right ventricle apical pacing. When compared between LBBP and HBP, showed no statistically significant wider QRS duration in LBBP with mean different 6.5 ms. (95% CI - 6.7, 21). Our network meta-analysis found that physiologic pacing has the greatest effect on QRS duration after implantation. Thus, HBP and LBBP showed no significant difference between QRS duration after implantation. Physiologic pacing interventions result in improved electrocardiography markers of cardiac synchrony, narrower QRS duration, and might lower electromechanical dyssynchrony.

Relationship of paced left bundle branch pacing morphology with anatomic location and physiological outcomes

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. However, little is known about pacing at different locations on the left bundle branch (LBB).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to explore pacing and physiological characteristics associated with different LBBP locations.

METHODS

The study included 68 consecutive patients with normal unpaced QRS duration and successful LBBP implantation. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the paced QRS complex as left bundle branch trunk pacing (LBTP), left posterior fascicular pacing (LPFP), or left anterior fascicular pacing (LAFP). Electrocardiographic (ECG) characteristics, pacing parameters, and fluoroscopic localization were collected and analyzed.

RESULTS

There were 17 (25.0%), 35 (51.5%), and 16 (23.5%) patients in the LBTP, LPFP, and LAFP groups, respectively. All subgroups had relatively narrow paced QRS complex (128.6 ± 9.1 ms vs 133.7 ± 11.2 ms vs 134.8 ± 9.6 ms; P = .170), fast left ventricular activation (70.4 ± 9.0 ms vs 70.6 ± 10.2 ms vs 71.0 ± 9.0 ms; P = .986), as well as low and stable pacing thresholds. Delayed right ventricular activation and interventricular dyssynchrony were similar between groups. Fluoroscopic imaging indicated that the lead tip was located most commonly in the basal-middle region of the septum (67.7%), and this was independent of paced QRS morphology group (88.2% vs 57.1% vs 68.8%; P = .106).

CONCLUSION

Pacing at different sites of the LBB resulted in similar intraventricular and interventricular electrical synchrony in patients with an intact conduction system. Fluoroscopic imaging alone could not predict specific LBBP paced ECG morphology.

[Management of heart failure with His bundle pacing in right bundle branch block: case report]

La terapia de resincronización cardiaca mediante estimulación hisiana ha demostrado ser efectiva en pacientes con bloqueo de rama izquierda del haz de His e insuficiencia cardiaca. Paciente masculino, con 47 años de edad, con insuficiencia cardiaca, fracción de expulsión del 17% y miocardio dilatada idiopática, electrocardiograma en ritmo sinusal, bloqueo auriculoventricular de 1.er grado, intervalo PR 400 ms, bloqueo completo de rama derecha del haz de His, bloqueo del fascículo anterior de la rama izquierda del haz de His, duración del QRS 200 ms. Se decidió realizar estimulación selectiva del haz de His. La resincronización cardiaca biventricular convencional en pacientes con presencia de bloqueo completo de la rama derecha del haz de His no está indicada debido a la pobre respuesta al tratamiento. La estimulación hisiana permite reclutar la rama bloqueada y reestablecer la conducción a través de ella, de tal forma que, en ausencia de necrosis, se logre sincronía biventricular. En el caso presentado el reclutamiento de la rama derecha mediante estimulación hisiana se reflejó en el restablecimiento de la sincronía biventricular, medida por rastreo de marcas (speckle tracking) e incremento significativo de la fracción de expulsión del ventrículo izquierdo del 17 al 36.6%, con un incremento absoluto del 19.6%.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy has proven to be an effective therapy in patients with left bundle branch block and heart failure. Male, 47 years old, heart failure with a left ventricle ejection fraction of 17%, idiopathic heart failure. ECG with sinus rhythm, 1st degree AV block, PR 400 ms, complete right bundle branch block, anterior hemi-fascicle of the left bundle of His, and QRS duration 200 ms. We decided to perform a selective His bundle pacing. In patients with right bundle branch block the biventricular cardiac resynchronization is not indicated due to low treatment response. His bundle pacing allows recruiting the blocked branch and restoring conduction throughout it, therefore, in the absence of necrosis the biventricular synchrony is achieved. We presented a case of His bundle pacing with recruitment of the right bundle branch, which reestablish biventricular synchrony measured by speckle tracking, and with a significant increase of the left ventricle ejection fraction from 17 to 36.6%, with an absolute increase of 19.6%.

Safety of Distal His Bundle Pacing Via the Right Ventricle Backed Up by Adjacent Ventricular Capture

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated the differences between distal His bundle pacing (HBP) via the right ventricle and proximal HBP via the right atrium with regard to pacing and sensing parameters.

BACKGROUND

HBP preserves physiological ventricular activation. The capture threshold of the adjacent ventricle accompanying HBP has not been evaluated after implantation.

METHODS

Fifty patients with bradycardia (58% with atrioventricular block) underwent successful HBP and were followed for 1 year. Precise locations of the lead tips were confirmed using follow-up echocardiography.

RESULTS

HBP leads were fixed via the right atrium or right ventricle (25 patients each). Overall, the local ventricle and HBP thresholds were elevated during follow-up. The distal HBP thresholds did not significantly differ from the proximal HBP thresholds, although local ventricular thresholds of distal HBP were markedly lower than those of proximal HBP. At 6 months, the accepted ventricular threshold (≤2.5 V) was maintained in 39 patients (78%). An amplitude of ventricular electrogram post-fixation of ≥2.0 mV and a capture threshold of ≤1.1 V at implantation were determined to be optimal values for predicting the accepted threshold at 6 months, with areas under the curve of 0.86 and 0.84, respectively. Atrial oversensing was often detected in proximal HBP but not distal HBP.

CONCLUSIONS

Distal HBP via the right ventricle captured the His bundle, similar to proximal HBP via the right atrium, with a superior local ventricular threshold during follow-up. Anatomy and electrophysiological ventricular properties at implantation may be critical for maintaining adjacent ventricle capture to prevent lead revision (Evaluation of Electrophysiological Parameters related to His Bundle Pacing in Patients With Bradyarrhythmias; UMIN000031364).

Permanent His Bundle Pacing in Patients With Congenital Complete Heart Block: A Multicenter Experience

OBJECTIVES

This study retrospectively assessed the safety and efficacy of permanent His bundle pacing (HBP) in patients with congenital complete heart block (CCHB).

BACKGROUND

HBP has become an accepted form of pacing in adults. Its role in CCHB is not known.

METHODS

Seventeen patients with CCHB who underwent successful HBP were analyzed at 6 academic centers between 2016 and 2019. Nine patients had de novo implants, and 8 patients had previous right ventricular (RV) leads. Three RV paced patients had reduced left ventricular ejection fractions at the time of HBP. Implant/follow-up device parameters, New York Heart Association functional class, QRS duration, and left ventricular ejection fraction data were analyzed.

RESULTS

Patients' mean age was 27.4 ± 11.3 years, 59% were women, and mean follow-up was 385 ± 279 days. The following parameters were found to be statistically significant between implant and follow-up, respectively: impedance, 602 ± 173 Ω versus 460 ± 80 Ω (p < 0.001); and New York Heart Association functional class, 1.7 ± 0.9 versus 1.1 ± 0.3 (p = 0.014). In patients with previous RV pacing, HBP resulted in a significant decrease in QRS duration: 167.1 ± 14.3 ms versus 118.3 ± 13.9 ms (p < 0.0001). In de novo implants, HBP resulted in increases in QRS duration compared with baseline: 111.1 ± 19.4 ms versus 91.0 ± 4.8 ms (p = 0.016). Other parameters exhibited no statistically significant differences. During follow-up, 2 patients required lead revision due to elevated pacing thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

HBP seems to be safe and effective, with improvement in clinical outcomes in patients with CCHB. Larger studies with longer follow-up periods are required to confirm our findings.

Electrocardiographic characterization of non-selective His-bundle pacing: validation of novel diagnostic criteria

AIMS

Permanent His-bundle (HB) pacing is usually accompanied by simultaneous capture of the adjacent right ventricular (RV) myocardium-this is described as a non-selective (ns)-HB pacing. It is of clinical importance to confirm HB capture using standard electrocardiogram (ECG). Our aim was to identify ECG criteria for loss of HB capture during ns-HB pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with permanent HB pacing were recruited. Electrocardiograms during ns-HB pacing and loss of HB capture (RV-only capture) were obtained. Electrocardiogram criteria for loss/presence of HB capture were identified. In the validation phase, these criteria and the 'HB ECG algorithm' were tested using a separate, sizable set of ECGs. A total of 353 ECG (226 ns-HB and 128 RV-only) were obtained from 226 patients with permanent HB pacing devices. QRS notch/slur in left ventricular leads and R-wave peak time (RWPT) in lead V6 were identified as the best features for differentiation. The 'HB ECG algorithm' based on these features correctly classified 87.1% of cases with sensitivity and specificity of 93.2% and 83.9%, respectively. The criteria for definitive diagnosis of ns-HB capture (no QRS slur/notch in Leads I, V1, V4-V6, and the V6 RWPT ≤ 100 ms) presented 100% specificity.

CONCLUSION

A novel ECG algorithm for the diagnosis of loss of HB capture and criteria for definitive confirmation of HB capture were formulated and validated. The algorithm might be useful during follow-up and the criteria for definitive confirmation of ns-HB capture offer a simple and reliable ancillary procedural endpoint during HB device implantation.

Impact of electroanatomical mapping-guided lead implantation on procedural outcome of His bundle pacing

Aims

Conventional His bundle pacing (HBP) can be technically challenging and fluoroscopy-intense, particularly in patients with His-Purkinje conduction disease (HPCD). Three-dimensional electroanatomical mapping (EAM) facilitates non-fluoroscopic lead navigation and HB electrogram mapping. We sought to assess the procedural outcome of routine EAM-guided HBP compared with conventional HBP in a real-world population and evaluate the feasibility and safety of EAM-guided HBP in patients with HPCD.

Methods and results 

We included 58 consecutive patients (72 ± 13 years; 71% male) who underwent an attempt to conventional (EAM− group; n = 29) or EAM-guided (EAM+ group; n = 29) HBP between June 2019 and April 2020. The centre’s learning curve was initially determined (n = 40 cases) to define the conventional control group and minimize outcome bias favouring EAM-guided HBP. His bundle pacing was successful in 26 patients (90%) in the EAM+ and 27 patients (93%) in the EAM− group (P = 0.64). The procedure time was 90 (73–135) and 110 (70–130) min, respectively (P = 0.89). The total fluoroscopy time [0.7 (0.5–1.4) vs. 3.3 (1.4–6.5) min; P &lt; 0.001] and fluoroscopy dose [21.9 (9.1–47.7) vs. 78.6 (27.2–144.9) cGycm2; P = 0.001] were significantly lower in the EAM+ than EAM− group. There were no significant differences between groups in His capture threshold (1.2 ± 0.6 vs. 1.4 ± 1.0 V/1.0 ms; P = 0.33) and paced QRS duration (113 ± 15 vs. 113 ± 17 ms; P = 0.89). In patients with HPCD, paced QRS duration was similar in both groups (121 ± 15 vs. 123 ± 12 ms; P = 0.77). The bundle branch-block recruitment threshold tended to be lower in the EAM+ than EAM− group (1.3 ± 0.7 vs. 1.8 ± 1.2 V/1.0 ms; P = 0.31). No immediate procedure-related complications occurred. One patient (2%) experienced lead dislodgement during 4-week follow-up.

Conclusion 

Implementation of routine EAM-guided HBP lead implantation is feasible and safe in a real-world cohort of patients with and without HPCD and results in a tremendous reduction in radiation exposure without prolonging procedure time or increasing procedure-related complications.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure patients: tough road but clear future

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) based on biventricular pacing (BVP) is an invaluable intervention currently used in heart failure (HF) patients. The therapy involves electromechanical dyssynchrony, which can not only improve heart function and quality of life but also reduce hospitalization and mortality rates. However, approximately 30% to 40% of patients remain unresponsive to conventional BVP in clinical practice. In the recent years, extensive research has been employed to find a more physiological approach to cardiac resynchronization. The His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) may potentially be the future of CRT. These technologies present various advantages including offering an almost real physiological pacing, less complicated procedures, and economic feasibility. Additionally, other methods, such as isolated left-ventricular pacing and multipoint pacing, may in the future be important but non-mainstream alternatives to CRT because currently, there is no strong evidence to support their effectiveness. This article reviews the current situation and latest progress in CRT, explores the existing technology, and highlights future prospects in the development of CRT.

Permanent His Bundle Pacing Implantation Facilitated by Visualization of the Tricuspid Valve Annulus

Background:

His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiological pacing modality. However, HBP has longer procedure times with frequent high capture thresholds, which likely contributes to the low adoption of this approach. The aim of this study is to compare HBP implantation with a novel imaging technique versus the standard implantation technique.

Methods:

This study included 50 patients with standard pacing indications randomized to HBP with visualization of the tricuspid valve annulus (N=25, the visualization group) or with the standard method (N=25, the control group). In the visualization group, the tricuspid valve annulus was imaged by contrast injection in the right ventricle during fluoroscopy. The site for HBP was identified in relationship to the tricuspid septal leaflet and interventricular septum.

Results:

Permanent HBP was successful in 92% in the visualization group and 88% in the control group. The fluoroscopic time for HBP lead placement was significantly shorter in the visualization group (7.1±3.3 minutes) compared with the control group (10.1±5.6 minutes, P =0.03). Total procedural and fluoroscopic times were also significantly shorter in the visualization group (91.0±15.7 and 9.6±3.8 minutes) than the control group (104.4±17.8 and 12.7±6.2 minutes, P =0.01 and 0.04, respectively). There was no significant difference in capture threshold between groups. In the visualization group, there was a quantitative association between the HBP site and the tricuspid valve annulus.

Conclusions:

The visualization technique shortens the procedural and fluoroscopic times for HBP implantation. Moreover, anatomic localization of HBP sites is strongly associated with physiological characteristics of pacing, which can help guide optimal lead placement.

Registration:

URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/index.aspx . Unique identifier: ChiCTR2000029834.

Left bundle branch area pacing - restoring the natural order: A Case Report

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have shown that His-bundle pacing could be an alternative in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy as it is comparable or better in terms of amelioration of ventricular activation, narrowing of the QRS complex, or clinical outcomes. However, in case of high threshold at the level of His-bundle or inability to correct conduction through a diseased His-Purkinje system other option should be searched like left bundle pacing.

PATIENT CONCERNS

A 77-year-old man presented to the Emergency Department for dizziness and dizziness and lightheadedness due to an intermittent 2:1 atrioventricular block with a QRS complex morphology of a major left branch block.

DIAGNOSIS

Given the documented symptomatic 2:1 AV block, according to the European Guideliness the patient was considered to have a class 1 indication of permanent double chamber cardiostimulation.

INTERVENTIONS

A lead delivery system with a C315 His catheter and a Select Secure 3830 69 cm pacing lead were placed at the His bundle area with important narrowing of the QRS complex but with an unacceptable high threshold. The delivery system was moved towards the apex 1,5 cm and the lead screwed deep into the septum until capture of the left bundle branch was achieved with complete normalization of the conduction troubles.

OUTCOMES

At 3 month follow-up the patient was asymptomatic and the pacing and sensing thresholds remained at same values as during implantation: 0.75/0.4 ms and 14 mV respectively.

CONCLUSION

Left bundle-pacing represents the next step of His-Purkinje system pacing to overcome all difficulties related to His-bundle pacing.

[Indications for His bundle and left bundle branch pacing]

His bundle pacing (HBP) allows ventricular excitation through the entire cardiac conduction system, resulting in a better synchronicity and efficacy of contraction compared to myocardial pacing. Due to better, dedicated implantation tools and exact practical implantation recommendations, HBP has developed into a form of stimulation that can be successfully applied with reasonable time and effort in >90% of patients. The rate of lead dislodgement and threshold increase is similar to conventional pacemaker systems. Despite a rather weak data base and a paucity of randomized trials, HBS represents an alternative to conventional right or biventricular pacing in the following conditions: (1) high-degree atrioventricular (AV) block with expected ventricular pacing >20% of the time, (2) AV block 1st degree with long PQ (alone or in combination with intermittent 2nd to 3rd degree AV block or sick sinus syndrome), (3) AV node ablation due to refractory atrial fibrillation, and (4) upgrade in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Moreover, HBP may be useful in context with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Left bundle branch block below the level of His represents a limitation of HBP. Therefore, more recently left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been introduced to correct left bundle branch block. LBBP seems to be possible in a wider anatomic area and may be easier to implant. However, LBBP requires active screw-in of the lead deep into the ventricular septum. Experience with this new technique is limited, particularly regarding long-term performance.

Left bundle branch pacing improved heart function in a 10-year-old child after a 3-month follow-up

AIMS

As a physiological pacing strategy, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) were used to correct left bundle branch block (LBBB), however, there is no relevant report in children. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of LBBP in children.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Left bundle branch pacing was performed in a 10-year-old girl with a second-degree atrioventricular and LBBB. Under the guide of fluoroscopy, the pacing lead was deeply screwed into the interventricular septum to gain right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern of paced QRS. Selective LBBP was achieved with a typical RBBB pattern of paced morphology and a discrete component between stimulus and ventricular activation in intracardiac electrogram and reached the standard of the stimulus to left ventricular activation time of 56 ms. At a 3-month follow-up, the LBBP acquired the reduction of left ventricular size and enhancement of left ventricular ejection fraction.

CONCLUSION

The application of LBBP in a child was first achieved with inspiring preliminary results. The LBBP can be carried out in children by cautiousness under the premise of strict grasp of indications.

His bundle pacing insights from electroanatomical mapping: Topography and pacing targets

OBJECTIVES

To characterize 3D electroanatomical mapping (EAM) of the His bundle (HB) region.

BACKGROUND

Visualization of selective (S) and nonselective (NS) HB capture areas by EAM has not been described and may help guide HB pacing (HBP).

METHODS

EAM was performed via NavX system in 17 patients (pts) undergoing HBP. HB cloud, S-HB, NS-HB, and right bundle (RB) capture areas were mapped.

RESULTS

S-HBP areas were identified in 11, NS-HBP in 14, and RB in 11 pts. Two NS-HBP areas (upper and lower) either separated by S-HBP (8 pts) or almost contiguous (5 pts) were observed. S-HBP area measured: 1.1 ± 0.9 cm² , NS upper: -1.2 ± 0.9 cm² , NS lower: -1.2 ± 0.9 cm² , RB: -1.7 ± 1.3 cm² , total His cloud: -4.1 ± 2.7 cm² . Electrocardiogram (ECG) pacemaps were different between upper and lower NS-HBP areas in 13/14 pts (p = .006). ECG differences between NS clouds were present in inferior leads in 9 pts (more negative QRS complex from lower NS area) and in precordial leads in 5 pts. There was no correlation between HBP lead location and capture threshold. R-wave amplitude was higher at more distal locations on HB cloud (p = .02).

CONCLUSION

(1) Pacemapping identifies distinct regions that may correspond to HB anatomy. (2) A linear S-HBP area is typically surrounded by two separate NS areas. (3) Pace-map ECGs from upper and lower NS-HBP areas have different morphologies. (4) These EAM features and pace-mapping may be helpful to the implanter.

The use of His bundle pacing for the treatment of painful left bundle branch block syndrome

Painful left bundle branch block syndrome is a rare disorder in which patients develop typical angina-like pain without identifiable ischemia. To date, there have been few published cases of effective treatment. In this case report, we describe successful implementation of His bundle pacing for durable symptom resolution in this disorder.

How His bundle pacing prevents and reverses heart failure induced by right ventricular pacing

Ideal heart performance demands vigorous systolic contractions and rapid diastolic relaxation. These sequential events are precisely timed and interdependent and require the rapid synchronous electrical stimulation provided by the His-Purkinje system. Right ventricular (RV) pacing creates slow asynchronous electrical stimulation that disrupts the timing of the cardiac cycle and results in left ventricular (LV) mechanical asynchrony. Long-term mechanical asynchrony produces LV dysfunction, remodeling, and clinical heart failure. His bundle pacing preserves synchronous electrical and mechanical LV function, prevents or reverses RV pacemaker-induced remodeling, and reduces heart failure.

Permanent conduction system pacing for congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries: A Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society (PACES)/International Society for Adult Congenital Heart Disease (ISACHD) Collaborative Study

BACKGROUND

Congenitally corrected transposition of the great arteries (CCTGA) is associated with spontaneous atrioventricular block and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Conduction system pacing is a potential alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to determine the outcomes of conduction system pacing for CCTGA.

METHODS

Retrospective data were collected from 10 international centers.

RESULTS

His bundle (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) was attempted in 15 CCTGA patients (median age 23 years; 87% male). Previous surgery had been performed in 8 and chronic ventricular pacing in 7. Conduction system pacing (11 HBP, 2 LBBP 2; nonselective in 10, selective in 3) was acutely successful in 13 (86%) without complication. In 9 cases, electroanatomic mapping was available and identified the distal His bundle and proximal left bundle branches within the morphologic left ventricle below the pulmonary valve separate from the mitral annulus. Median implant HV interval was 42 ms (interquartile range [IQR] 35-48), R wave 6 mV (IQR 5-18), and threshold 0.5 V (IQR 0.5-1.2) at median 0.5 ms. QRSd was unchanged compared to junctional escape rhythm (124 vs 110 ms; P = .17) and decreased significantly compared to baseline ventricular pacing (112 vs 164 ms; P <.01). At a median of 8 months, all patients were alive without significant change in pacing threshold or lead dysfunction. New York Heart Association functional class improved in 5 patients.

CONCLUSION

Permanent conduction system pacing is feasible in CCTGA by either HBP or proximal LBBP. Narrow paced QRS and stable lead thresholds were observed at intermediate follow-up. Unique anatomic characteristics may favor this approach over conventional CRT.

His Bundle Pacing in Heart Failure-Concept and Current Data

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

His bundle pacing (HBP) has continued to emerge as a viable alternative to both right ventricular pacing (RVP) and cardiac resynchronization therapy. In recent years, a considerable amount of research has been published with regard to using HBP to treat congestive heart failure (CHF) and this article presents a concise yet comprehensive review of this literature.

RECENT FINDINGS

Studies have demonstrated that HBP is useful for CHF patients who are non-responders to biventricular pacing (BiVP) or have a history of previously failed coronary sinus lead placement, right/left bundle branch block cardiomyopathy, or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Additionally, HBP is useful in patients with an indication for pacing who are expected to have a RVP burden exceeding 20%. The theoretical benefit of utilizing the native His Purkinje system to excite cardiac tissue is appealing as it can result in true cardiac resynchronization. Limited studies have shown its benefit in reducing heart failure symptoms and improving cardiac function. Larger randomized clinical trials and further investments into developing better technologies are highly desired to make its clinical use sustainable in the long run.

Peri-left bundle branch pacing after atrioventricular node ablation and failed his bundle pacing in atrial fibrillation

We described a case where peri-left bundle branch pacing (PLBP) may become an alternative approach in difficult His bundle pacing (HBP) following atrioventricular nodal ablation in a patient with atrial fibrillation. After atrioventricular nodal ablation, the HBP lead was removed to another LBB position distal to the first PLBP lead, due to acute threshold increase. At 3 month follow-up, PLBP exhibited acceptable pacing parameters without any adverse event.

Electrophysiological parameters and anatomical evaluation of left bundle branch pacing in an in vivo canine model

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), a form of conduction system pacing in addition to His bundle pacing (HBP), can potentially maintain left ventricular electrical synchrony with better sensing and a low and stable capture threshold.

METHODS

We performed both HBP and LBBP using a canine model (n = 3; male; weight 30-40 kg). The electrocardiogram (ECG), intracardiac electrogram characteristics, and pacing parameters were compared between HBP and LBBP. The hearts were isolated and stained by Lugol's iodine (5%) to assess the relative locations of the leads in relation to the conduction system.

RESULTS

The average potential to ventricle interval was longer with HBP compared to LBBP (26.67 ± 3.06 ms vs 12.67 ± 1.15 ms; P = .002). There were also notable differences in the pacing parameters between HBP and LBBP: R-wave amplitude (2.67 ± 0.42 mV vs 11.33 ± 3.06 mV; P = .008), pacing impedance (423.3 ± 40.4 vs 660.0 ± 45.8; P = .003), and threshold (2.30 ± 0.66 V/0.4ms vs 0.67 ± 0.15 V/0.4 ms; P = .014). The paced morphology of ECG was similar to the intrinsic with HBP while a right bundle branch block pattern was noted with LBBP. The anatomical evaluation revealed the location of the leads and the average lead depth was significantly more with LBBP as compared to HBP (12.33 ± 1.53 mm vs1.83 ± 0.29 mm; P < .0001). Furthermore, with LBBP, the tip of the lead helix was noted to be around the LBB.

CONCLUSION

This in vivo canine model study confirms the significant differences between HBP and LBBP. Furthermore, this model provides a precise anatomic evaluation of the location and the depth of the leads in relation to the conduction system.