Permanent His bundle pacing: Recommendations from a Multicenter His Bundle Pacing Collaborative Working Group for standardization of definitions, implant measurements, and follow-up

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.

[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.

Result of the left bundle branch area pacing data collection registry, an international multicenter study of conduction system pacing with a Tendril STS 2088 stylet-driven lead

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area (LBBA) pacing (LBBAP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option in patients indicated for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LBBAP in patients implanted with a Tendril 2088 stylet-driven lead.

METHODS

The international retrospective data collection registry included 11 sites from 5 countries globally. Patients with attempted implants of the Tendril lead in the LBBA were followed for at least 6 months post the implant attempt. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse events and the composite of LBBA capture threshold of ≤2.0 V and R-wave amplitudes ≥5 mV (or ≥value at implant), respectively.

RESULTS

Of 221 patients with attempted implants of the Tendril 2088 lead in the LBBA, 91.4% (202/221) had successful implants for LBBAP. Regardless of the LBBAP implant success, all patients were followed for at least 6 months (8.7 ± 7.3 months). Baseline characteristics: 44% female, 84% ≥65 years old, 34% coronary artery disease, and 86% of primary indications for pacemaker implant. Both primary safety and effectiveness endpoints were met (freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse device effects of 99.5% and electrical performance composite success rate of 93%). The capture thresholds in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms and 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms. The rate of patients with capture threshold rise ≥1 V was 1.5% through 6 months. The R-wave amplitudes in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 9.3 ± 3.2 mV and 10.6 ± 3.0 mV.

CONCLUSIONS

This large multicenter study demonstrates that the stylet-driven Tendril™ STS 2088 lead is safe and effective for LBBAP with high success and low complication rates.

His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch area pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation: A prospective and comparative study

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is a well-established strategy for uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias. Limited data are available regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting.

AIM

To compare the outcomes of HBP and LBBAP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation combined with AVN in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

We prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after successful conduction system pacing (CSP) in two hospitals between September 2017 and May 2023. The primary outcome was the 1-year composite of first episode of heart failure hospitalization, symptomatic atrioventricular node reconduction requiring a second AVNA procedure, lead revision or death from any cause.

RESULTS

A total of 164 patients underwent AVNA following successful CSP (68 HBP and 96 LBBAP). Mean pacemaker implantation and AVNA procedure times were shorter in the LBBAP group than the HBP group (46±18 vs 59±23min; P<0.001 and 31±12 vs 43±22min, respectively; P<0.001). Complete atrioventricular block was more frequently obtained in the LBBAP group (88/96 patients [92%] vs 54/68 patients [79%]; P=0.04). One-year freedom from the composite outcome was more frequent in the LBBAP group (89.7% vs 72.9%; hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.72; P=0.01). The strategy was similarly effective in both groups with a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary pacing threshold elevation >1V occurred only in the HBP group (11%).

CONCLUSION

In this prospective, comparative study, LBBAP provided better 1-year outcomes than HBP.

Caveats related to conduction system pacing utilizing a proprietary deflectable mapping catheter with a stylet-driven lead

BACKGROUND

Hitherto, lumen less leads (LLLs) were routinely utilized for conduction system pacing (CSP). We report the largest experience using stylet-driven leads (SDLs) with a deflectable mapping catheter for CSP.

METHODS

Patients were prospectively and sequentially enrolled for CSP with SDL between June, 2021 and November, 2022 to (i) a novel deflectable mapping catheter (AgilisHisProTM, Abbott) (Group A) or (ii) a fixed curve sheath (Selectra3D, Biotronik) (Group B) in a 1:1 non-randomized fashion. The primary aim was to evaluate safety, feasibility, and efficacy of the CSP using SDL and deflectable mapping catheter (Group A) while reporting procedural success and intermediate-term follow-up.

RESULTS

Seventy-nine patients (59.4%M, mean age 67.2+/-10.6 years) were allocated to either (i) Group A (n = 40) or (ii) Group B (n = 39). In Group A (n = 40, 50% M, mean age 67.2+/-9.5 years, follow-up 210.7 + 25.1days), His bundle pacing (HBP) was the default strategy with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) for bailout. Procedural success with HBP was feasible in 17/40 (42.5%) patients with remaining 23/40 (57.5%) needing LBBaP bailout. After initial learning curve, a manual septal curve was introduced to successfully aid LBBaP in 6/23 (26.1%) cases. Procedural and follow-up parameters did not differ significantly in HBP vs. LBBaP. Head-to-head comparison was not performed between the groups owing to different default protocols (HBP-Group A, Discretionary-Group B).

CONCLUSIONS

Use of SDL with single-curve deflectable mapping catheter was safe, feasible and yielded moderate procedural success with HBP and frequently needed a LBBaP bailout strategy. In approximately one-fourth of the latter, an out-of-plane manual septal curve was needed to optimize LBBaP.

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.

Prognostic benefits of His-Purkinje capture in physiological pacemakers for bradycardia

INTRODUCTION

Clinical outcomes of long-term ventricular septal pacing (VSP) without His-Purkinje capture remain unknown. This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes between conduction system pacing (CSP), VSP, and right ventricular pacing (RVP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with bradycardia indicated for pacing from 2016 to 2022 were prospectively followed for the clinical endpoints of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations and all-cause mortality at 2 years. VSP was defined as septal pacing due to unsuccessful CSP implant or successful CSP followed by loss of His-Purkinje capture within 90 days.

RESULTS

Among 1016 patients (age 73.9 ± 11.2 years, 47% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 612 received RVP, 335 received CSP and 69 received VSP. Paced QRS duration was similar between VSP and RVP, but both significantly longer than CSP (p < .05). HF-hospitalizations occurred in 130 (13%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 16% vs. VSP 13%, p = .001), and all-cause mortality in 143 (14%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 19% vs. VSP 9%, p < .001). The association of pacing modality with clinical events was limited to those with ventricular pacing (Vp) > 20% (pinteraction < .05). Adjusting for clinical risk factors among patients with Vp > 20%, VSP (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 4.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-14.36) and RVP (AHR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.44-6.60) were associated with increased hazard of HF-hospitalizations, and RVP (2.52, 95% CI: 1.19-5.35) with increased mortality, compared to CSP. Clinical endpoints did not differ between VSP and RVP with Vp > 20%, or amongst groups with Vp < 20%.

CONCLUSION

Conduction system capture is associated with improved clinical outcomes. CSP should be preferred over VSP or RVP during pacing for bradycardia.

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 versus left ventricular septal pacing as a primary procedural endpoint during left bundle branch area pacing: Evaluation of two different implant strategies

INTRODUCTION

Implant procedure features and clinical implications of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) have not been yet fully described. We sought to compare two different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implant strategies: the first one accepting LVSP as a procedural endpoint and the second one aiming at achieving LBBP in every patient in spite of evidence of previous LVSP criteria.

METHODS

LVSP was accepted as a procedural endpoint in 162 consecutive patients (LVSP strategy group). In a second phase, LBBP was attempted in every patient in spite of achieving previous LVSP criteria (n = 161, LBBP strategy group). Baseline patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up data were compared.

RESULTS

The final capture pattern was LBBP in 71.4% and LVSP in 24.2% in the LBBP strategy group compared to 42.7% and 50%, respectively, in the LVSP strategy group. One hundred and eighty-four patients (57%) had proven LBB capture criteria with a significantly shorter paced QRS duration than the 120 patients (37%) with LVSP criteria (115 ± 9 vs. 121 ± 13 ms, p < .001). Implant parameters were comparable between the two strategies but the LBBP strategy resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p = .026) without any clinical sequelae. Patients with CRT indications significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow-up irrespective of the capture pattern (from 35 ± 11% to 45 ± 14% in proven LBBP, p = .024; and from 39 ± 13% to 47 ± 12% for LVSP, p = .003). The presence of structural heart disease and baseline LBBB independently predicted unsuccessful LBB capture.

CONCLUSION

The LBBP strategy was associated with comparable implant parameters than the LVSP strategy but resulted in higher rates of septal perforation. Proven LBB capture and LVSP showed comparable effects on LVEF during follow-up.

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.

Autothreshold algorithm feasibility and safety in left bundle branch pacing

AIMS

Autothreshold algorithms enable remote monitoring of patients with conventional pacing, but there is limited information on their performance in left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Our objective was to analyse the behaviour of the autothreshold algorithm in LBBP and compare it with conventional pacing and manual thresholds during initial device programming (acute phase), after 1-7 days (subacute), and 1-3 months later (chronic).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A prospective, non-randomized, single-centre comparative study was conducted. Consecutive patients with indication for cardiac pacing were enrolled. Implants were performed in the left bundle branch area or the right ventricle endocardium at the discretion of the operator. Left bundle branch pacing was determined according to published criteria. Autothreshold algorithm was activated in both groups whenever allowed by the device. Seventy-five patients were included, with 50 undergoing LBBP and 25 receiving conventional pacing. Activation of the autothreshold algorithm was more feasible in later phases, showing a favourable trend towards bipolar pacing. Failures in algorithm activation were primarily due to insufficient safety margins (82.8% in LBBP and 90% in conventional pacing). The remainder was attributed to atrial tachyarrhythmias (10.3% and 10%, respectively) and electrical noise (the remaining 6.9% in the LBBP group). In the LBBP group, there were not statistically significant differences between manual and automatic thresholds, and both remained stable during follow-up (mean increase of 0.50 V).

CONCLUSION

The autothreshold algorithm is feasible in LBBP, with a favourable trend towards bipolar pacing. Automatic thresholds are similar to manual in patients with LBBP, and they remain stable during follow-up.

Hisian Lead Electrical Decay After TAVR Intervention

We report a case of patient with a single-chamber Hisian pacemaker who developed complete atrioventricular block and significant deterioration of the ventricular threshold and sensing after transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Revision of the implantation was required, with ventricular lead extraction and replacement.

His bundle pacing in nodal versus infranodal atrioventricular block: a mid-term follow-up study

INTRODUCTION

This study evaluated the feasibility of His bundle pacing (HBP) in consecutive, unselected patients with advanced atrioventricular block (AVB) over a medium-term follow-up period, comparing procedural characteristics between nodal and infranodal sites of the conduction block.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five consecutive patients with second-degree or third-degree AVB in which HBP was attempted were prospectively included in this study. The clinical and procedural-related characteristics of the patients were recorded at baseline and over a mid-term follow-up.

RESULTS

72% of the patients had normal QRS duration at baseline. Intracardiac electrograms revealed nodal AVB in 46 patients (61.3%). The permanent HBP procedural success was significantly higher in nodal AVB (84.8%) vs infranodal AVB (31%). There was no statistical difference between paced QRS duration, impedance, pacing and sensing thresholds and fluoroscopy time in the two groups. Infranodal block, baseline QRS duration, left bundle branch block morphology and ejection fraction were significantly associated with HBP procedural failure. The patients were followed for a period of 627.71±160.93 days. There were no significant differences in parameters at follow-up. An increase of >1 V in the His bundle (HB) capture threshold was encountered in one patient with infranodal AVB (11.1 %) and in four patients with nodal AVB (10.25%).

CONCLUSION

Permanent HBP is a feasible pacing technique in nodal AVB with a high success rate and stable thresholds in the medium term. Most infranodal blocks are located within the HB, so there is still the possibility to capture the conduction system, although with lower success rates.

Result of the Physiologic Pacing Registry, an international multicenter prospective observational study of conduction system pacing

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option for patients with indication for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant success, safety, and electrical performances of HBP and LBBAP in the multinational Physiological Pacing Registry.

METHODS

The international prospective observational registry included 44 sites from 16 countries globally between November 2018 and May 2021.

RESULTS

Of 870 subjects enrolled, CSP lead implantation was attempted in 849 patients. Subjects with successful CSP lead implantation were followed for 6 months (5 ± 2 months). CSP lead implantation was successful in 768 patients (90.4%). Implant success was 95.2% (239/251) for LBBAP and 88.5% (529/598) for HBP (P = .002). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy duration were comparable between LBBAP and HBP (P = .537). Capture threshold at implant was 0.69 ± 0.39 V at 0.46 ± 0.15 ms in LBBAP and 1.44 ± 1.03 V at 0.71 ± 0.33 ms in HBP (P <.001). Capture threshold at 6 months was 0.79 ± 0.33 V at 0.44 ± 0.13 ms in LBBAP and 1.59 ± 0.97 V at 0.67 ± 0.31 ms in HBP (P <.001). Pacing threshold rise ≥1 V was observed at 6 months in 3 of 208 (1.4%) of LBBAP and 55 of 418 (13.2%) of HBP (P <.001). Serious adverse events related to implant procedure or CSP lead occurred in 5 of 251 (2.0%) with LBBAP and 25 of 598 (4.2%) with HBP (P = .115).

CONCLUSION

This large prospective multicenter study demonstrates that CSP is technically feasible in most patients with relatively higher implant success and suggests that, with current technology, LBBAP may have better pacing parameters than HBP.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Paradigm Shift in Physiological Pacing for Patients With Atrioventricular Block and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function, A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) via His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Pacing (LBBP) offer a physiological approach to pacing by restoring normal ventricular activation. This meta-analysis compares the feasibility, outcomes, and success rates of HBP and LBBP in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular function. A systematic search identified studies comparing LBBP with HBP in AVB patients with preserved systolic function. Primary outcomes included QRS duration, success rates, pacing threshold, and improvement in R-wave amplitudes. Secondary outcomes were procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Random-effects models calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Among 382 screened articles, seven observational studies involving 1035 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 69.9 years, the mean LVEF was 59.3%, and the average follow-up duration was 8.7 months. LBBP showed higher R-wave amplitudes (MD 7.88, 95% CI 7.26 to 8.50, P < 0.0001) and lower pacing thresholds (MD -0.64, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.47, P < 0.0001) compared to HBP. LBBP had shorter procedure time (MD -17.81, 95% CI -30.44 to -5.18, P = 0.006) and reduced fluoroscopy time (MD -5.39, 95% CI -8.81 to -1.97, P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in QRS duration or success rates. LBBP offers advantages over HBP, including improved electrical activation, lower pacing thresholds, and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Success rates and QRS duration reductions were comparable between LBBP and HBP. These findings support LBBP as a feasible and effective alternative to HBP in AVB patients with preserved systolic function.

ECG characteristics of "true" left bundle branch block: Insights from transcatheter aortic valve-related LBBB and His-Purkinje conduction system pacing-correctable LBBB

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) pattern on the electrocardiogram includes patients with both complete conduction block in the His-Purkinje system as well as nonspecific left ventricular conduction delay without discrete block.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to characterize electrocardiographic morphological features of LBBB patterns in patients with (1) LBBB after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) and (2) LBBB correctable by conduction system pacing (CSP).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with post-TAVR (n = 123) or CSP-correctable LBBB (n = 58) from 2 centers were included in this retrospective evaluation. QRS durations as well as detailed morphological features, including notching and slurring, of QRS complexes in leads I, aVL, V1, V2, V5, and V6 and in all 3 inferior leads were recorded.

RESULTS

The mean age of the entire cohort was 78.3 ± 10.1 years, with 48% of the cohort being male (87/181). In the CSP-correctable group (n = 58), 14 (24.1%) underwent His-bundle pacing and 44 (75.9%) left bundle branch area pacing. A total of 17 of 181 (9.4%) of the combined cohort failed to completely meet the Strauss criteria. QRS morphology in lead V1/V2 was always either rS or QS, and there were no q/Q waves noted in lead V5/V6. Although dominant R waves were seen in leads I and aVL of 176 of 181 (97.2%), q/Q waves were present in only 21 of 181 (11.6%). Importantly, notched or slurred QRS complexes were identified in at least 1 lead of 4 leads I, aVL, V5, and V6 in 181 of 181 (100%).

CONCLUSION

Strauss criteria and QRS notching are highly prevalent in LBBB after TAVR and in LBBB correctable by CSP.

Conduction System Pacing for Patients with Congenital Heart Disease

For patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), chronic ventricular pacing may lead to progressive cardiomyopathy owing to electromechanical dyssynchrony. Cardiac conduction system pacing (CSP) has been proposed as a physiologic pacing strategy-directly engaging the His-Purkinje system and preserving electromechanical synchrony. CSP may be indicated for a wide variety of children and adults with CHD and has emerged as an important tool in the armamentarium for cardiac implantable electronic device operators. This review provides the rationale, background, and supportive evidence for CSP in patients with CHD and discusses implant strategies and outcomes in the context of dominant ventricular morphologic categories.

Improvement in electrocardiographic parameters of repolarization related to sudden death in patients with ventricular dysfunction and left bundle branch block after cardiac resynchronization through His bundle pacing

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through permanent His bundle pacing (p-HBP) normalizes interventricular conduction disorders and QRS. Similarly, there are immediate and long-term changes in repolarization, which could be prognostic of a lower risk of sudden death (SD) at follow-up. We aimed to compare the changes in different electrocardiographic (ECG) repolarization parameters related to the risk of SD before and after CRT through p-HBP.

METHODS

In this prospective, descriptive single-center study (May 2019 to December 2021), we compared the ECG parameters of repolarization related to SD in patients with non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and CRT indications, at baseline and after CRT through p-HBP.

RESULTS

Forty-three patients were included. Compared to baseline, after CRT through p-HBP, there were immediate significant changes in the QT interval (ms): 445 [407.5-480] vs 410 [385-440] (p = 0.006), QT dispersion (ms): 80 [60-100] vs 40 [40-65] (p < 0.001), Tp-Te (ms): 90 [80-110] vs 80 [60-95] (p < 0.001), Tp-Te/QT ratio: 0.22 [0.19-0.23] vs 0.19 [0.16-0.21] (p < 0.001), T wave amplitude (mm): 6.25 [4.88-10] vs - 2.5 [- 7-2.25] (p < 0.001), and T wave duration (ms): 190 [157.5-200] vs 140 [120-160] (p = 0.001). In the cases of the corrected QT (Bazzett and Friederichia) and the Tp-Te dispersion, changes only became significant at 1 month post-implant (468.5 [428.8-501.5] vs 440 [410-475.25] (p = 0.015); 462.5 [420.8-488.8] vs 440 [400-452.5] (p = 0.004), and 40 [30-52.5] vs 30 [20-40] (p < 0.001), respectively) (Table 1). Finally, two parameters did not improve until 6 months post-implant: the rdT/JT index, 0.25 [0.21-0.28] baseline vs 0.20 [0.19-0.23] 6 months post-implant (p = 0.011), and the JT interval, 300 [240-340] baseline vs 280 [257-302] 6 months post-implant (p = 0.027). Additionally, most of the parameters continued improving as compared with immediate post-implantation.

CONCLUSIONS

After CRT through His bundle pacing and LBBB correction, there was an improvement in all parameters of repolarization related to increased SD reported in the literature.

His bundle pacing success and electrical parameter stability regardless of three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography lead localization

BACKGROUND OR PURPOSE

His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiological form of ventricular pacing. Few prospective studies have analyzed lead localization using imaging techniques and its relationship with electrical parameters and capture patterns. The objective of this study is to examine the correlation between electrical parameters and lead localization using three-dimensional transthoracic echocardiography (3D TTE).

METHODS

This single-center, prospective, nonrandomized clinical research study (January 2018 to June 2020) included patients with an indication of permanent pacing, in whom 3D TTE was performed to define lead localization as supravalvular or subvalvular.

RESULTS

A total of 92 patients were included: 56.5% of leads were supravalvular, and 43.5% were subvalvular, which resembles previous anatomic descriptions of autopsied hearts of His bundle localization within the triangle of Koch (ToK). R-wave sensing was higher when the His lead was localized subvalvular instead of supravalvular. His lead localization was not associated with HBP threshold or impedance differences, nor with the two different HBP patterns of capture, or with the ability of HBP to correct baseline BBB. The thresholds remained stable during follow-up visits, regardless of His lead localization. Higher R-wave sensing was observed during follow-up than at baseline, mainly in the subvalvular His leads. However, lead impedances in both positions decreased during follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

Lead localization in relation to the tricuspid valve did not influence the electrical performance of HBPs. Wide anatomical variations of the His bundle within the ToK explain our findings, reinforcing the idea that the technique for HBP should be fundamentally guided by electrophysiological and not anatomical parameters.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one-third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiple strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged in recent years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP, appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations, and future directions.

A Comparative Assessment of Myocardial Work Performance during Spontaneous Rhythm, His Bundle Pacing, and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Insights from the EMPATHY Study

BACKGROUND

Physiological pacing has gained significant interest due to its potential to achieve optimal hemodynamic response. This study aimed to assess left ventricular performance in terms of electrical parameters, specifically QRS duration and mechanical performance, evaluated as myocardial work. We compared His Bundle Pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) to evaluate their effects.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with class I or IIa indications for pacing were enrolled in this study, with twelve patients undergoing HBP implantation and another twelve undergoing LBBAP implantation. A comprehensive analysis of myocardial work was conducted.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that there were no major differences in terms of spontaneous and HBP activation in myocardial work, except for global wasted work (217 mmHg% vs. 283 mmHg%; p 0.016) and global work efficiency (87 mmHg% vs. 82 mmHg%; p 0.049). No significant differences were observed in myocardial work between spontaneous activation and LBBAP. Similarly, no significant differences in myocardial work were found between HBP and LBBAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Both pacing modalities provide physiological ventricular activation without significant differences when compared to each other. Moreover, there were no significant differences in QRS duration between HBP and LBBAP. However, LBBAP demonstrated advantages in terms of feasibility, as it achieved better lead electrical parameters compared to HBP (threshold@0.4 ms 0.6 V vs. 1 V; p = 0.045-sensing 9.4 mV vs. 2.4 mV; p < 0.001). Additionally, LBBAP required less fluoroscopy time (6 min vs. 13 min; p = 0.010) and procedural time (81 min vs. 125 min; p = 0.004) compared to HBP.

The usefulness of echo-based hemodynamic parameters in cardiac resynchronization therapy with conduction system pacing for optimal device programing

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) has proved to be a valuable alternative enabling the physiological activation of cardiac contraction in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). At present, however, little is known about the optimal method of programming of the His bundle-paced CRT systems in terms of achieving the best cardiac output.

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of cardiac resynchronization therapy with conduction system pacing (CRT+CSP) on echo-based hemodynamic parameters in the early post-operative measurements.

METHODS

The study enrollment criteria included: permanent atrial fibrillation, heart failure and bundle branch block. All patients underwent implantation of CRT + HBP. During the post-operative phase, we aimed to optimize HOT-CRT settings in order to achieve the greatest cardiac output assessed by complex echocardiographic measurements.

RESULTS

The study included 21 patients, mean age 71.2 (6.3) years, predominantly men (71.4%) with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy 62%. All patients had heart failure with NYHA functional class III and IV (81%). Mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 27.5 (9.7%). The mean duration of the QRS complex was 148.8 ms. The effects of resynchronization pacing: HBP alone, HBP with left ventricular pacing, HBP with biventricular pacing (BiV) and BiV without HBP ​​were analyzed consecutively. HBP combined with left ventricular pacing demonstrated the best hemodynamic response.

CONCLUSION

His bundle pacing coupled with LV pacing proved to be the most advantageous pacing program setting with regard to cardiac output. Moreover, it performed better than biventricular pacing and significantly better than RV pacing.

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 ventricular endocardial activation maps during right ventricular pacing in pediatric patients

BACKGROUND

Cardiac pacing from right ventricular (RV) sites may cause electromechanical ventricular dyssynchrony. Invasive and noninvasive mapping studies showed left ventricular (LV) activation sequence in adults. Aim of this study was to seek out the LV endocardial activation (LVEA) in pediatric patients who underwent RV pacing.

METHODS

Single-center, prospective study conducted on pediatric patients who underwent left sided catheter ablation of accessory pathways with the Carto Univu mapping system. After successful ablation procedures, LVEA was recorded by the ablation catheter during sinus rhythm (SR) and during para-hisian (PHP), midseptum (MSP), and apical (RVAP) pacing.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients, 13 males, aged 12 (10-15) years, registered LV activation maps and times (LVAT). SR showed significantly shorter LVAT than during pacing. LVAT of PHP was shorter than MSP, while there were not significant differences among PHP and MSP versus RVAP. In SR initial LV endocardial activation occurred in two midseptum sites, inferior-posterior and superior-anterior. During PHP, initial activation occurred at parahisian basal septum, rapidly followed by midseptum as in SR. During MSP and RVAP initial activation occurred at midseptum and apex, respectively. From all initial sites, the excitation spreads toward the base of the lateral LV free wall. A mild linear correlation was found between QRS duration and LVAT for MSP and for PHP.

CONCLUSIONS

In pediatric patients LVEA maps during RV pacing showed that the shortest LVAT was obtained with PHP. The LV activation pattern seemed similar in sinus rhythm, PHP and MSP, from midseptum to LV lateral base.

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.

Comparison of Pacing Performance and Clinical Outcomes Between Left Bundle Branch and His Bundle Pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch (LBBP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) provide physiological ventricular activation.

OBJECTIVES

This study investigated differences in feasibility, device performance, and clinical outcomes between LBBP and HBP.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with LBBP and HBP from 2018 to 2021 in 2 centers were prospectively studied. The primary endpoint was optimal device performance during follow-up, defined as the presence of pacing thresholds <2.5 V, R-wave amplitude ≥5 V, and absence of conduction system pacing (CSP)-related complications. The secondary endpoint was the composite of heart failure hospitalizations or all-cause mortality.

RESULTS

Among 338 patients, 282 underwent successful CSP (119 HBP, 163 LBBP). Success rates, CSP-related complications, and need for reoperations did not differ between LBBP and HBP (P > 0.05). Pacing thresholds were lower, whereas R-wave amplitudes and lead impedance were higher in LBBP (P < 0.05). The primary endpoint was more frequent in LBBP than HBP (79% vs 34%; P < 0.001), with LBBP independently associated with 9-fold increased odds of optimal device performance (adjusted OR: 9.31; 95% CI: 5.14-16.86). LBBP was less likely to have increased pacing thresholds by >1 V (1% vs 19% HBP, P < 0.001). The secondary outcome was less frequent in LBBP than HBP (9% vs 24%, P = 0.001), with LBBP trending towards higher event-free survival (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31-1.23). The secondary outcome was independent of pacing burden or pacing indication.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite similar feasibility and safety profiles, LBBP confers additional benefits in pacing performance and reliability, shows trends towards improved survival compared to HBP, and should be the preferred first-line CSP modality of choice.

Feasibility, safety and effectiveness of mapping system assisted conduction system pacing: a single-center prospective study

To assess pacing and electrophysiological parameters, as well as mid-term outcomes, among patients undergoing His bundle pacing (HBP) guided by KODEX-EPD (a novel mapping system). Consecutive patients undergoing conduction system pacing (CSP) for bradycardia indications were evaluated. Procedural and fluoroscopic times and pacing characteristics were compared between conventional fluoroscopy (the standard group, N = 20 cases) and KODEX-EPD mapping system guided group (the KODEX group, N = 20cases) at CSP implantation and all patients were followed at 6-month. HBP was achieved in all patients (the standard group 20/20 and the KODEX group 20/20). There was no difference in the mean procedure time between the two groups (63.7 ± 9.3 vs. 78.2 ± 25.1 min, p = 0.33). Compared with the standard group, the KODEX group significantly reduced the intraoperative X-ray exposure time (3.8 ± 0.5 vs. 19.3 ± 5.1 min, p < 0.05) and X-ray dose (23.6 ± 5.4 vs. 120.2 ± 38.3 mGy, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in atrial impedance (643.0 ± 98.8 vs. 591.5 ± 92.1 Ω, p = 0.09), atrial sensing (2.9 ± 0.8 vs. 2.5 ± 0.8 mV, p = 0.08), ventricular sensing (12.8 ± 2.4 vs. 13.3 ± 3.3 mV, p = 0.63),atrial pacing threshold (1.0 ± 0.2 vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 V/0.4 ms, p = 0.81) and ventricular pacing threshold (1.0 ± 0.2 vs. 0.9 ± 0.1 V/0.4 ms, p = 0.63) between two groups, There were statistical differences in ventricular impedance (640.0 ± 80.3 vs. 702.0 ± 86.1 Ω, p < 0.05). There was no statistical significance in pacing parameters between the two groups at 6 months after procedure (p > 0.05). During the 6-months follow-up period, no adverse events occurred in the two groups. It can be concluded that KODEX-EPD can safely guide His bundle branch pacing lead implantation with reduced fluoroscopic time and dose without lengthening the procedure time.

Feasibility of Permanent His Bundle Pacing in the Elderly vs the Very Elderly. A Single-Center Mid-Term Follow-Up Study

Purpose

Although feasibility studies have included older patients, specific data for His bundle pacing (HBP) in this population is scarce. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and mid-term performance of HBP in the elderly (70 to 79 years old) versus the very elderly (80 years old and above) patients with conventional indications for pacing.

Patients and Methods

About 105 patients older than 70 years of age with attempted HBP from the 1st of January 2019 to the 31st of December 2021 were reviewed. Clinical and procedural characteristics were recorded at baseline, and after a mid-term follow-up period.

Results

The procedural success rate was similar in both age groups (68.49% vs 65.62%). There was no significant difference in pacing or sensing thresholds, impedance, and fluoroscopy times. For both age intervals, patients with a baseline narrow QRS maintained a similar QRS duration after pacing, while in patients with a wide QRS, the paced QRS was significantly shorter. Baseline QRS duration, left bundle branch block morphology, and ejection fraction, were significantly associated with HBP procedural failure. The mean follow-up period was 830.34 days for the elderly and 722.76 days for the very elderly. After the follow-up period, both sensing and pacing thresholds were similar between the groups. Compared to the baseline values, there were no significant changes in both pacing and sensing parameters, irrespective of the age interval. During follow-up, no lead dislodgements were recorded. There were two cases of significant pacing threshold rise in the elderly (4%) and three cases in the very elderly group (14.2%) which were managed conservatively, without lead revision.

Conclusion

In elderly and very elderly patients, HBP is a feasible procedure associated with constant pacing and sensing parameters and with low complication rates over mid-term follow-up.

Optimization of the atrioventricular delay in conduction system pacing

INTRODUCTION

In patients receiving conduction system pacing (CSP), it is not well established how to program the sensed atrioventricular delay (sAVD), with respect to the type of capture obtained (selective, nonselective His-bundle [HB] capture or left bundle branch [LBB] capture). The aim of this study was to acutely assess the effectiveness of an electrophysiology (EP)-guided method for sAVD optimization by comparing it with the echocardiogram-guided optimization.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients undergoing HB or LBB pacing were enrolled. The EP-guided sAVD was defined as the sAVD leading to a PR interval of 150 ms on surface electrocardiogram (ECG). In HB pacing patients, EP-guided sAVD was obtained subtracting the time from the onset of the P wave on ECG to the local atrial electrogram (EGM) recorded by the atrial lead (right atrial sensing latency, RASL) and the His-ventricular interval from 150 ms; in LBB pacing patients, subtracting RASL from 150 ms. Transmitral flow assessment by pulsed wave Doppler was used to find the echo-optimized sAVD by a modified iterative method. The discordance between the EP-guided and the echo-optimized sAVD was recorded.

RESULTS

Seventy-one patients were enrolled: 12 with selective, 32 nonselective HB capture, and 27 LBB capture. Overall, the rate of concordance between the EP-guided and the echo-optimized sAVD was 71.8%, with no significant differences between the three groups.

CONCLUSION

In CSP patients, an optimal sAVD can be programmed, in more than 70% of cases, considering only simple EGM intervals to obtain a physiological PR interval on surface ECG.

The PhysioVP-AF study, a randomized controlled trial to assess the clinical benefit of physiological ventricular pacing vs. managed ventricular pacing for persistent atrial fibrillation prevention in patients with prolonged atrioventricular conduction: design and rationale

AIMS

In patients with prolonged atrioventricular (AV) conduction and pacemaker (PM) indication due to sinus node disease (SND) or intermittent AV-block who do not need continuous ventricular pacing (VP), it may be difficult to determine which strategy to adopt. Currently, the standard of care is to minimize unnecessary VP by specific VP avoidance (VPA) algorithms. The superiority of this strategy over standard DDD or DDD rate-responsive (DDD/DDDR) in improving clinical outcomes is controversial, probably owing to the prolongation of the atrialventricular conduction (PR interval) caused by the algorithms. Conduction system pacing (CSP) may offer the most physiological-VP approach, providing appropriate AV conduction and preventing pacing-induced dyssynchrony.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PhysioVP-AF is a prospective, controlled, randomized, single-blind trial designed to determine whether atrial-synchronized conduction system pacing (DDD-CSP) is superior to standard DDD-VPA pacing in terms of 3-year reduction of persistent-AF occurrence. Cardiovascular hospitalization, quality-of-life, and safety will be evaluated. Patients with indication for permanent DDD pacing for SND or intermittent AV-block and prolonged AV conduction (PR interval > 180 ms) will be randomized (1:1 ratio) to DDD-VPA (VPA-algorithms ON, septal/apex position) or to DDD-CSP (His bundle or left bundle branch area pacing, AV-delay setting to control PR interval, VPA-algorithms OFF). Approximately 400 patients will be randomized in 24 months in 13 Italian centres.

CONCLUSION

The PhysioVP-AF study will provide an essential contribution to patient management with prolonged AV conduction and PM indication for sinus nodal disease or paroxysmal 2nd-degree AV-block by determining whether CSP combined with a controlled PR interval is superior to standard management that minimizes unnecessary VP in terms of reducing clinical outcomes.

Conduction system pacing, a European survey: insights from clinical practice

AIMS

The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.

Biventricular or Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Strategy for Cardiac Resynchronization Based on a Hybrid Approach

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is usually performed with biventricular pacing (BiVP), but recently, conduction system pacing (CSP) has been proposed as an alternative in case of BiVP failure. The aim of this study is to define an algorithm to choose between BiVP and CSP resynchronization using the interventricular conduction delays (IVCD) as a guide.

METHODS

Consecutive patients from January 2018 to December 2020 with an indication for CRT were prospectively enrolled in the study group (delays-guided resynchronization group, DRG). A treatment algorithm based on IVCD was used to decide whether to leave the left ventricular (LV) lead to perform BiVP or pull it out and perform CSP. Outcomes from the DRG group were compared to a historical cohort of CRT patients who underwent CRT procedures between January 2016 and December 2017 (resynchronization standard guide group, SRG). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, or HF event at 1 year after the date of intervention.

RESULTS

The study population consisted of 292 patients, of which 160 (54.8%) were in the DRG and 132 (45.2%) in the SRG. In the DRG, 41 of 160 patients underwent CSP based on the treatment algorithm (25.6%). The primary endpoint was significantly higher in the SRG (48/132, 36.4%) compared to the DRG (35/160, 21.8%) (hazard ratio (HR): 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-2.65; p = 0.013).

CONCLUSIONS

A treatment algorithm based on IVCD shifted one patient out of every four from BiVP to CSP, with consequent reduction in the primary endpoint after implantation. Therefore, its application could be useful to determine whether to perform BiVP or CSP.

Bilateral septal pacing in combination with coronary venous pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Conventional right ventricular pacing combined with coronary venous pacing (CVP) is a mainstay for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, QRS duration of conventional CRT may be frequently more than 130 ms. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of QRS narrowing by bilateral septal pacing (BSP) in combination with CVP for CRT (BSP-CRT).

METHODS

Fourteen patients with QRS > 130 ms of conventional CRT after failure of physiological conduction system pacing were enrolled. Electrophysiologic characteristics were compared among different modes of CRT during procedure. BSP which was defined as capture of both sides of interventricular septum manifested as shortened R wave peak time without a right bundle branch block QRS pattern.

RESULTS

BSP-CRT were successfully achieved in 85.7% (12/14) patients. QRS duration at baseline was 185 ± 13 ms and significantly narrowed to 156 ± 9 ms during conventional CRT (n = 14, P < .001), to 143 ± 7 ms during left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) in combination with CVP for CRT (LVSP-CRT) (n = 9, P < .001), and further to 122 ± 10 ms during BSP-CRT (n = 12, P < .001). Notably, among 7 patients in whom both LVSP and BSP were achieved, BSP-CRT outperformed LVSP-CRT at QRS narrowing by 16% (P < .001). At 3-month follow-up, left ventricular ejection fraction improved from 29 ± 6% to 41 ± 8% (P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

BSP-CRT resulted in superior acute electrical synchronization to conventional CRT and might be considered as an alternative to conventional CRT with QRS more than 130 ms.

Bipolar anodal septal pacing with direct LBB capture preserves physiological ventricular activation better than unipolar left bundle branch pacing

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) produces delayed, unphysiological activation of the right ventricle. Using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG), we explored how bipolar anodal septal pacing with direct LBB capture (aLBBP) affects the resultant ventricular depolarization pattern.

Methods

In patients with bradycardia, His bundle pacing (HBP), unipolar nonselective LBBP (nsLBBP), aLBBP, and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) were performed. Timing of local ventricular activation, in leads V1-V8, was displayed using UHF-ECG, and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated as the difference between the first and last activation. Durations of local depolarizations were determined as the width of the UHF-QRS complex at 50% of its amplitude.

Results

aLBBP was feasible in 63 of 75 consecutive patients with successful nsLBBP. aLBBP significantly improved ventricular dyssynchrony (mean -9 ms; 95% CI (-12;-6) vs. -24 ms (-27;-21), ), p < 0.001) and shortened local depolarization durations in V1-V4 (mean differences -7 ms to -5 ms (-11;-1), p < 0.05) compared to nsLBBP. aLBBP resulted in e-DYS -9 ms (-12; -6) vs. e-DYS 10 ms (7;14), p < 0.001 during HBP. Local depolarization durations in V1-V2 during aLBBP were longer than HBP (differences 5-9 ms (1;14), p < 0.05, with local depolarization duration in V1 during aLBBP being the same as during RVSP (difference 2 ms (-2;6), p = 0.52).

Conclusion

Although aLBBP improved ventricular synchrony and depolarization duration of the septum and RV compared to unipolar nsLBBP, the resultant ventricular depolarization was still less physiological than during HBP.

His bundle pacing versus right ventricular pacing: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

Pacing is the most effective and dependable method for treating complete atrioventricular block (AVB).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of His bundle pacing (HBP) in patients with atrioventricular block.

METHODS

Patients who underwent HBP or right ventricular pacing (RVP) were enrolled and divided into two groups: the HBP group and the RVP group, respectively. We compared baseline clinical data, fluoroscopy duration, operation duration, pacing electrode parameters during the operation or follow-up, baseline QRS duration, and pacing QRS duration.

RESULTS

HBP was attempted in 48 patients and was successful in 34 patients who were included in the HBP group. In addition, 30 RVP patients were included in the RVP group. Fluoroscopy duration and operation duration were significantly longer in the HBP group compared to the RVP group. Compared to the RVP group, the HBP group had a higher pacing threshold, a lower R wave amplitude, and a shorter pacing QRS duration. At 6 months of follow-up, the pacing threshold remained higher, the R wave amplitude was significantly lower, and the end-diastolic diameter of the left ventricle was smaller in the HBP group.

CONCLUSION

HBP was safe and effective for atrioventricular block despite the longer fluoroscopy and operation duration in the HBP group when compared to the RVP group.

Conduction system pacing in pediatric and congenital heart disease

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has evolved rapidly to become the pacing method of choice for many adults with structurally normal hearts. Studies in this population have repeatedly demonstrated superior hemodynamics and outcomes compared to conventional pacing with the recruitment of the native conduction system. Children and patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) are also likely to benefit from CSP but were excluded from original trials. However, very recent studies have begun to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of CSP in these patients, with growing evidence that some outcomes may be superior in comparison to conventional pacing techniques. Concerns regarding the technical challenges and long-term lead parameters of His Bundle Pacing (HBP) have been overcome to many extents with the development of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP), and both techniques are likely to play an important role in pediatric and CHD pacing in the future. This review aims to assimilate the latest developments in CSP and its application in children and CHD patients.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation in treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures: A case report

In patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation refractory to optimal medical therapy, atrioventricular node ablation followed by permanent pacemaker implantation is an effective treatment option. A 66-year-old woman with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures was referred to our institution. After optimal drug therapy, the patient still had obvious symptoms. Sequential His-Purkinje conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation were performed. Left bundle branch pacing was used as a backup pacing method if thresholds of His bundle pacing were too high or loss of His bundle capture occurred in the follow-up. At the 6-month follow-up, the European Heart Rhythm Association classification for AF was improved, the score of the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life was enhanced, and the 6-Minute Walk Test was ameliorated. The present case was subjected to His-Purkinje conduction system pacing in combination with atrioventricular node ablation as treatment for a symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures, and this procedure alleviated symptoms and improved the quality of life in a short-term follow-up.

Low fluoroscopy permanent His bundle pacing using a new electroanatomic mapping system (KODEX EPD). A multicenter experience

Background

His bundle pacing (HBP) may be a challenging procedure, often involving a long fluoroscopic time (FT) and a long procedural time (PT). We sought to evaluate whether the use of a new nonfluroscopic mapping (NFM) system, the KODEX-EPD, is able to reduce FT and PT when mapping is performed by the pacing catheter rather than an electrophysiological mapping catheter.

Methods and Results

We included 46 consecutive patients (77 ± 8 years; 63% male) who underwent HBP; in 22 a NFM-guided procedure with the KODEX-EPD system was performed (group 1), whereas in 24 a conventional fluoroscopy-guided approach was used (group 2). Pacing indications were sick sinus syndrome in 13, atrioventricular block in 21, and cardiac resynchronization therapy in 12 cases. Both a lumen-less fixed helix lead and a stylet-driven extendable helix lead were used, respectively, in 24% and 76% of patients. HBP was successful in 22 patients (100%) in group 1 and 23 patients (96%) in group 2. The FT was significantly reduced in group 1 (183 ± 117 s vs 464.1 ± 352 s in group 2, p = .012). There were no significant differences between groups in PT and other procedural outcomes.

Conclusions

The KODEX-EPD system may be safely used in HBP procedures. It is effective in reducing ionizing radiation exposure, as evidenced by the significant drop in FT, without increasing PT.

His bundle combined with deep septal left bundle branch area pacing for atrial fibrillation prior to atrioventricular node ablation

Background

To mitigate the risk of dyssynchrony-induced cardiomyopathy, international guidelines advocate His bundle pacing (HBP) with a ventricular backup lead prior to atrioventricular node ablation in treatment-refractory atrial fibrillation and normal left ventricular ejection fraction. As a result of concerns with long-term pacing parameters associated with HBP, this case series reports an adopted strategy of HBP combined with deep septal left bundle branch area pacing (dsLBBAP) in this patient cohort, enabling intrapatient comparison of the two pacing methods.

Methods and Results

Eight patients aged 72 ± 10 years (left ventricular ejection fraction 53 ± 4%) underwent successful combined HBP and dsLBBAP implant prior to AV node ablation. Intrinsic QRS duration was 118 ± 46 ms. When compared to dsLBBAP, HBP had lower sensed ventricular amplitude (2.4 ± 1.1 vs. 15 ± 5.3 V, p = .001) and lower lead impedance (522 ± 57 vs. 814 ± 171ohms, p = .02), but shorter paced QRS duration (101 ± 20 vs. 119 ± 17 ms, p = .02). HBP pacing threshold was 1.0 ± 0.6 V at 1 ms pulse width, and dsLBBAP pacing threshold was 0.5 ± 0.2 V at 0.4 ms pulse width. Five patients underwent cardiac CT showing adequate dsLBBAP ventricular septal penetration (8.6 ± 1.3 mm depth, 2.4 ± 0.5 mm distance from left ventricular septal wall). No complications occurred during a mean follow-up duration of 121 ± 92 days.

Conclusions

Combined HBP and dsLBBAP pacing is a feasible approach as a pace and ablate strategy for atrial fibrillation refractory to medical therapy.

Conduction System Pacing Today and Tomorrow

Conduction system pacing (CSP) encompassing His bundle (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is gaining increasing attention in the electrophysiology community. These relatively novel physiological pacing modalities have the potential to outperform conventional pacing approaches with respect to clinical endpoints, although data are currently still limited. While HBP represents the most physiological form of cardiac stimulation, success rates, bundle branch correction, and electrical lead performance over time remain a concern. LBBAP systems may overcome these limitations. In this review article, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence, implantation technique, device programming, and follow-up considerations concerning CSP systems. Moreover, we discuss ongoing technical developments and future perspectives of CSP.

Advances of Implantation Techniques for Conduction System Pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle and left bundle branch pacing are physiological pacing modalities, but lead deployment is often difficult mainly due to a lack of anatomical landmark for lead tip location. Several implantation techniques for CSP implantation have been developed including 3-dimensional electroanatomical mapping, placing a second lead as a reference (dual-lead method technique), and using fluoroscopic imaging (9-partition and visualization techniques). In this review, the authors summarize the implantation techniques for CSP and compare the different methods.

Conduction System Pacing Versus Conventional Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Congenital Heart Disease

BACKGROUND

Dyssynchrony-associated left ventricular systolic dysfunction is a major contributor to heart failure in congenital heart disease (CHD). Although conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has shown benefit, the comparative efficacy of cardiac conduction system pacing (CSP) is unknown.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the clinical outcomes of CSP vs conventional CRT in CHD with biventricular, systemic left ventricular anatomy.

METHODS

Retrospective CSP data from 7 centers were compared with propensity score-matched conventional CRT control subjects. Outcomes were lead performance, change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and QRS duration at 12 months.

RESULTS

A total of 65 CSP cases were identified (mean age 37 ± 21 years, 46% men). The most common CHDs were tetralogy of Fallot (n = 12 [19%]) and ventricular septal defect (n = 12 [19%]). CSP was achieved after a mean of 2.5 ± 1.6 attempts per procedure (38 patients with left bundle branch pacing, 17 with HBP, 10 with left ventricular septal myocardial). Left bundle branch area pacing [LBBAP] vs HBP was associated with a smaller increase in pacing threshold (Δ pacing threshold 0.2 V vs 0.8 V; P = 0.05) and similar sensing parameters at follow-up. For 25 CSP cases and control subjects with baseline left ventricular systolic dysfunction, improvement in LVEF was non-inferior (Δ LVEF 9.0% vs 6.0%; P = 0.3; 95% confidence limits: -2.9% to 10.0%) and narrowing of QRS duration was more pronounced for CSP (Δ QRS duration 35 ms vs 14 ms; P = 0.04). Complications were similar (3 [12%] CSP, 4 [16%] conventional CRT; P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

CSP can be reliably achieved in biventricular, systemic left ventricular CHD patients with similar improvement in LVEF and greater QRS narrowing for CSP vs conventional CRT at 1 year. Among CSP patients, pacing electrical parameters were superior for LBBAP vs HBP.

Three-Dimensional Electro-Anatomical Mapping and Myocardial Work Performance during Spontaneous Rhythm, His Bundle Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing: The EMPATHY Study

Background. His bundle pacing (HBP) has emerged as an alternative site to right ventricular pacing (RVP) with encouraging outcomes. To date, no study has investigated the systematic approach of three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (3D-EAM) to guide HBP implantation and to evaluate myocardial activation timing. Furthermore, studies reporting a comprehensive assessment of the ventricular function, using myocardial work (MW) evaluation are lacking. Objectives. (1) To evaluate the systematic use of the 3D-EAM as a guide to HBP; (2) to assess the electrical and mechanical activations with high-density mapping, comparing spontaneous ventricular activation (SVA), HBP and RVP; (3) to assess the myocardial function through speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) and MW analysis in SVA, HBP and RVP. Methods. 3D-EAM was performed in consecutive patients undergoing HBP implantation with a low use of fluoroscopy. All patients were systematically evaluated with high-density mapping, MW and STE. Results. Fifteen patients were enrolled, of whom three had an implant failure (20%). RV activation time was not statistically different between SVA and HBP (103 vs. 104 ms, p = 0.969) but was significantly higher in RVP (133 ms, p = 0.011 vs. SVA and p = 0.001 vs HBP). Global constructive work was significantly lower during RVP (1191 mmHg%) than during SVA and HBP (1648 and 1505 mmHg%, p = 0.011 and p = 0.008, respectively) and did not differ between SVA and HBP (p = 0.075). Conclusions. 3D-EAM and MW evaluation showed that HBP was comparable to the physiological SVA in terms of activation time and cardiac performance. Compared to both SVA and HBP, RVP was associated with a worse activation timing and ventricular efficiency.

Clinical Outcomes in Conduction System Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing in Bradycardia

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) provides more physiological ventricular activation than right ventricular pacing (RVP).

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes in patients receiving CSP and RVP.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia from 2016 to 2021 in 2 centers were prospectively followed for the primary composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, upgrade to biventricular pacing, or all-cause mortality, stratified by ventricular pacing burden (Vp) .

RESULTS

Among 860 patients (mean age 74 ± 11 years, 48% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 628 received RVP and 231 received CSP (95 His-bundle pacing, 136 left bundle branch pacing). The primary outcome occurred in 217 (25%) patients, more commonly in patients with RVP than CSP (30% vs 13%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, CSP was independently associated with 47% reduction of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.29-0.97; P = 0.04) and HF hospitalization alone (AHR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.95; P = 0.04), among only patients with Vp >20%. The incidence of the primary outcome was highest among RVP with Vp >20% and lowest in CSP with Vp >20% (35% vs 10%, P < 0.001). Compared with RVP with Vp >20%, both CSP with Vp >20% (AHR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91; P = 0.02) and all patients with Vp ≤20% (AHR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.54-0.99; P = 0.04) were independently associated with reduced primary outcome, driven primarily by reductions in HF hospitalizations (P < 0.05). Event-free survival was similar between CSP with Vp >20% and those needing ≤20% Vp.

CONCLUSIONS

CSP significantly reduced adverse clinical outcomes for bradycardic patients requiring ventricular pacing and should be the preferred pacing modality of choice.

Hemodynamic Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of permanent His bundle and biventricular pacing after AV nodal ablation

placing after atrioventricular (AV) nodal ablation for permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) may include cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with either His bundle pacing (HBP) or biventricular pacing (BVP), or conventional single site right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP). To determine the relationship between pacing method and hemodynamic outcome, we used Doppler echocardiographic methods to evaluate left ventricular (LV) hemodynamics after AV nodal ablation and either HBP, BVP, or RVAP.

Method

20 patients were evaluated > 6 months after AV nodal ablation, 10 each with chronic HBP or BVP, and all with RVAP lead. Doppler echocardiography was used to measure 3 parameters indicative of CRT: 1) LV dP/dt, 2) the LV pre-ejection interval, and 3) myocardial performance index, relative to intra-patient RVAP.

Results

Primary endpoint of LV dP/dt on average improved by > 17% with both HBP and BVP, compared to RVAP. HBP but not BVP, had improvement across all three parameters.

Conclusion

HBP provides LV electromechanical synchrony across multiple echo Doppler parameters. Both HBP and BVP were hemodynamically superior to RVAP following AV nodal ablation.

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.

Alternative pacing strategies for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) improves morbidity, mortality, and quality of life, especially in subsets of patients with impaired cardiac function and wide QRS. However, the rate of unsuccessful or complicated left ventricular (LV) lead placement through coronary sinus is 5–7%, and the rate of “CRT non-response” is approximately 30%. These reasons have pushed physicians and engineers to collaborate to overcome the challenges of LV lead implantation. Thus, various alternatives to BVP have been proposed to improve CRT effectiveness. His bundle pacing (HBP) has been increasingly used by activating the His–Purkinje system but is constrained by challenging implantation, low success rates, high and often unstable thresholds, and low perception. Therefore, the concept of pacing a specialized conduction system distal to the His bundle to bypass the block region was proposed. Multiple clinical studies have demonstrated that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has comparable electrical resynchronization with HBP but is superior in terms of simpler operation, higher success rates, lower and stable capture thresholds, and higher perception. Despite their well-demonstrated effectiveness, the transvenous lead-related complications remain major limitations. Recently, leadless LV pacing has been developed and demonstrated effective for these challenging patient cohorts. This article focuses on the current state and latest progress in HBP, LBBAP, and leadless LV pacing as alternatives for failed or non-responsive conventional CRT as well as their limits and prospects.