Permanent His-bundle pacing using stylet-directed, active-fixation leads placed via coronary sinus sheaths compared to conventional lumen-less system

Stylet-driven leads compared with lumenless leads for left bundle branch area pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing method for treating left ventricular dyssynchrony. LBBAP is often delivered using lumenless leads (LLL). However, recent studies have also reported the use of style-driven leads (SDL). This study is the first systematic review comparing the outcomes of LBBAP with SDL vs. LLL.

METHODS

The review and meta-analysis included all available comparative studies published on Embase, PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Scopus up to 6th March 2024.

RESULTS

Eight observational studies were included in the review. Meta-analysis showed that success rates of LBBAP performed with LLL and SDL were comparable (OR: 1.72 95% CI: 0.94, 3.17 I2 = 38%). Duration of implantation and total procedural duration were significantly lower in LBBAP performed with SDL. The pacing threshold was significantly higher, while pacing impedance was significantly lower in the SDL compared to the LLL group. Pacing QRS interval, R-wave amplitude, and stimulus to peak left ventricular activation time were similar in the two groups. Intra-operative and post-operative dislodgement were significantly higher in the SDL group, but no difference was noted in intra-operative perforation and pneumothorax risk.

CONCLUSION

Limited evidence from observational studies with inherent selection bias shows that success rates for LBBAP may not differ between SDL and LLL. While implantation of SDL may be significantly faster, it carries a higher risk of lead dislodgement. Both SDL and LLL are associated with comparable pacing characteristics except for reduced pacing impedance with SDL.

Stylet-driven Leads or Lumenless Leads for Conduction System Pacing

Stylet-driven leads have been recently introduced for conduction system pacing, while most of the previous experience has been obtained with lumenless leads. Design and structural characteristics of both lead types are significantly different, resulting in different implant techniques and independent learning curves. Lead performance appears to be comparable, whereas data on direct comparison of clinical outcomes are scarce. Currently, there are no specific clinical scenarios favouring the use of one lead type over another and the decision should rely on the individual experience of the implanter.

Observational study of left bundle branch area pacing: implantation of the solia S lead using the selectra 3D sheath at an inclined angle

BACKGROUND

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBaP) is a cardiac pacing technique designed to mimic the natural conduction system of the heart. Traditional right ventricular apical pacing has been associated with increased risks of heart failure and atrial fibrillation. This study investigates the stability and safety of LBBaP using the Selectra 3D sheath (Biotronik) with an inclined angle for implanting the Solia S lead (Biotronik, SE & Co, KG).

METHODS

A single-center retrospective study was conducted on 25 patients who underwent LBBaP implantation using the Selectra 3D sheath at our hospital. The procedure involved inserting the Solia S lead into the interventricular septum at an inclined angle. Surgical and postoperative data were collected, including the success rate, depth and angle of electrode insertion, complications, and follow-up data.

RESULTS

The success rate of LBBaP implantation was 92%. The length of electrode insertion into the interventricular septum ranged from 12 to 23.0 mm, with an average of 18.1 ± 3.08 mm. The angle formed between the electrode and the septum ranged from 0° to 57.3°, with an average of 35.14°±14.31°. During the 3-month follow-up period, pacing parameters remained stable, and no complications were reported.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBaP implantation using the Selectra 3D sheath with an inclined angle for the Solia S implantation demonstrates stability and safety. The procedure boasts a high success rate and offers an effective option for LBBaP implantation.

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.

Utility of a guiding catheter for conduction system pacing: An early multicenter experience

Background

Conduction system pacing (CSP), either as His bundle pacing (HBP) or as left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), may be superior to right ventricular apical or septal pacing.

Objective

The study sought to present acute results for a new guiding catheter (Biotronik Selectra 3D) designed for CSP implantations of a retractable screw-in lead (Biotronik Solia S).

Methods

The primary endpoint of the prospective, international nonrandomized BIO|MASTER.Selectra 3D study was freedom from catheter-related serious adverse device effects (SADEs) within 1 week of lead implantation.

Results

Of 157 enrolled patients, CSP was achieved in 147 (93.6%) patients. No SADEs occurred within 7 days. LBBAP was achieved in 82 patients (45 as crossover from an HBP attempt) and HBP in 65 (44.2%) patients. In centers considering both HBP and LBBAP, the CSP implantation success approached 99%. Successful CSP implantations lasted on average ∼50 minutes (fluoroscopy ∼6 minutes). Most procedures (87.9%) needed only 1 catheter, even after switch from HBP to LBBAP. The catheter's handling was rated largely positive. In patients without bundle branch block, mean QRS duration increased from 106 ms (intrinsic) to 122 ms (CSP) (P = .001). In patients with bundle branch block, mean QRS duration decreased from 151 ms (intrinsic) to 137 ms (CSP) (P = .004).

Conclusion

The Selectra 3D catheter is a valuable tool for HBP and LBBAP implantations of the stylet-supported pacemaker leads. When implanters considered both HBP and LBBAP, the success rate was ∼99%. Flexibility to change between different approaches may be advisable in heterogeneous and challenging areas, such as CSP implantations.

The Zwolle experience with left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven active fixation leads

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing modality and is regarded as a viable alternative to His bundle pacing. LBBAP has mostly been performed with the lumen-less permanent pacing lead (SelectSecure™ Model 3830, Medtronic, Inc.) with a fixed helix. The aim of this study was to compare the non-stylet driven lumen-less lead (LLL) (Medtronic 3830) with a standard stylet-driven active fixation lead (SDL) (Tendril™ STS Model 2088TC-38, Abbott Laboratories) in terms of lead parameters, procedural success and complication rates.

METHODS

Patients receiving a LBBA pacemaker in the Isala Hospital, The Netherlands, were prospectively enrolled. The majority received a standard right ventricular (RV) lead as backup, the implanter chose between LLL and SDL for the LBBAP lead.

RESULTS

The study included 94 patients with a mean follow-up of 30 weeks. 30/31 LLL procedures were successful, compared with 62/63 in the SDL group. Including the participants that lost LBBAP during follow-up resulted in success rates of 90.3% for LLL versus 96.8% for SDL, P = 0.199. Mean number of deployments was significantly lower in the SDL group compared with the LLL group (2 ± 2.3 versus 4 ± 3.4, P = 0.005), implantation and procedural times were comparable. Pacing thresholds were low and remained low in both groups (at last follow-up 0.8 ± 0.30 V for LLL versus 0.6 ± 0.20 V for SDL). Complication rates did not differ significantly between both groups, P = 0.805.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP using SDL is feasible and has comparable success rates with lower number of deployments of the active fixation screw.

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.

Physiologic Pacing Targeting the His Bundle and Left Bundle Branch: a Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a means to preserve or restore physiological ventricular activation via pacing at the His bundle or at more distal targets in the conduction system, including the left bundle branch area. This review examines strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of CSP performed via these approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

His bundle pacing (HBP) has been successfully utilized for standard bradyarrhythmia indications and for QRS correction among patients receiving devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Limitations of HBP pacing have included implant complexity and rising pacing thresholds over time. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) appears to deliver similar physiological benefits with shorter implant times and more stable thresholds. More recently, hybrid systems utilizing HBP or LBBAP in combination with left ventricular leads have been used to treat heart failure (HF) patients, and may be useful in multilevel or mixed conduction blocks. There is growing interest in CSP for bradycardia and HF indications, although high quality data with randomized controlled trials are needed to help guide future treatment paradigms.

Preliminary experience of permanent left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-directed pacing lead without delivery sheath

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) aims to capture the cardiac conduction system in area of the left bundle branch. Currently, LBBAP is mainly performed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with pre-shaped sheath. However, the data on LBBAP with stylet-driven leads (SDLs) without sheath is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study presents the feasibility, safety, and pacing characteristics of LBBAP using stylet-driven leads (SDLs) without the support of sheath.

METHODS

A total of 25 patients with bradycardia indications who received LBBAP implantation with an attempt of SDL (FINELINE II 4471 lead, Boston Scientific, MA, US) between August 2020 and April 2021 at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital were included in this retrospective cohort study. Twenty of them finally were paced with SDL in priority (SDL-LBBAP group). Twenty propensity score matching patients who underwent LBBAP with LLL (Select Secure 3830 lead, Medtronic, MN, US) and 20 right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) with regular active fixation lead respectively in the same period (the LLL-LBBAP group and RVSP group) were compared using ECG characteristics, pacing parameters and complications during 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successful with SDL in 23 of 25 patients (92%) and 20 of them were paced with SDL first. In the SDL-LBBAP group, the average age was 70.4 ± 8.2 years, and 55% of patients were male. Paced QRS duration and the stimulus to peak left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) in SDL-LBBAP group were similar with those in LLL-LBBAP group and significantly shorter than those in RVSP group (126.1±14.1ms vs 124.8±10.9ms, P = 1.00; 77.7±11.2ms vs 73.5±9.3ms, P = 0.75; 126.1±14.1ms vs 147.7±22.5ms, P<0.001; 77.7±11.2ms vs 97.0±13.2ms, P<0.001). The pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude of SDL-LBBAP group were 0.53±0.18V and 11.53±3.63mV at baseline respectively, which were comparable with the other two groups. During the 6-month follow-up, the pacing parameters remained stable and no lead-related complication was recorded.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible and safe to use stylet-directed pacing lead for permanent LBBAP without a delivery sheath. Similar to LLL, LBBAP using SDL showed stable parameters and narrower paced QRS duration compared with RVSP, which could be an alternative to LLL in LBBAP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Sincronia Ventricular na Estimulação Cardíaca Parahissiana: Alternativa por Ativação Cardíaca Fisiológica (Estimulação Indireta do Feixe de His)?

Fundamento

A estimulação cardíaca artificial (ECA) por captura direta ou indireta do feixe de His resulta em contração ventricular sincrônica (ECA fisiológica).

Objetivos

Comparar sincronia cardíaca, características técnicas e resultados de parâmetros eletrônicos entre duas técnicas de ECA indireta do feixe de His: a não seletiva e a parahissiana.

Métodos

Intervenção experimental (novembro de 2019 a abril de 2020) com implante de marca-passo definitivo (MPd) DDD em pacientes com fração de ejeção ventricular esquerda > 35%. Foram comparadas a sincronia cardíaca resultante mediante algoritmo de análise eletrocardiográfica da variância espacial do QRS e as características técnicas associadas a cada método entre ECA hissiana não seletiva (DDD-His) e parahissiana (DDD-Var).

Resultados

De 51 pacientes (28 homens), 34 (66,7%) foram alocados no grupo DDD-Var e 17 (33,3%), no grupo DDD-His, com idade média de 74 e 79 anos, respectivamente. No grupo DDD-Var, a análise da variância espacial do QRS (índice de sincronia ventricular) mostrou melhora após o implante de MPd (p < 0,001). Ao ECG pós-implante, 91,2% dos pacientes do grupo DDD-Var mostraram padrão fisiológico de ECA, comprovando ativação similar à do DDD-His (88,2%; p = 0,999). O eixo do QRS estimulado também foi similar (fisiológico) para ambos os grupos. A mediana do tempo de fluoroscopia do implante foi de 7 minutos no grupo DDD-Var e de 21 minutos no DDD-His (p < 0,001), favorecendo a técnica parahissiana. A duração média do QRS aumentou nos pacientes do DDD-Var (114,7 ms pré-MPd e 128,2 ms pós-implante, p = 0,044). A detecção da onda R foi de 11,2 mV no grupo DDD-Var e de 6,0 mV no DDD-His (p = 0,001).

Conclusão

A ECA parahissiana comprova recrutamento indireto do feixe de His, mostrando-se uma estratégia eficaz e comparável à ECA fisiológica ao resultar em contração ventricular sincrônica similar à obtida por captura hissiana não seletiva.

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-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing: State of the Art in 2020

Conduction system pacing involves directly stimulating the specialised His-Purkinje cardiac conduction system with the aim of activating the ventricles physiologically, in contrast to the dyssynchronous activation produced by conventional myocardial pacing. Since the first report of permanent His bundle pacing (HBP) in 2000, the stylet-driven technique of its earliest incarnation has been superseded by a more successful stylet-less approach. Widespread uptake has led to a much greater evidence base. Single-centre observational studies have now been supported by large multicentre, international registries, mechanistic studies and the first randomised controlled trials. New evidence has elucidated mechanisms of HBP and illustrated the nature and magnitude of its potential benefits for preventing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and correcting bundle branch block. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a newer technique in which the lead is fixed deep into the left side of the intraventricular septum to allow capture of the left bundle, distal to the His bundle. LBBP holds promise as a method for physiological pacing that overcomes some of the fixation, threshold and sensing challenges of HBP. In this state-of-the-art review of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing, the authors assess recent evidence and current practice and explore emerging and future directions in this rapidly evolving field.