Both selective and nonselective His bundle, but not myocardial, pacing preserve ventricular electrical synchrony assessed by ultra-high-frequency ECG

LVSP and LBBP Result in Similar or Improved LV Synchrony and Hemodynamics Compared to BVP

BACKGROUND

The effect of left ventricular septal myocardial pacing (LVSP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) on ventricular synchrony and left ventricular (LV) hemodynamic status is poorly understood.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of LVSP and LBBP vs biventricular pacing (BVP) on ventricular electrical synchrony and hemodynamic status in cardiac resynchronization therapy patients.

METHODS

In cardiac resynchronization therapy candidates with LV conduction disease, ventricular synchrony was assessed by measuring QRS duration (QRSd) and using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography. LV electrical dyssynchrony was assessed as the difference between the first activation in leads V1 to V8 to the last from leads V4 to V8. LV hemodynamic status was estimated using invasive systolic blood pressure measurement during multiple transitions between LBBP, LVSP, and BVP.

RESULTS

A total of 35 patients with a mean LV ejection fraction of 29% and a mean QRSd of 168 ± 24 ms were included. Thirteen had ischemic cardiomyopathy. QRSd during BVP, LVSP, and LBBP was the same, but LBBP provided shorter LV electrical dyssynchrony than BVP (-10 ms; 95% CI: -16 to -4 ms; P = 0.001); the difference between LVSP and BVP was not significant (-5 ms; 95% CI: -12 to 1 ms; P = 0.10). LBBP was associated with higher systolic blood pressure than BVP (4%; 95% CI: 2% to 5%; P < 0.001), whereas LVSP was not (1%; 95% CI: 0% to 2%; P = 0.10). Hemodynamic differences during LBBP and LVSP vs BVP were more pronounced in nonischemic than ischemic patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography allowed the documentation of differences in LV synchrony between LBBP, LVSP, and BVP, which were not observed by measuring QRSd. LVSP provided the same LV synchrony and hemodynamic status as BVP, while LBBP was better than BVP in both.

Ultra-high-frequency ECG volumetric and negative derivative epicardial ventricular electrical activation pattern

From precordial ECG leads, the conventional determination of the negative derivative of the QRS complex (ND-ECG) assesses epicardial activation. Recently we showed that ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG) determines the activation of a larger volume of the ventricular wall. We aimed to combine these two methods to investigate the potential of volumetric and epicardial ventricular activation assessment and thereby determine the transmural activation sequence. We retrospectively analyzed 390 ECG records divided into three groups-healthy subjects with normal ECG, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and right bundle branch block (RBBB) patients. Then we created UHF-ECG and ND-ECG-derived depolarization maps and computed interventricular electrical dyssynchrony. Characteristic spatio-temporal differences were found between the volumetric UHF-ECG activation patterns and epicardial ND-ECG in the Normal, LBBB, and RBBB groups, despite the overall high correlations between both methods. Interventricular electrical dyssynchrony values assessed by the ND-ECG were consistently larger than values computed by the UHF-ECG method. Noninvasively obtained UHF-ECG and ND-ECG analyses describe different ventricular dyssynchrony and the general course of ventricular depolarization. Combining both methods based on standard 12-lead ECG electrode positions allows for a more detailed analysis of volumetric and epicardial ventricular electrical activation, including the assessment of the depolarization wave direction propagation in ventricles.

Cardiac Conduction System Pacing: A Comprehensive Update

The field of cardiac pacing has changed rapidly in the last several years. Since the initial description of His bundle pacing targeting the conduction system, recent advances in pacing the left bundle branch and its fascicles have evolved. The field and investigators' knowledge of conduction system pacing including relevant anatomy and physiology has advanced significantly. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on recent advances in conduction system pacing.

Left bundle branch area pacing results in more physiological ventricular activation than biventricular pacing in patients with left bundle branch block heart failure

Biventricular pacing (Biv) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are methods of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Currently, little is known about how they differ in terms of ventricular activation. This study compared ventricular activation patterns in left bundle branch block (LBBB) heart failure patients using an ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG). This was a retrospective analysis including 80 CRT patients from two centres. UHF-ECG data were obtained during LBBB, LBBAP, and Biv. Left bundle branch area pacing patients were divided into non-selective left bundle branch pacing (NSLBBP) or left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) and into groups with V6 R-wave peak times (V6RWPT) < 90 ms and ≥ 90 ms. Calculated parameters were: e-DYS (time difference between the first and last activation in V1-V8 leads) and Vdmean (average of V1-V8 local depolarization durations). In LBBB patients (n = 80) indicated for CRT, spontaneous rhythms were compared with Biv (39) and LBBAP rhythms (64). Although both Biv and LBBAP significantly reduced QRS duration (QRSd) compared with LBBB (from 172 to 148 and 152 ms, respectively, both P < 0.001), the difference between them was not significant (P = 0.2). Left bundle branch area pacing led to shorter e-DYS (24 ms) than Biv (33 ms; P = 0.008) and shorter Vdmean (53 vs. 59 ms; P = 0.003). No differences in QRSd, e-DYS, or Vdmean were found between NSLBBP, LVSP, and LBBAP with paced V6RWPTs < 90 and ≥ 90 ms. Both Biv CRT and LBBAP significantly reduce ventricular dyssynchrony in CRT patients with LBBB. Left bundle branch area pacing is associated with more physiological ventricular activation.

Conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: State of the art, current controversies, and future perspectives

Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the established treatment to perform cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, BVP is an unnatural pacing modality still conditioned by the high percentage of non-responders and coronary sinus anatomy. Conduction system pacing (CSP)-His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)- upcomes as the physiological alternative to BVP in the quest for the optimal CRT. CSP showed promising results in terms of better electro-mechanical ventricular synchronization compared to BVP. However, only a few randomized control trials are currently available, and technical challenges, along with the lack of information on long-term clinical outcomes, limit the establishment of a primary role for CSP over conventional BVP in CRT candidates. This review provides a comprehensive literature revision of potential applications of CSP for CRT in diverse clinical scenarios, underlining the current controversies and prospects of this technique.

Recruitment of the cardiac conduction system for optimal resynchronization therapy in failing heart

Heart failure (HF) is a leading health burden around the world. Although pharmacological development has dramatically advanced medication therapy in the field, hemodynamic disorders or mechanical desynchrony deteriorated by intra or interventricular conduction abnormalities remains a critical target beyond the scope of pharmacotherapy. In the past 2 decades, nonpharmacologic treatment for heart failure, such as cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP), has been playing an important role in improving the prognosis of heart failure. However, the response rate of BVP-CRT is variable, leaving one-third of patients not benefiting from the therapy as expected. Considering the non-physiological activation pattern of BVP-CRT, more efforts have been made to optimize resynchronization. The most extensively investigated approach is by stimulating the native conduction system, e.g., His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (CSP), including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). These emerging CRT approaches provide an alternative to traditional BVP-CRT, with multiple proof-of-concept studies indicating the safety and efficacy of its utilization in dyssynchronous heart failure. In this review, we summarize the mechanisms of dyssynchronous HF mediated by conduction disturbance, the rationale and acute effect of CSP for CRT, the recent advancement in clinical research, and possible future directions of CSP.

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing left bundle branch pacing, his bundle branch pacing, and right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

Although right ventricular pacing (RVP) is recommended by most of the guidelines for atrioventricular block, it can cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony, impair left ventricular function, and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Recently, the His-Purkinje system pacing, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), has emerged as a physiological pacing modality. However, few studies have compared their efficacy and safety in atrioventricular block (AVB).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for observational studies and randomized trials of patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing, from database inception until 10 January 2022. The primary outcomes were complications and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing parameters, procedure duration, and success rate. After extracting the data at baseline and the longest follow-up duration available, a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, whereas mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs or 95% CrIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Seven studies and 1,069 patients were included. Overall, 43.4% underwent LBBP, 33.5% HBP, and 23.1% RVP. Compared with RVP, LBBP and HBP were associated with a shorter paced QRS duration and a more preserved LVEF. HBP significantly increased the pacing threshold and reduced the R-wave amplitude. There was no difference in the risk of complications or the implant success rate. The pacing threshold remained stable during follow-up for the three pacing modalities. The pacing impedance was significantly reduced in HBP, while a numerical but non-significant pacing impedance decrease was observed in both LBBP and RVP. LBBP was associated with an increased R-wave amplitude during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in paced QRS duration and preservation of LVEF for patients with atrioventricular block. LBBP was associated with a lower pacing threshold and a greater R-wave amplitude than HBP. However, the stability of the pacing output of LBBP may be a concern. Further investigation of the long-term efficacy in left ventricular function and the risk of heart failure hospitalization is needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315046], identifier [CRD42022315046].

Ventricular Dyssynchrony and Pacing-induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with Pacemakers, the Utility of Ultra-high-frequency ECG and Other Dyssynchrony Assessment Tools

The majority of patients tolerate right ventricular pacing well; however, some patients manifest signs of heart failure after pacemaker implantation and develop pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This is a consequence of non-physiological ventricular activation bypassing the conduction system. Ventricular dyssynchrony was identified as one of the main factors responsible for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy development. Currently, methods that would allow rapid and reliable ventricular dyssynchrony assessment, ideally during the implant procedure, are lacking. Paced QRS duration is an imperfect marker of dyssynchrony, and methods based on body surface mapping, electrocardiographic imaging or echocardiography are laborious and time-consuming, and can be difficult to use during the implantation procedure. However, the ventricular activation sequence can be readily displayed from the chest leads using an ultra-high-frequency ECG. It can be performed during the implantation procedure to visualise ventricular depolarisation and resultant ventricular dyssynchrony during pacing. This information can assist the electrophysiologist in selecting a pacing location that avoids dyssynchronous ventricular activation.

Physiology and Practicality of Left Ventricular Septal Pacing

Left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) have been introduced to maintain or correct interventricular and intraventricular (dys)synchrony. LVSP is hypothesised to produce a fairly physiological sequence of activation, since in the left ventricle (LV) the working myocardium is activated first at the LV endocardium in the low septal and anterior free-wall regions. Animal studies as well as patient studies have demonstrated that LV function is maintained during LVSP at levels comparable to sinus rhythm with normal conduction. Left ventricular activation is more synchronous during LBBP than LVSP, but LBBP produces a higher level of intraventricular dyssynchrony compared to LVSP. While LVSP is fairly straightforward to perform, targeting the left bundle branch area may be more challenging. Long-term effects of LVSP and LBBP are yet to be determined. This review focuses on the physiology and practicality of LVSP and provides a guide for permanent LVSP implantation.

Left ventricular activation time and pattern are preserved with both selective and nonselective His bundle pacing

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) can be achieved in 2 ways: selective HBP (S-HBP), where the His bundle is captured alone, and nonselective HBP (NS-HBP), where local myocardium is also captured, resulting a pre-excited electrocardiogram appearance.

OBJECTIVE

We assessed the impact of this ventricular pre-excitation on left and right ventricular dyssynchrony.

METHODS

We recruited patients who displayed both S-HBP and NS-HBP. We performed noninvasive epicardial electrical mapping for left and right ventricular activation time (LVAT and RVAT) and pattern.

RESULTS

Twenty patients were recruited. In the primary analysis, the mean within-patient change in LVAT from S-HBP to NS-HBP was -5.5 ms (95% confidence interval: -0.6 to -10.4, noninferiority P < .0001). NS-HBP did not prolong RVAT (4.3 ms, -4.0 to 12.8, P = .296) but did prolong QRS duration (QRSd, 22.1 ms, 11.8 to 32.4, P = .0003). In patients with narrow intrinsic QRS (n = 6), NS-HBP preserved LVAT (-2.9 ms, -9.7 to 4.0, P = .331) but prolonged QRS duration (31.4 ms, 22.0 to 40.7, P = .0003) and mean RVAT (16.8 ms, -5.3 to 38.9, P = .108) compared to S-HBP. Activation pattern of the left ventricular surface was unchanged between S-HBP and NS-HBP, but NS-HBP produced early basal right ventricular activation that was not seen in S-HBP.

CONCLUSION

Compared to S-HBP, local myocardial capture during NS-HBP produces pre-excitation of the basal right ventricle resulting in QRS duration prolongation. However, NS-HBP preserves the left ventricular activation time and pattern of S-HBP. Left ventricular dyssynchrony is not an important factor when choosing between S-HBP and NS-HBP in most patients.

3-Dimensional ventricular electrical activation pattern assessed from a novel high-frequency electrocardiographic imaging technique: principles and clinical importance

The study introduces and validates a novel high-frequency (100–400 Hz bandwidth, 2 kHz sampling frequency) electrocardiographic imaging (HFECGI) technique that measures intramural ventricular electrical activation. Ex-vivo experiments and clinical measurements were employed. Ex-vivo, two pig hearts were suspended in a human-torso shaped tank using surface tank electrodes, epicardial electrode sock, and plunge electrodes. We compared conventional epicardial electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) with intramural activation by HFECGI and verified with sock and plunge electrodes. Clinical importance of HFECGI measurements was performed on 14 patients with variable conduction abnormalities. From 3 × 4 needle and 108 sock electrodes, 256 torso or 184 body surface electrodes records, transmural activation times, sock epicardial activation times, ECGI-derived activation times, and high-frequency activation times were computed. The ex-vivo transmural measurements showed that HFECGI measures intramural electrical activation, and ECGI-HFECGI activation times differences indicate endo-to-epi or epi-to-endo conduction direction. HFECGI-derived volumetric dyssynchrony was significantly lower than epicardial ECGI dyssynchrony. HFECGI dyssynchrony was able to distinguish between intraventricular conduction disturbance and bundle branch block patients.

Left bundle branch pacing compared to left ventricular septal myocardial pacing increases interventricular dyssynchrony but accelerates left ventricular lateral wall depolarization

BACKGROUND

Nonselective His-bundle pacing (nsHBp), nonselective left bundle branch pacing (nsLBBp), and left ventricular septal myocardial pacing (LVSP) are recognized as physiological pacing techniques.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare differences in ventricular depolarization between these techniques using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG).

METHODS

In patients with bradycardia, nsHBp, nsLBBp (confirmed concomitant left bundle branch [LBB] and myocardial capture), and LVSP (pacing in left ventricular [LV] septal position without proven LBB capture) were performed. Timings of ventricular activations in precordial leads were displayed using UHF-ECG, and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated as the difference between the first and last activation. Duration of local depolarization (Vd) was determined as width of the UHF-QRS complex at 50% of its amplitude.

RESULTS

In 68 patients, data were collected during nsLBBp (35), LVSP (96), and nsHBp (55). nsLBBp resulted in larger e-DYS than did LVSP and nsHBp [- 24 ms (-28;-19) vs -12 ms (-16;-9) vs 10 ms (7;14), respectively; P <.001]. nsLBBp produced similar values of Vd in leads V₅-V₈ (36-43 ms vs 38-43 ms; P = NS in all leads) but longer Vd in leads V₁-V₄ (47-59 ms vs 41-44 ms; P <.05) as nsHBp. LVSP caused prolonged Vd in leads V₁-V₈ compared to nsHBp and longer Vd in leads V₅-V₈ compared to nsLBBp (44-51 ms vs 36-43 ms; P <.05) regardless of R-wave peak time in lead V₅ or QRS morphology in lead V₁ present during LVSP.

CONCLUSION

nslbbp preserves physiological LV depolarization but increases interventricular electrical dyssynchrony. LV lateral wall depolarization during LVSP is prolonged, but interventricular synchrony is preserved.

Impact of His bundle pacing on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND

His-Bundle pacing (HBP) is an emerging technique for physiological pacing. However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for pacemaker (PM) implantation to compare HBP versus RV pacing (RVP) effects on RV performance. Patients were evaluated before implantation and after 6 months by a transthoracic echocardiogram.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients (age 75.1±7.9 years, 64% male) were enrolled, 42 patients (50%) underwent successful HBP, and 42 patients (50%) apical RVP. At follow up, we found a significant improvement in RV-FAC (Fractional Area Change)% [baseline: HBP 34 IQR (31-37) vs. RVP 33 IQR (29.7-37.2),p = .602; 6-months: HBP 37 IQR (33-39) vs. RVP 30 IQR (27.7-35), p < .0001] and RV-GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)% [baseline: HBP -18 IQR (-20.2 to -15) vs. RVP -16 IQR (-18.7 to -14), p = .150; 6-months: HBP -20 IQR(-23 to -17) vs. RVP -13.5 IQR (-16 to -11), p < .0001] with HBP whereas RVP was associated with a significant decline in both parameters. RVP was also associated with a significant worsening of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (p < .0001) and S wave velocity (p < .0001) at follow up. Conversely from RVP, HBP significantly improved pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) [baseline: HBP 38 IQR (32-42) mmHg vs. RVP 34 IQR (31.5-37) mmHg,p = .060; 6-months: HBP 32 IQR (26-38) mmHg vs. RVP 39 IQR (36-41) mmHg, p < .0001] and tricuspid regurgitation (p = .005) irrespectively from lead position above or below the tricuspid valve.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PM implantation, HBP ensues a beneficial and protective impact on RV performance compared with RVP.

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.

His bundle pacing shows similar ventricular electrical activation as sinus: selective and nonselective His pacing indistinguishable

His bundle pacing utilizes the His-Purkinje system to produce more physiological activation compared with traditional pacing therapies, but differences in electrical activation between pacing techniques are not yet quantified in terms of activation pattern. Furthermore, clinicians distinguish between selective and nonselective His pacing, but measurable differences in electrical activation remain to be seen. Hearts isolated from seven dogs were perfused using the Langendorff method. Electrograms were recorded using two 64-electrode basket catheters in the ventricles and a 128-electrode sock situated around the ventricles during sinus rhythm (right atrial pacing), right ventricular (RV) pacing, biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (biV-CRT), selective His pacing (selective capture of the His bundle), and nonselective His pacing (capture of nearby myocardium and His bundle). Activation maps were generated from these electrograms. Total activation time (TAT) was measured from the activation maps, and QRS duration was measured from a one-lead pseudo-ECG. Results showed that TAT, QRS duration, and activation sequence were most similar between sinus, selective, and nonselective His pacing. Bland-Altman analyses showed highest levels of similarity between all combinations of sinus, selective, and nonselective His pacing. RV and biV-CRT activation patterns were distinct from sinus and had significantly longer TAT and QRS duration. Cumulative activation graphs were most similar between sinus, selective, and nonselective His pacing. In conclusion, selective pacing and nonselective His bundle pacing are more similar to sinus compared with RV and biV-CRT pacing. Furthermore, selective pacing and nonselective His bundle pacing are not significantly different electrically.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Our high-density epicardial and endocardial electrical mapping study demonstrated that selective pacing and nonselective His bundle pacing are more electrically similar to sinus rhythm compared with right ventricular and biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing. Furthermore, small differences between selective and nonselective His bundle pacing, specifically a wider QRS in nonselective His pacing, do not translate into significant differences in the global activation pattern.

Discriminating electrocardiographic responses to His-bundle pacing using machine learning

BACKGROUND

His-bundle pacing (HBP) has emerged as an alternative to conventional ventricular pacing because of its ability to deliver physiological ventricular activation. Pacing at the His bundle produces different electrocardiographic (ECG) responses: selective His-bundle pacing (S-HBP), non-selective His bundle pacing (NS-HBP), and myocardium-only capture (MOC). These 3 capture types must be distinguished from each other, which can be challenging and time-consuming even for experts.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to use artificial intelligence (AI) in the form of supervised machine learning using a convolutional neural network (CNN) to automate HBP ECG interpretation.

METHODS

We identified patients who had undergone HBP and extracted raw 12-lead ECG data during S-HBP, NS-HBP, and MOC. A CNN was trained, using 3-fold cross-validation, on 75% of the segmented QRS complexes labeled with their capture type. The remaining 25% was kept aside as a testing dataset.

RESULTS

The CNN was trained with 1297 QRS complexes from 59 patients. Cohen kappa for the neural network's performance on the 17-patient testing set was 0.59 (95% confidence interval 0.30 to 0.88; P <.0001), with an overall accuracy of 75%. The CNN's accuracy in the 17-patient testing set was 67% for S-HBP, 71% for NS-HBP, and 84% for MOC.

CONCLUSION

We demonstrated proof of concept that a neural network can be trained to automate discrimination between HBP ECG responses. When a larger dataset is trained to higher accuracy, automated AI ECG analysis could facilitate HBP implantation and follow-up and prevent complications resulting from incorrect HBP ECG analysis.

His bundle pacing using a simple stylet and a standard active fixation electrode

Conventionally, His bundle pacing (HBP) is achieved using specially designed pacing leads and delivery sheaths. This paper describes the feasibility of permanent HBP with a pre-shaped simple stylet and a standard active-fixation electrode, through axillary vein access, without using dedicated delivery tools. This method may be a feasible and safe alternative to the only commercially available system.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) in the form of His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing allows normal ventricular activation, thereby preventing the adverse consequences of right ventricular pacing. One potential area where HPCSP could be used is in the field of atrioventricular (AV) node ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation refractory to medical therapy and/or catheter ablation. His bundle pacing has been established for several years, with centres from North America, Europe and China publishing their experience. The differing patterns of His bundle capture are clearly described with established guidance as to how to implant such systems. Left bundle branch pacing has only recently been reported, but there are several advantages with better pacing parameters and lower risk of threshold change after AV node ablation. Six studies have been identified in the literature which describe the experience of His bundle pacing in patients requiring AV node ablation. Overall the results are positive and favour this new technique; however, they are limited by low numbers of patients and non-randomised study design. An observational study was recently published demonstrating better outcomes with left bundle branch pacing in a small number of patients with left ventricular dysfunction and atrial fibrillation that underwent AV node ablation. HPCSP has the potential to be the primary pacing modality in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring AV node ablation. However, it is essential that this is confirmed in large randomised clinical trials.

Value of surface electrocardiography in His bundle pacing

His bundle pacing (HBP) provides physiological ventricular activation and is frequently used to treat patients with bradyarrhythmias. HBP reduces the risk of developing heart failure and atrial fibrillation by preventing ventricular electromechanical dyssynchrony associated with conventional right ventricular pacing. There are two types of HBP, including selective (S-HBP) and non-selective HBP (NS-HBP). It is important to determine the type of HBP during implantation and follow-up. This review discusses the role of standard surface electrocardiography in differentiating S‑HBP and NS-HBP and diagnosing loss of His bundle capture.