Leadless left ventricular stimulation with WiSE-CRT System - Initial experience and results from phase I of SOLVE-CRT Study (nonrandomized, roll-in phase)

Trends in adoption of extravascular cardiac implantable electronic devices: the Dutch cohort

INTRODUCTION

Conventional implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers carry a risk of pocket- and lead-related complications in particular. To avoid these complications, extravascular devices (EVDs) have been developed, such as the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) and leadless pacemaker (LP). However, data on patient or centre characteristics related to the actual adoption of EVDs are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To assess real-world nationwide trends in EVD adoption in the Netherlands.

METHODS

Using the Netherlands Heart Registration, all consecutive patients with a de novo S‑ICD or conventional single-chamber ICD implantation between 2012-2020, or de novo LP or conventional single-chamber pacemaker implantation between 2014-2020 were included. Trends in adoption are described for various patient and centre characteristics.

RESULT

From 2012-2020, 2190 S‑ICDs and 10,683 conventional ICDs were implanted; from 2014-2020, 712 LPs and 11,103 conventional pacemakers were implanted. The general use has increased (S-ICDs 8 to 21%; LPs 1 to 8%), but this increase seems to have reached a plateau. S‑ICD recipients were younger than conventional ICD recipients (p < 0.001) and more often female (p < 0.001); LP recipients were younger than conventional pacemaker recipients (p < 0.001) and more often male (p = 0.03). Both S‑ICDs and LPs were mainly implanted in high-volume centres with cardiothoracic surgery on-site, although over time S‑ICDs were increasingly implanted in centres without cardiothoracic surgery (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This nationwide study demonstrated a relatively quick adoption of innovative EVDs with a plateau after approximately 4 years. S‑ICD use is especially high in younger patients. EVDs are mainly implanted in high-volume centres with cardiothoracic surgery back-up, but S‑ICD use is expanding beyond those centres.

Leadless Ultrasound-Based Cardiac Resynchronization System in Heart Failure

Importance

Approximately 40% of patients with heart failure (HF) who are eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) either fail to respond or are untreatable due to anatomical constraints.

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of a novel, leadless, left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing system for patients at high risk for a CRT upgrade or whose coronary sinus (CS) lead placement/pacing with a conventional CRT system failed.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The SOLVE-CRT study was a prospective multicenter trial, enrolling January 2018 through September 2022, with follow-up in March 2023. Data were analyzed from DATE MONTH, YEAR, through DATE MONTH, YEAR. The trial combined data from an initial randomized, double-blind study (n = 108) and a subsequent single-arm part (n = 75). It took place at 36 centers across Australia, Europe, and the US. Participants were nonresponders, previously untreatable (PU), or high-risk upgrades (HRU). All participants contributed to the safety analysis. The primary efficacy analysis (n = 100) included 75 PU-HRU patients from the single-arm part and 25 PU-HRU patients from the randomized treatment arm.

Interventions

Patients were implanted with the WiSE CRT System (EBR Systems) consisting of a leadless LV endocardial pacing electrode stimulated with ultrasound energy delivered by a subcutaneously implanted transmitter and battery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary safety end point was freedom from type I complications. The primary efficacy end point was a reduction in mean LV end systolic volume (LVESV).

Results

The study included 183 participants; mean age was 68.1 (SD, 10.3) years and 141 were male (77%). The trial was terminated at an interim analysis for meeting prespecified stopping criteria. In the safety population, patients were either New York Heart Association Class II (34.6%) or III (65.4%). The primary efficacy end point was met with a 16.4% (95% CI, -21.0% to -11.7%) reduction in mean LVESV (P = .003). The primary safety end point was met with an 80.9% rate of freedom from type I complications (P < .001), which included 12 study device system events (6.6%), 5 vascular events (2.7%), 3 strokes (1.6%), and 7 cardiac perforations which mostly occurred early in the study (3.8%).

Conclusions and Relevance

The SOLVE-CRT study has demonstrated that leadless LV endocardial pacing with the WiSE CRT system is associated with a reduction in LVESV in patients with HF. This novel system may represent an alternative to conventional CRT implants in some HF patient populations.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0292203.

Systematic review of leadless pacemaker

Conventional pacing systems consist of a pacemaker and one or more leads threaded from the device pocket through veins into the heart conducting the pacing therapy to the desired pacing site. Although these devices are effective, approximately one in eight patients treated with these traditional pacing systems experiences a complication attributed to the pacemaker pocket or leads. With the technological advances in electronics, leadless pacemakers that small enough to implant within the heart were introduced. Leadless pacemakers have been developed to overcome many of the challenges of transvenous pacing including complications related to leads or pacemaker pockets. This review aims to provide an overview of advantages of leadless pacemaker, complications and limitations of leadless pacemaker, leadless pacemaker candidate, and future directions of this promising technology.

Leadless pacemakers: Where are we?

Pacemakers have been the cornerstone of brady-arrhythmia management since the mid-20th century. Despite the widespread use and success of traditional transvenous pacemakers, they are associated with an estimated 15 % complication rate at three years. Driven by the advantages over traditional transvenous pacemakers including a lack of transvenous leads, resistance to infection, and ease of implantation, the number of leadless pacemakers placed annually in the United States has dramatically increased since their initial approval. While current iterations of leadless pacemakers lack the versatility offered by transvenous devices, recent advances in leadless pacing offer an increasingly diverse range of therapeutic options. This review will discuss the past, present, and future emerging technologies, and strategies in leadless pacing.

Cost-effectiveness analysis of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

The Wireless Stimulation Endocardially for CRT (WiSE-CRT) system is a novel technology used to treat patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (HF) by providing leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Observational studies have demonstrated its safety and efficacy profile, however, the treatment cost-effectiveness has not previously been examined.

METHODS

A cost-effectiveness evaluation of the WiSE-CRT System was performed using a cohort-based economic model adopting a "proportion in state" structure. In addition to the primary analysis, scenario analyses and sensitivity analyses were performed to test for uncertainty in input parameters. Outcomes were quantified in terms of quality-adjusted life year (QALY) differences.

RESULTS

The primary analysis demonstrated that treatment with the WiSE-CRT system is likely to be cost-effective over a lifetime horizon at a QALY reimbursement threshold of £20 000, with a net monetary benefit (NMB) of £3781 per QALY. Cost-effectiveness declines at time horizons shorter than 10 years. Sensitivity analyses demonstrated that average system battery life had the largest impact on potential cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

Within the model limitations, these findings support the use of WiSE-CRT in indicated patients from an economic standpoint. However, improving battery technology should be prioritized to maximize cost-effectiveness in times when health services are under significant financial pressures.

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System: past, present and the future

Leadless permanent pacemakers represent an important innovation in cardiac device developments. Although transvenous permanent pacemakers have become indispensable in managing bradyarrhythmia and saving numerous lives, the use of transvenous systems comes with notable risks tied to intravascular leads and subcutaneous pockets. This drawback has spurred the creation of leadless cardiac pacemakers. Within this analysis, we compile existing clinical literature and proceed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System. We also delve into the protocols for addressing a malfunctioning or end-of-life Micra as well as device extraction. Lastly, we explore prospects in this domain, such as the emergence of entirely leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator devices.

Miniature battery-free bioelectronics

Miniature wireless bioelectronic implants that can operate for extended periods of time can transform how we treat disorders by acting rapidly on precise nerves and organs in a way that drugs cannot. To reach this goal, materials and methods are needed to wirelessly transfer energy through the body or harvest energy from the body itself. We review some of the capabilities of emerging energy transfer methods to identify the performance envelope for existing technology and discover where opportunities lie to improve how much-and how efficiently-we can deliver energy to the tiny bioelectronic implants that can support emerging medical technologies.

Worsening tricuspid regurgitation associated with permanent pacemaker and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: A systematic review and meta-analysis of more than 66,000 subjects

BACKGROUND

Worsening tricuspid regurgitation (TR) after either permanent pacemaker (PPM) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation is an emerging clinical challenge. Early recognition of this entity is essential in guiding treatment.

OBJECTIVE

This meta-analysis was designed to identify the overall incidence and patient-specific predictors of TR post-device implantation.

METHODS

We searched electronic databases from inception to January 2023 for published studies that reported the incidence of TR worsening post-device implantation. The log odds ratio (OR) was used to summarize group differences.

RESULTS

Our analysis included 29 studies with 66,590 participants. Patients who underwent device implantation (n = 1008) were significantly more likely to develop worsening TR than controls who did not undergo device implantation (n = 58,605) (OR 3.18; P < .01). In a total of 7777 patients, the pooled incidence of at least 1-grade worsening of TR post-device implantation was 24%. Worsening TR post-device implantation significantly increases mortality (hazard ratio 1.42; P = .02). Larger right atrial area (OR 1.11; P < .01) is significantly associated with an increased risk of worsening TR post-device implantation, while male patients are less likely to develop this complication than female patients (OR 0.74; P < .01). Importantly, there is no statistically significant difference between the type of implanted device (ICD vs PPM) and post-device implantation TR. Further, right ventricular dysfunction, pulmonary artery pressure, baseline mitral regurgitation, left ventricular ejection fraction, baseline atrial fibrillation, and age have no association with worsening TR post-device implantation.

CONCLUSION

A substantial number of patients undergoing PPM or ICD implantation are at an increased risk of worsening TR. Importantly, in this largest review to date incorporating more than 66,000 subjects, worsening TR significantly increases mortality by greater than 140%, accordingly deserving more recognition and clinical attention in the current era.

Left ventricular lead implantation failure in an unselected nationwide cohort

BACKGROUND

Left ventricular (LV) lead implantation is often the most challenging aspect of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) procedures; early studies reported implant failure rates in ∼10% of cases.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to define rates, reasons for, and factors independently associated with LV lead implant failure.

METHODS

We studied patients with left bundle branch block and ejection fraction ≤ 35% who underwent planned de novo transvenous CRT implantation (2010-2016) and were reported to the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ICD Registry. Independent predictors of LV lead implant failure were determined using logistic regression; age, sex, and variables with a univariable P value of <.15 were considered for inclusion in the model.

RESULTS

Of the 111,802 patients who underwent a planned CRT procedure, 3.6% of patients (n = 3979) had LV lead implant failure. Reasons for implant failure included venous access (7.5%), coronary sinus access (64.3%), tributary vein access (13.5%), coronary sinus dissection (7.6%), unacceptable threshold (4.4%), and diaphragmatic stimulation (1.7%). Significant independent predictors of LV lead implant failure included younger age (odds ratio [OR] 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.1.01-1.02), female sex (OR 1.38; 95% CI 1.29-1.47), black race (vs white, OR 1.44; 95% CI 1.32-1.57), Hispanic ethnicity (OR 1.23; 95% CI 1.08-1.40), QRS duration (OR 1.055 per 10 ms; 95% CI 1.038-1.072 per 10 ms), obstructive sleep apnea (OR 1.14; 95% CI 1.04-1.24), and implantation by a physician without specialized training (vs electrophysiology trained, OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.34-1.76).

CONCLUSION

LV lead implant failure is uncommon in the current era and is most commonly due to coronary sinus access failure. Predictors of LV lead implant failure included younger age, female sex, black race, Hispanic ethnicity, increased QRS duration, sleep apnea, and absence of electrophysiology training.

Leadless Pacemakers: Current Achievements and Future Perspectives

Despite the technological advances in pacemaker technology, the transvenous implanted leads are still considered the Achilles' heel of this rhythm-control therapy. The leadless permanent pacemaker system was developed as an option to bypass the weakness of the transvenous approach. Advances in battery technology and deep miniaturisation of electronics now offer the opportunity to implant the whole pacemaker system into the right ventricle. This review aims to provide a comprehensive report on the advent of leadless pacemakers, their clinical usefulness and the future perspectives of this disruptive and promising technology. Further research is required before some of these technologies are safely and routinely used in clinical practice.

Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Pacing: Where Have We Been and What Lies Ahead?

The history of cardiac pacing dates back to the 1930s with externalized pacing and has evolved to incorporate transvenous, multi-lead, or even leadless devices. Annual implantation rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices have increased since the introduction of the implantable system, likely related to expanding indications, and increasing global life expectancy and aging demographics. Here, we summarize the relevant literature on cardiac pacing to demonstrate the enormous impact it has had within the field of cardiology. Further, we look forward to the future of cardiac pacing, including conduction system pacing and leadless pacing strategies.

Leadless Pacing: Therapy, Challenges and Novelties

Leadless pacing is a rapidly growing field. Initially designed to provide right ventricular pacing for those who were contraindicated for conventional devices, the technology is growing to explore the potential benefit of avoiding long-term transvenous leads in any patient who requires pacing. In this review, we first examine the safety and performance of leadless pacing devices. We then review the evidence for their use in special populations, such as patients with high risk of device infection, patients on haemodialysis, and patients with vasovagal syncope who represent a younger population who may wish to avoid transvenous pacing. We also summarise the evidence for leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy and conduction system pacing and discuss the challenges of managing issues, such as system revisions, end of battery life and extractions. Finally, we discuss future directions in the field, such as completely leadless cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator devices and whether leadless pacing has the potential to become a first-line therapy in the near future.

Strategies for Safe Implantation and Effective Performance of Single-Chamber and Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemakers

Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have emerged as an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers to eliminate the complications associated with leads and subcutaneous pockets. However, LPMs still present with complications, such as cardiac perforation, dislodgment, vascular complications, infection, and tricuspid valve regurgitation. Furthermore, the efficacy of the leadless VDD LPMs is influenced by the unachievable 100% atrioventricular synchrony. In this article, we review the available data on the strategy selection, including appropriate patient selection, procedure techniques, device design, and post-implant programming, to minimize the complication rate and maximize the efficacy, and we summarize the clinical settings in which a choice must be made between VVI LPMs, VDD LPMs, or conventional transvenous pacemakers. In addition, we provide an outlook for the technology for the realization of true dual-chamber leadless and battery-less pacemakers.

Leadless Cardiac Pacing: New Horizons

Since the introduction of transvenous cardiac pacing leads, pacemaker system design has remained similar for several decades. Progressive miniaturisation of electronic circuitry and batteries has enabled a smaller, single pacing unit comprising the intracardiac electrodes, generator and computer. This review explores the development of leadless pacing, the clinical trials comparing leadless to transvenous pacing in addition to the future developments of multi-chamber leadless pacing.

Biventricular endocardial pacing and left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization: Mechanistic insights from electrocardiographic imaging, acute hemodynamic response, and magnetic resonance imaging

BACKGROUND

Biventricular endocardial pacing (BiV-endo) has demonstrated superior cardiac resynchronization compared to conventional biventricular epicardial pacing (BiV-epi). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may also achieve effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the acute electrical and hemodynamic effects of BiV-epi, BiV-endo, and LBBAP delivered from the LV endocardium and to assess how myocardial scar affects response.

METHODS

Eleven patients with heart failure and indications for CRT underwent a temporary pacing study with electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) and hemodynamic assessment. BiV-endo was delivered by stimulation of the left ventricular (LV) lateral wall, and LBBAP was delivered by stimulation of the LV septum, at the site of a Purkinje potential. LV activation time (LVAT-95), LV dyssynchrony index (LVDI), biventricular activation time (BIVAT-90), and biventricular dyssynchrony index (BIVDI) were calculated. Myocardial scar was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI).

RESULTS

The protocol was completed in 10 patients. Compared to BiV-epi (LVAT-95: 79.2 ± 13.1 ms; LVDI: 26.6 ± 3.4 ms) LV resynchronization was superior during BiV-endo (LVAT-95: 48.5 ± 14.9 ms; P = .001; LVDI: 16.6 ± 6.4 ms; P = .002) and LBBAP (LVAT-95: 48.9 ± 12.5 ms; P = .001; LVDI: 15.3 ± 3.4 ms; P = .001). Biventricular resynchronization was similarly superior during BiV-endo and LBBAP vs BiV-epi (BIVAT-90 and BIVDI; P <.05). The rate of acute hemodynamic responders was higher during BiV-endo (90%) and LBBAP (70%) vs BiV-epi (50%). The benefits of LBBAP (but not BiV-endo) on LV resynchronization were attenuated when septal scar was present in a subset of 8 patients who underwent MRI.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest superior electrical resynchronization and a higher proportion of acute hemodynamic responders during BiV-endo and LBBAP compared to BiV-epi. Electrical resynchronization was similar between BiV-endo and LBBAP; however, septal scar seemed to attenuate response to LBBAP.

Pacing interventions in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy

Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) represent a high-risk, and difficult to treat population of heart failure patients. Studies have shown that these patients have a lower quality of life and reduced life expectancy compared to those who respond to CRT. Whilst the first-line treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure is "conventional" biventricular epicardial CRT, a range of novel pacing interventions have emerged as potential alternatives. This has raised the question whether these new treatments may be useful as a second-line pacing intervention for treating non-responders, or indeed, whether some patients may benefit from these as a first-line option. In this review, we will examine the current evidence for four pacing interventions in the context of treatment of conventional CRT non-responders: CRT optimization; multisite left ventricular pacing; left ventricular endocardial pacing and conduction system pacing.

Leadless Pacemakers: State of the Art and Selection of the Ideal Candidate

The field of cardiac pacing has been defined by constant development to provide efficacious, safe, and reliable therapy. Traditional pacing utilizes transvenous leads, which dwell in the venous system and place patients at risk for complications, including pneumothorax, bleeding, infection, vascular obstruction, and valvular compromise. Leadless pacemakers have been developed to overcome many of the challenges of transvenous pacing while providing safe and effective pacing therapy for an increasing population of patients. The Medtronic Micra transcatheter pacing system was approved by the FDA in April of 2016 and the Abbott Aveir pacemaker was approved in April of 2022. Several additional leadless pacemakers are in various stages of development and testing. There exists limited guidance on the selection of the ideal candidate for leadless pacemakers. Advantages of leadless pacemakers include decreased infection risk, overcoming limited vascular access, and avoidance of interaction with the tricuspid valve apparatus. Disadvantages of leadless pacemakers include right ventricular-only pacing, unclear lifecycle management, cost, perforation risk, and lack of integration with defibrillator systems. This review aims to provide an overview of the current state of the art of leadless pacemakers, currently approved systems, clinical trials and real-world evidence, considerations for patient selection, and future directions of this promising technology.

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.

Rescue left bundle branch area pacing in coronary venous lead failure or nonresponse to biventricular pacing: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is effective in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and reduced left ventricular function. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been reported as an alternative option for CRT.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LBBAP in patients who failed conventional BVP because of coronary venous (CV) lead complications or who were nonresponders to BVP.

METHODS

At 16 international centers, LBBAP was attempted in patients with conventional CRT indication who failed BVP because of CV lead complications or lack of therapeutic response to BVP. Heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and death, echocardiographic outcomes, procedural data, pacing parameters, and lead complications including CV lead failure are reported.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successfully performed in 200 patients (CV lead failures 156; nonresponders 44) (age 68 ± 11 years; female 35%; LBBB 55%; right ventricular pacing 23%; ischemic cardiomyopathy 28%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy 63%; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35% in 80%). Procedural duration was 119.5 ± 59.6 minutes, and fluoroscopy duration was 25.7 ± 18.5 minutes. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.68 ± 0.35 V @ 0.45 ms and 10.4 ± 5 mV at implant, respectively, and remained stable during mean follow-up of 12 ± 10.1 months. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing from 170 ± 28 ms to 139 ± 25 ms (P <.001) with V₆ R-wave peak times of 85 ± 17 ms. LVEF improved from 29% ± 10% at baseline to 40% ± 12% (P <.001) during follow-up. The risk of death or HFH was lower in those with CV lead failure than in nonresponders (hazard ratio 0.357; 95% confidence interval 0.168-0.756; P = .007) CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a viable alternative to CRT in patients who failed conventional BVP due to CV lead failure or who were nonresponders.

Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a novel procedure for treatment of patients with dyssynchronous heart failure. Current evidence is limited to observational studies with small patient numbers.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of leadless LV endocardial pacing.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Mean differences (MDs) in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6 months postprocedure were combined using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochrane Q test, I2, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots were constructed to detect publication bias.

RESULTS

Five studies with 181 patients were included in the final analysis. Procedural success rate was 90.6%. Clinical response rate was 63%, with mean improvement in NYHA functional class of 0.43 (MD -0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.76 to -0.1; P = .01), with high heterogeneity (P <.001; I2 = 81.1%). There was a mean increase in LVEF of 6.3% (MD 6.3; 95% CI 4.35-8.19; P <.001, with low heterogeneity (P = 0.84; I2 <0.001%). The echocardiographic response rate was 54%. Procedure-related complication and mortality rates were 23.8% and 2.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of leadless LV endocardial pacing for CRT supports its use as a second-line therapy in patients in whom standard CRT is not possible or has been ineffective. Improvements in safety profile will facilitate widespread uptake in the treatment of these patients.

Leadless Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: Advances, Challenges and Future Directions

Leadless left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) represents the merger of two rapidly progressing areas in the field of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). It combines the attractive concepts of pacing the native conduction system to allow more physiological activation of the myocardium than conventional biventricular pacing, with the potential added benefits of avoiding long-term complications associated with transvenous leads via leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing. This perspective article will first review the evidence for the efficacy of leadless pacing in CRT. We then summarise the procedural steps and pilot data for leadless LBBAP, followed by a discussion of the safety and efficacy of this novel technique. Finally, we will examine how further mechanistic evidence may shed light to which patients may benefit most from leadless LBBAP, and how improvements in current experience and technology could promote widespread uptake and expand current clinical indications.

Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices in the Fontan Patient

As a result of remarkable progress in operative techniques and cardiology care during childhood, Fontan patients continue to age and require team-based multidisciplinary expertise to manage complications encountered in adulthood. They face particular challenges in terms of altered hemodynamic stressors, cardiac and hepatic failure, and arrhythmias. Arrhythmias in Fontan patients are highly prevalent and associated with underlying anatomy, surgical technique, and postoperative sequelae. Diagnostic tools, treatments, and device strategies for arrhythmias in Fontan patients should be adapted to the specific anatomy, type of surgical repair, and clinical status. Great strides in our understanding of arrhythmia mechanisms, options and techniques to obtain access to relevant cardiac structures, and application of both old and new technologies have contributed to improving cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapies for this unique population. In this state-of-the-art review, we discuss the various arrhythmias encountered in Fontan patients, their diagnosis, and options for treatment and prevention, with a focus on CIEDs. Throughout, access challenges particular to the Fontan circulation are considered. Recently developed technologies, such as the sub-cutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator carry the potential to be transformative but require awareness of Fontan-specific issues. Moreover, new leadless pacing technology represents a promising strategy that may soon become applicable to Fontan patients with sinus node dysfunction. CIEDs are essential tools in managing Fontan patients but the complex clinical scenarios that arise in this patient population are among the most challenging for the congenital electrophysiologist.

History and evolution of pacing and devices

Cardiac implanted electronic devices are commonplace in the modern practice of cardiology. This article reviews the history of the development of these technologies, with particular reference to the role played by UK physicians and members of the British Cardiovascular Society. Key breakthroughs in the treatment of heart block, ventricular arrhythmia and heart failure are presented in their historical and contemporary context so that the reader might look back on the incredible progress and achievements of the last 100 years and also look forward to what may be achieved in the coming decades.

WiSE CRT Is Beneficial for Heart Failure Patients as a Rescue Therapy: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis

Background

Leadless endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing resynchronization therapy is a novel solution for patients with heart failure (HF) in whom conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) failed.

Methods

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant cohort studies. Clinical outcomes of interest such as ejection fraction (EF), QRS duration (QRSd), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) were extracted and analyzed.

Results

Five studies involving 175 HF patients for WiSE CRT were included, and patients were followed-up for 6 months. The implanted success rate ranged from 76.5 to 100%. WiSE CRT resulted in significantly narrower QRSd [mean difference (MD): −38.21 ms, 95% confidence interval (CI): −44.36 to −32.07, p &lt; 0.001], improved left ventricular ejection fraction (MD: 6.07%, 95% CI: 4.43 to 7.71, I2 = 0%, p &lt; 0.001), reduced left ventricular end-systolic volume (MD: −23.47 ml, 95% CI: −37.18 to −9.13, p &lt; 0.001), and reduced left ventricular end-diastolic volume (MD: −24.02 ml, 95% CI: −37.01 to −11.03, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Evidence from current studies suggests that leadless endocardial LV pacing resynchronization is effective for HF patients who failed conventional CRT or needed a device upgrade, and it may be an interesting rescue therapy.

[New developments in leadless pacing systems]

Leadless pacing systems, especially the Micra™ TPS system, deliver an effective and safe alternative to the previous conventional transvenous systems in patients with impossible transvenous access and seem to be compatible with other implantable devices (S-ICD, deep brain stimulators) with no limitations in efficacy or safety. Also, new outlooks on leadless resynchronization therapy seem promising and could prevent future patients from lead- or operation-associated complications. Current limits to the implementation in everyday clinical practice are mostly the unavailability of the devices or cost issues through lack of health insurance reimbursement. However, more promising data through further studies and rising implantation rates are expected based on the positive current clinical data.