Left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT): Results from an international LBBAP collaborative study group

Enhancing cardiac pacing strategies: a review of conduction system pacing compared with right and biventricular pacing and their influence on myocardial function

Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been linked to the deterioration of both left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. This worsening often culminates in elevated rates of hospitalization due to heart failure, an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, and increased morbidity. While biventricular pacing (BVP) has demonstrated clinical and echocardiographic improvements in patients afflicted with heart failure and left bundle branch block, it has also encountered significant challenges such as a notable portion of non-responders and procedural failures attributed to anatomical complexities. In recent times, the interest has shifted towards conduction system pacing, initially, His bundle pacing, and more recently, left bundle branch area pacing, which are seen as promising alternatives to established methods. In contrast to other approaches, conduction system pacing offers the advantage of fostering more physiological and harmonized ventricular activation by directly stimulating the His-Purkinje network. This direct pacing results in a more synchronized systolic and diastolic function of the left ventricle compared with RVP and BVP. Of particular note is the capacity of conduction system pacing to yield a shorter QRS, conserve left ventricular ejection fraction, and reduce rates of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation when compared with RVP. The efficacy of conduction system pacing has also been found to have better clinical and echocardiographic improvement than BVP in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization. This review will delve into myocardial function in conduction system pacing compared with that in RVP and BVP.

Is conduction system pacing a panacea for pacemaker therapy?

INTRODUCTION

While supported by robust evidence and decades of clinical experience, right ventricular apical pacing for bradycardia is associated with a risk of progressive left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiac resynchronization therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction can result in limited electrical resynchronization due to anatomical constraints and epicardial stimulation. In both settings, directly stimulating the conduction system below the atrio-ventricular node (either the bundle of His or the left bundle branch area) has potential to overcome these limitations. Conduction system pacing has met with considerable enthusiasm in view of the more physiological electrical conduction pattern, is rapidly becoming the preferred option of pacing for bradycardia, and is gaining momentum as an alternative to conventional biventricular pacing.

AREAS COVERED

This article provides a review of the current efficacy and safety data for both people requiring treatment for bradycardia and the management of heart failure with conduction delay and discusses the possible future roles for conduction system pacing in routine clinical practice.

EXPERT OPINION

Conduction system pacing might be the holy grail of pacemaker therapy without the disadvantages of current approaches. However, hypothesis and enthusiasm are no match for robust data, demonstrating at least equivalent efficacy and safety to standard approaches.

The association between paced left ventricular activation time and cardiac reverse remodeling in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block

INTRODUCTION

The association between paced LVAT and cardiac structure and function at baseline, as well as whether longer LVAT is associated with worse cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) has not been well investigated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the association between paced LVAT and baseline echocardiographic parameters and cardiac reverse remodeling at follow-up.

METHODS

Patients with HF and LBBB receiving successful left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) from June 2018 to April 2023 were enrolled and grouped based on paced LVAT. NT-proBNP and echocardiographic parameters were recorded during routine follow-up. The relationships between paced LVAT and echocardiographic parameters at baseline and follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients were enrolled (48 males, aged 65 ± 9.8, mean LVEF 32.1 ± 7.5%, mean LVEDD 63.0 ± 8.5 mm, median NT-proBNP 1057[513-3158] pg/mL). The paced QRSd was significantly decreased (177 ± 17.9 vs. 134 ± 18.5, p < .001) and median paced LVAT was 80[72-88] ms. After a median follow-up of 12[9-29] months, LVEF increased to 52.1 ± 11.2%, LVEDD decreased to 52.6 ± 8.8 mm, and NT-proBNP decreased to 215[73-532]pg/mL. Patients were grouped based on paced LVAT: LVAT < 80 ms (n = 39); 80 ≤ LVAT < 90 ms (n = 24); LVAT ≥ 90 ms (n = 20). Patients with longer LVAT had larger LVEDD and lower LVEF (LVEDDbaseline: p < .001; LVEFbaseline: p = .001). The difference in LVEF6M was statistically significant among groups (p < .001) and patients with longer LVAT had lower LVEF6M, while the difference in LVEF1Y was not seen (p = .090). There was no significant correlation between ΔLVEF6M-baseline, ΔLVEF1Y-6M and LVAT respectively (ΔLVEF6M-baseline: p = .261, r = -.126; ΔLVEF1Y-6M: p = .085, r = .218).

CONCLUSION

Long paced LVAT was associated with worse echocardiographic parameters at baseline, but did not affect the cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with HF and LBBB. Those with longer LVAT required longer time to recover.

Predictors of failed left bundle branch pacing implant in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: importance of left ventricular diameter and QRS morphology

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is considered an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, LBBP is not suitable for all heart failure patients.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of our study was to identify predictors of unsuccessful LBBP implantation in CRT candidates.

METHODS

A cohort of consecutive patients with indications for CRT were included. Clinical, echocardiography and electrocardiography variables were prospectively recorded.

RESULTS

A total of 187 patients were included in the analysis. LBBP implantation was successful in 152/187 (81.2%) patients and failed in 35/187 (18.7%) patients. The causes of unsuccessful implantation were unsatisfactory paced QRS (28/35; 80%), inability to screw the helix (4/35; 11.4%), lead instability (2/35; 5.7%), and high pacing thresholds (1/35; 2.8%). The left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD), non-LBBB (left bundle branch block) QRS morphology, and QRS width were predictors of failed implantation according to the univariate analysis. According to the multivariable regression analysis, LVEDD [OR 1.31 per 5 mm increase (95% CI 1.05, 1.63) p=0.02] and non-LBBB [OR 3.07 (95% CI 1.08, 8.72) p=0.03] were found to be independent predictors of unsuccessful LBBP implantation. An LVEDD of 60 mm has 60% sensitivity and 71% specificity for predicting LBBP implant failure.

CONCLUSIONS

When LBBP was used as CRT, LVEDD and non-LBBB QRS morphology predicted unsuccessful implantation. Non-LBBB triples the likelihood of failed implantation independent of LVEDD. Caution should be taken when considering these parameters to plan the best pacing strategy for patients.

Efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: Select site - cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is typically attempted with biventricular (BiV) pacing. One-third of patients are nonresponders. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been evaluated as an alternative means.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and clinical response of permanent LBBAP as an alternative to BiV pacing.

METHODS

Of 479 consecutive patients referred with heart failure, 50 with BiV-CRT and 51 with LBBAP-CRT were included in this analysis after study exclusions. Quality-of-Life (QoL) assessments, echocardiographic measurements, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class were obtained at baseline and at 6-monthly intervals.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups (all P > .05). Clinical outcomes such as left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-systolic volume, QoL, and NYHA class were significantly improved for both pacing groups compared to baseline. The LBBAP-CRT group showed greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 months (P = .001) and 12 months (P = .021), accompanied by greater reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (P = .007). QRS duration < 120 ms (baseline 160.82 ± 21.35 ms vs 161.08 ± 24.48 ms) was achieved in 30% in the BiV-CRT group vs 71% in the LBBAP-CRT group (P ≤ .001). Improvement in NYHA class (P = .031) and QoL index was greater (P = .014). Reduced heart failure admissions (P = .003) and health care utilization (P < .05) and improved lead performance (P < .001) were observed in the LBBAP-CRT group.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP-CRT is feasible and effective CRT. It results into a meaningful improvement in QoL and reduction in health care utilization. This can be offered as an alternative to BiV-CRT or potentially as first-line therapy.

Extraction of His Bundle Pacing Lead: More Difficult than Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction: An Analysis of 3897 Lead Extraction Procedures Including 27 His and 253 Coronary Sinus Lead Removals

BACKGROUND

Experience with the transvenous extraction of leads used for His bundle pacing (HBP) is limited.

METHODS

Analysis of 3897 extractions including 27 HBP and 253 LVP (left ventricular pacing) leads.

RESULTS

The main reason for HBP lead extraction was lead failure (59.26%). The age of HBP and LVP leads (54.52 vs. 50.20 months) was comparable, whereas procedure difficulties were related to the LVP lead dwell time. The extraction of HBP leads > 40 months old was longer than the removal of younger leads (8.57 vs. 3.87 min), procedure difficulties occurred in 14.29%, and advanced tools were required in 28.57%. There were no major complications. The extraction time of dysfunctional or infected leads was similar in the HBP and LVP groups (log-rank p = 0.868) but shorter when compared to groups with other leads. Survival after the procedure did not differ between HBP and LVP groups but was shorter than in the remaining patients.

CONCLUSIONS

1. HBP is used in CRT-D systems for resynchronisation of the failing heart in 33.33%. 2. Extraction of HBP leads is most frequently performed for non-infectious indications (59.26%) and most often because of lead dysfunction (33.33%). 3. The extraction of "old" (>40 months) HBP leads is longer (8.57 vs. 3.87 min) and more difficult than the removal of "young" leads due to unexpected procedure difficulties (14.29%) and the use of second line/advanced tools (28.57%), but it does not entail the risk of major complications and procedure-related death and is comparable to those encountered in the extraction of LVP leads of a similar age. 4. Survival after lead extraction was comparable between HBP and LVP groups but shorter compared to patients who underwent the removal of other leads.

Clinical and Electrophysiological Outcomes of Left Bundle Area Pacing Compared to Biventricular Pacing: An Updated Meta-analysis

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing strategy that uses the conduction system distal to the left bundle branch block level for direct activation of the left bundle and right ventricular myocardium. Our meta-analysis compared the structural, electrophysiological, clinical, and procedural outcomes of LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BVP). The meta-analysis included two randomized controlled trials and showed significant reductions in the left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic volumes with LBBAP compared to BVP, together with statistically significant reductions in the QRS duration, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. The fluoroscopic time was also significantly shorter in the LBBAP group. However, no significant change in the LV ejection fraction was noted. Procedural complications were slightly higher in the LBBAP group, albeit not to a statistically significant degree. Our findings suggest that LBBAP may be a superior alternative to standard BVP in improving the structural, electrophysiological, and clinical components of cardiomyopathy, including the NYHA class and HF hospitalizations. LBBAP is a more physiological pacing strategy that results in normal ventricular activation and may be a viable alternative to BVP for cardiac synchronization therapy.

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging, echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing (BVP). This study assessed ventricular activation patterns and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP and compared this to BVP.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients underwent LBBP or BVP for CRT. Ventricular activation mapping was obtained by ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG). Functional and echocardiographic outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality after one year from implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization vs BVP (QRS width: 170 ± 16 ms to 128 ± 20 ms vs 174 ± 15 to 144 ± 17 ms, p = 0.002 (LBBP vs BVP); e-DYS 81 ± 17 ms to 0 ± 32 ms vs 77 ± 18 to 16 ± 29 ms, p = 0.016 (LBBP vs BVP)). Improvement in LVEF (from 28 ± 8 to 42 ± 10 percent vs 28 ± 9 to 36 ± 12 percent, LBBP vs BVP, p = 0.078) was similar. Improvement in NYHA function class (from 2.4 to 1.5 and from 2.3 to 1.5 (LBBP vs BVP)), hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging is an appropriate way to gain a better insight into activation patterns of LBBP and BVP. LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization (e-DYS and QRS duration) with comparable improvement in LVEF, NYHA functional class, hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality at one year of follow up.

Left bundle branch pacing set to outshine biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy?

The deleterious effects of long-term right ventricular pacing necessitated the search for alternative pacing sites which could prevent or alleviate pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Until recently, biventricular pacing (BiVP) was the only modality which could mitigate or prevent pacing induced dysfunction. Further, BiVP could resynchronize the baseline electromechanical dssynchrony in heart failure and improve outcomes. However, the high non-response rate of around 20%-30% remains a major limitation. This non-response has been largely attributable to the direct non-physiological stimulation of the left ventricular myocardium bypassing the conduction system. To overcome this limitation, the concept of conduction system pacing (CSP) came up. Despite initial success of the first CSP via His bundle pacing (HBP), certain drawbacks including lead instability and dislodgements, steep learning curve and rapid battery depletion on many occasions prevented its widespread use for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Subsequently, CSP via left bundle branch-area pacing (LBBP) was developed in 2018, which over the last few years has shown efficacy comparable to BiVP-CRT in small observational studies. Further, its safety has also been well established and is largely free of the pitfalls of the HBP-CRT. In the recent metanalysis by Yasmin et al, comprising of 6 studies with 389 participants, LBBP-CRT was superior to BiVP-CRT in terms of QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac chamber dimensions, lead thresholds, and functional status amongst heart failure patients with left bundle branch block. However, there are important limitations of the study including the small overall numbers, inclusion of only a single small randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a small follow-up duration. Further, the entire study population analyzed was from China which makes generalizability a concern. Despite the concerns, the meta-analysis adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of LBBP-CRT. At this stage, one must acknowledge that the fact that still our opinions on this technique are largely based on observational data and there is a dire need for larger RCTs to ascertain the position of LBBP-CRT in management of heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.

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.

Left bundle branch pacing lead for sensing ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A pilot study (LBBP-ICD study)

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative modality for biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-eligible patients. As it provides stable R-wave sensing, LBBP has been recently used to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term safety and efficacy of the LBBP lead for appropriate detection of ventricular arrhythmia and delivery of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients requiring defibrillator therapy with CRT.

METHODS

CRT-eligible patients who underwent successful LBBP-optimized ICD and LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator were enrolled. The LBBP lead was connected to the right ventricular-P/S port after capping the IS-1 connector plug of the DF-1-ICD lead. LBBP-optimized ICD or LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator was decided on the basis of correction of conduction system disease. Documented arrhythmic episodes and therapy delivered were analyzed.

RESULTS

Thirty patients were enrolled. The mean age was 59.7 ± 10.5 years. LBBP resulted in an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction from 29.9% ± 4.6% to 43.9% ± 11.2% (P < .0001). During a mean follow-up of 22.9 ± 12.5 months, 254 ventricular arrhythmic events were documented. Appropriate events (n = 225 [89%]) included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 212 episodes [94%]), VT (n = 8 [3.5%]), and ventricular fibrillation (n = 5 [2.5%]). ATP efficacy in terminating VT was 75%. Eleven percent of episodes (n = 29) were inappropriately detected because of T-wave oversensing. Inappropriate therapy (ATP) was delivered for 14 episodes (5.5%). Three patients (10%) had worsening of tricuspid regurgitation.

CONCLUSION

Sensing from the LBBP lead for arrhythmia detection is safe as ∼90% of the episodes were detected appropriately. Future studies with a dedicated LBBP-defibrillator lead along with algorithms to avoid oversensing can help in combining defibrillation with conduction system pacing.

Predictors and possible mechanisms of premature ventricular contraction induced cardiomyopathy

Premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) are encountered frequently in clinical practice. While PVCs may have various causes, a small number of individuals with PVCs develop cardiomyopathy in the absence of other potential etiologies. When correctly identified, patients with PVC-incuded cardiomyopathy can have dramatic improvement of their cardiomyopathy with treatment of their PVCs. In this focused review, we discuss potential predictors of PVC-induced cardiomyopathy, including PVC frequency, PVC characteristics, and modifiable patient risk factors. We also review some proposed mechanisms of PVC-induced cardiomyopathy and conclude with future directions for research and clinical practice.

Left bundle branch pacing vs ventricular septal pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

The outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) in patients with heart failure remain to be learned.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP, LVSP, and deep septal pacing (DSP).

Methods

This retrospective study included patients who met the criteria for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and underwent attempted LBBP in 5 Mayo centers. Clinical, electrocardiographic, and echocardiographic data were collected at baseline and follow-up.

Results

A total of 91 consecutive patients were included in the study. A total of 52 patients had LBBP, 25 had LVSP, and 14 had DSP. The median follow-up duration was 307 (interquartile range 208, 508) days. There was significant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement in the LBBP and LVSP groups (from 35.9 ± 8.5% to 46.9 ± 10.0%, P < .001 in the LBBP group; from 33.1 ± 7.5% to 41.8 ± 10.8%, P < .001 in the LVSP group) but not in the DSP group. A unipolar paced right bundle branch block morphology during the procedure in lead V1 was associated with higher odds of CRT response. There was no significant difference in heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths between the LBBP and LVSP groups. The rate of heart failure hospitalization and all-cause deaths were increased in the DSP group compared with the LBBP group (hazard ratio 5.10, 95% confidence interval 1.14-22.78, P = .033; and hazard ratio 7.83, 95% confidence interval 1.38-44.32, P = .020, respectively).

Conclusion

In patients undergoing CRT, LVSP had comparable CRT outcomes compared with LBBP.

Personalized cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by real-time electrocardiographic imaging for patients with non-left bundle branch block

BACKGROUND

Patients with heart failure and a non-left bundle branch block (non-LBBB) QRS pattern have a limited response to biventricular pacing (BVP).

OBJECTIVE

A personalized cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation approach guided by real-time electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) was studied.

METHODS

Twenty patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35%, QRS duration ≥ 120 ms, and non-LBBB [13 (65%) with right bundle branch block and 7 (35%) with intraventricular conduction delay] were recruited. During CRT implantation, right atrial, right ventricular, coronary sinus, His-bundle, and/or left bundle leads were inserted. The total activation time (TAT) with different pacing combinations were measured in real time during implantation by ECGi. The configuration producing the shortest TAT was chosen. Clinical response was defined as ≥1 New York Heart Association class improvement. Echocardiographic response was defined as left ventricular end-systolic volume reduction ≥ 15% and/or LVEF improvement ≥ 10% at 6 months.

RESULTS

After ECGi-guided CRT implantation, LVEF improved from 26% ± 6% to 34% ± 11% (P < .01) and New York Heart Association class improved from 3.0 ± 0.5 to 2.0 ± 0.6 (P < .01). Both clinical and echocardiographic response rates were 70%. The ECGi approach resulted in better acute electrical resynchronization over BVP as measured by TAT reduction (40% vs 14%; P < .01). The percentage of TAT reduction was found to be a strong predictor for echocardiographic response (area under the curve for the receiver operating characteristic curve 0.91; 95% confidence interval 0.78-1.00). A strong positive correlation between percentage TAT reduction and percentage LVEF improvement (Pearson R = 0.70; P = .001) was found.

CONCLUSION

ECGi-guided CRT implantation in patients with non-LBBB generates superior acute electrical resynchronization compared with BVP and is associated with favorable clinical and echocardiographic outcomes.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Left Ventricular Septal Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are considered to be acceptable as LBBAP strategies. Differences in clinical outcomes between LBBP and LVSP are yet to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of LBBP vs LVSP vs BIVP for CRT.

METHODS

In this prospective multicenter observational study, LBBP was compared with LVSP and BIVP in patients undergoing CRT. The primary composite outcome was freedom from heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, postprocedural NYHA functional class, and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters.

RESULTS

A total of 415 patients were included (LBBP: n = 141; LVSP: n = 31; BIVP: n = 243), with a median follow-up of 399 days (Q1-Q3: 249.5-554.8 days). Freedom from the primary composite outcomes was 76.6% in the LBBP group and 48.4% in the LVSP group (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.143-1.649; P = 0.001), driven by a 31.4% absolute increase in freedom from HF-related hospitalizations (83% vs 51.6%; HR: 3.55; 95% CI: 1.856-6.791; P < 0.001) without differences in all-cause mortality. LBBP was also associated with a higher freedom from the primary composite outcome compared with BIVP (HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.175-1.730; P < 0.001), with no difference between LVSP and BIVP.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing CRT, LBBP was associated with improved outcomes compared with LVSP and BIVP, while outcomes between BIVP and LVSP are similar.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP.

METHODS

The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model.

RESULTS

Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.

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.

Benefit of cardiac resynchronization therapy among older patients: A patient-level meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and mortality for guideline-indicated patients with heart failure (HF). Most patients with HF are aged ≥70 years but such patients are often under-represented in randomized trials.

METHODS

Patient-level data were combined from 8 randomized trials published 2002-2013 comparing CRT to no CRT (n = 6,369). The effect of CRT was estimated using an adjusted Bayesian survival model. Using age as a categorical (<70 vs ≥70 years) or continuous variable, the interaction between age and CRT on the composite end point of HFH or all-cause mortality or all-cause mortality alone was assessed.

RESULTS

The median age was 67 years with 2436 (38%) being 70+; 1,554 (24%) were women; 2,586 (41%) had nonischemic cardiomyopathy and median QRS duration was 160 ms. Overall, CRT was associated with a delay in time to the composite end point (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 0.75, 95% credible interval [CI] 0.66-0.85, P = .002) and all-cause mortality alone (aHR of 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.96, P = .017). When age was treated as a categorical variable, there was no interaction between age and the effect of CRT for either end point (P > .1). When age was treated as a continuous variable, older patients appeared to obtain greater benefit with CRT for the composite end point (P for interaction = .027) with a similar but nonsignificant trend for mortality (P for interaction = .35).

CONCLUSION

Reductions in HFH and mortality with CRT are as great or greater in appropriately indicated older patients. Age should not be a limiting factor for the provision of CRT.

Tailored electrocardiographic-based criteria for different pacing locations within the left bundle branch

BACKGROUND

Electrocardiographic (ECG)-based criteria are used to confirm left bundle branch (LBB) pacing (LBBP), but current cutoff values have never been validated for different pacing locations.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to describe diagnostic performance of V6-R wave peak time (RWPT), V6-V1 interpeak interval, and aVL-RWPT for different pacing sites within the LBB and to determine 100% specific values for each criterion at each pacing location.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with confirmed LBBP were selected. Population was divided into subgroups based on the site of pacing: left bundle trunk pacing (LBTP), left septal fascicular pacing (LSFP), left posterior fascicular pacing (LPFP), and left anterior fascicular pacing (LAFP).

RESULTS

A total of 147 patients with unequivocal LBB capture were analyzed. Left fascicular pacing was more frequently achieved (82.8%) than LBTP (17.2%). Diagnostic performance of V6-RWPT, V6-V1 interpeak interval, and aVL-RWPT for discrimination of LBBP was good in all subgroups. V6-RWPT cutoff values with 100% specificity (SP) for LBBP discrimination were 75 ms in LBTP, 68 ms in LPFP, 81 ms in LAFP, and 79.5 ms in LSFP. V6-V1 interpeak interval cutoff values with 100% SP for LBBP discrimination were 35.5 ms in LBTP, 53.5 ms in LPFP, 41 ms in LAFP, and 46 ms in LSFP. In LAFP, aVL-RWPT cutoff value with 100% SP for LBBP discrimination was 68 ms, but was 74 ms in LBTP, 74.5 ms in LSFP, and 73.5 ms in LPFP.

CONCLUSIONS

Tailored ECG-based criteria might be useful to confirm LBBP at different pacing locations within the LBB.

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.

Sex-Specific Outcomes of LBBAP Versus Biventricular Pacing: Results From I-CLAS

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) has been associated with greater clinical improvement in women than men. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be an alternative form of CRT.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to investigate sex-specific outcomes for death and heart failure events in a large, international, multicenter, cohort of patients undergoing CRT with BVP or LBBAP.

METHODS

In this international study of 1,778 patients (575 female and 1203 male), sex-specific survival analysis was performed to compare the effect of LBBAP-CRT relative to BVP-CRT on the combined endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and secondary endpoints of HFH only, and death alone.

RESULTS

Female patients were more likely to have nonischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block (LBBB) and less likely to have hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease than were male patients. Overall, female patients had a better result with LBBAP compared with BVP than did male patients, with a significant 36% reduction in death or HFH (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.97; P = 0.03) and a significant 60% reduction in HFH alone (HR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.69, P < 0.01). Women had a greater reduction in death or HFH among those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (HR: 0.45 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.79; P < 0.01) and LBBB (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.87; P < 0.01). Sex-specific echocardiographic outcomes were better in women than in men.

CONCLUSIONS

Women obtained significantly greater reductions in the combined endpoint of death or HFH (primarily driven by reduction in HFH) with LBBAP compared with BVP among patients requiring CRT than did men.

Outcomes of Upgrading to LBBP in CRT Nonresponders: A Prospective, Multicenter, Nonrandomized, Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) nonresponders account for nearly 30% of CRT candidates. Left-bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an alternative to CRT.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, clinical efficacy, and outcomes of upgrading to LBBP in CRT nonresponders, using propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

CRT nonresponders were defined as those with an implantable CRT-pacemaker or CRT-defibrillator for more than 12 months who remained nonresponsive (a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume of <15% or a left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] absolute increase of <5%) after optimal medical therapy and device optimization compared with baseline. In total, 145 CRT nonresponders were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups: upgraded to LBBP (n = 48), and continuing biventricular pacing (BVP) (control; n = 97). PSM was performed at a 1:1 ratio, and clinical evaluation and echocardiographic assessments were compared at baseline and follow-up in paired cohorts. The primary composite endpoint for clinical outcomes (heart failure-related rehospitalization events, all-cause death, or heart transplantation) was analyzed.

RESULTS

Successful upgrading to LBBP was achieved in 48/49 patients (97.96%), with a significant decrease in QRS duration (P < 0.001). In the paired LBBP group, LVEF significantly increased (baseline: 29.75% ± 7.79%; 6 months: 37.78% ± 9.25% [P < 0.001]; 12 months: 38.84% ± 12.13% [P < 0.001]) with 21/44 patients (47.73%) classified as echocardiographically responsive, whereas in the BVP control group, no significant improvement was observed (29.55% ± 6.74% vs 29.22% ± 8.10%; P = 0.840). In a multivariate logistic regression model, LV end-diastolic volume and baseline LBBB QRS morphology were independent predictors of echocardiographic response after upgrading to LBBP. At a median 24 months, the primary composite endpoint was significantly lower in the LBBP group (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14-0.72; log-rank P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading to LBBP is feasible and effective in achieving significant heart function improvement and better clinical outcomes in CRT nonresponders, making it a reasonable and promising pacing strategy. (LBBP in CRT Non-Response patients; ChiCTR1900028131).

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing: Prognosis and specific applications

Cardiac pacing has become a widely accepted treatment strategy for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure. However, conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with electrical dyssynchrony, which may result in atrial fibrillation and heart failure. To achieve physiological pacing, Deshmukh et al. reported the first case of His bundle pacing (HBP) in 2000. This strategy was reported to have preserved ventricular synchronization by activating the conventional conduction system. Nonetheless, due to the anatomical location of the His bundle (HB), several issues such as high pacing thresholds, lead fixation, and early battery depletion may pose a challenge. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy to achieve conduction system pacing by capturing the left bundle branch through the deep septum. Additionally, several studies have investigated the clinical outcomes of LBBAP. In this paper, we describe the pacing parameters, QRS duration (QRSd), cardiac function, complications, and specific applications of LBBAP in recent years.

Conventional biventricular pacing is still preferred to conduction system pacing for atrioventricular block in patients with reduced ejection fraction and narrow QRS

It is well established that right ventricular pacing is detrimental in patients with reduced cardiac function who require ventricular pacing (VP), and alternatives nowadays are comprised of biventricular pacing (BiVP) and conduction system pacing (CSP). The latter modality is of particular interest in patients with a narrow baseline QRS as it completely avoids, or minimizes, ventricular desynchronization associated with VP. In this article, experts debate whether BiVP or CSP should be used to treat these patients.

Noninvasive Electrical Mapping Compared with the Paced QRS Complex for Optimizing CRT Programmed Settings and Predicting Multidimensional Response

The aim was to test the hypothesis that left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) activation from body surface electrical mapping (CardioInsight 252-electrode vest, Medtronic) identifies optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) pacing strategies and outcomes in 30 patients. The LV80, RV80, and BIV80 were defined as the times to 80% LV, RV, or biventricular electrical activation. Smaller differences in the LV80 and RV80 (|LV80-RV80|) with synchronized LV pacing predicted better LV function post-CRT (p = 0.0004) than the LV-paced QRS duration (p = 0.32). Likewise, a lower RV80 was associated with a better pre-CRT RV ejection fraction by CMR (r =  - 0.40, p = 0.04) and predicted post-CRT improvements in myocardial oxygen uptake (p = 0.01) better than the biventricular-paced QRS (p = 0.38), while a lower LV80 with BIV pacing predicted lower post-CRT B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) (p = 0.02). RV pacing improved LV function with smaller |LV80-RV80| (p = 0.009). In conclusion, 3-D electrical mapping predicted favorable post-CRT outcomes and informed effective pacing strategies.

The Emerging Role of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces the risk of heart failure-related hospitalisations and all-cause mortality, as well as improving quality of life and functional status in patients with persistent heart failure symptoms despite optimal medical treatment and left bundle branch block. CRT has traditionally been delivered by implanting a lead through the coronary sinus to capture the left ventricular epicardium; however, this approach is associated with significant drawbacks, including a high rate of procedural failure, phrenic nerve stimulation, high pacing thresholds and lead dislodgement. Moreover, a significant proportion of patients fail to derive any significant benefit. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently emerged as a suitable alternative to traditional CRT. By stimulating the cardiac conduction system physiologically, LBBAP can result in a more homogeneous left ventricular contraction and relaxation, thus having the potential to improve outcomes compared with conventional CRT strategies. In this article, the evidence supporting the use of LBBAP in patients with heart failure is reviewed.

His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy vs Biventricular Pacing: HOT-CRT Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) using His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to compare the feasibility and clinical efficacy of HOT-CRT (His-Purkinje conduction system pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) with BVP in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and indication for CRT.

METHODS

This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of HOT-CRT and BVP in patients with LVEF <50% and indications for CRT. If HPCSP resulted in incomplete electrical resynchronization, a coronary sinus (CS) lead was added. The primary outcome was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major complications.

RESULTS

A total of 100 patients (female 31%, aged 70 ± 12 years, LVEF 31.5% ± 9.0%) were randomized. HOT-CRT was successful in 48 of 50 (96%) and BVP-CRT in 41 of 50 (82%) patients (P = 0.03). QRS duration significantly decreased from 164 ± 26 ms to 137 ± 20 ms with HOT-CRT and 166 ± 28 ms to 141 ± 19 ms with BVP. Fluoroscopy results (18.8 ± 12.4 min vs 23.8 ± 12.4 min, P = 0.05) and procedure duration (119 ± 42 min vs 114 ± 36 min, P = 0.5) were similar. The primary outcome of change in LVEF at 6 months was greater in HOT-CRT than in BVP (12.4% ± 7.3% vs 8.0% ± 10.1%, P = 0.02). The primary safety endpoint was similar (98% vs 94%, P = 0.62). Echocardiographic response of improvement in LVEF >5% occurred in 80% vs 61% (P = 0.06). Complications occurred in 3 (6%) in HOT-CRT vs 10 (20%) in BVP (P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

HPCSP-guided CRT resulted in greater change in LVEF compared with BVP. Randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are necessary. (His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [HOT-CRT]; NCT04561778).

A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is the common final pathway of several conditions and is characterized by hyperactivation of numerous neurohumoral pathways. Cardiorenal interaction plays an essential role in the progression of the disease, and the use of diuretics is a cornerstone in the treatment of hypervolemic patients, especially in acute decompensated HF (ADHF). The management of congestion is complex and, to avoid misinterpretations and errors, one must understand the interface between the heart and the kidneys in ADHF. Congestion itself may impair renal function and must be treated aggressively. Transitory elevations in serum creatinine during decongestion is not associated with worse outcomes and diuretics should be maintained in patients with clear hypervolemia. Monitoring urinary sodium after diuretic administration seems to improve the response to diuretics as it allows for adjustments in doses and a personalized approach. Adequate assessment of volemia and the introduction and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy are mandatory before discharge. An early visit after discharge is highly recommended, to assess for residual congestion and thus avoid readmissions.

Challenging coronary sinus lead placement for CRT: A modified "Anchoring balloon" technique

An 80-year-old man with a history of complete heart block underwent dual chamber pacemaker implantation about a year ago. He returned to the hospital due to de novo heart failure caused by pacing-induced cardiomyopathy; hence, we planned to upgrade his pacemaker to a biventricular device. The initial strategy was to perform left bundle branch area pacing-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) combined with a coronary sinus (CS) lead. In this challenging case, the successful placement of a CS lead was hindered by a complicated combination of a large CS body linked to the left superior vena cava and a winding CS branch. However, utilizing readily available tools, such as the coronary balloon and Guide Plus II ST catheter, proved instrumental in overcoming these obstacles. As a result, LOT-CRT provided the patient with a safe alternative to surgical LV lead placement.

Effectiveness of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) is ineffective in approximately one-third of patients. CRT with Conduction system pacing (CSP-CRT) may achieve greater synchronization. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CRT with His pacing (His-CRT) or left bundle branch pacing (LBB-CRT) in lieu of biventricular CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched until August 19, 2023, for original studies including patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who received His- or LBB-CRT, that reported either CSP-CRT success, LVEF, QRS duration (QRSd), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Effect measures were compared with frequentist network meta-analysis. Thirty-seven publications, including 20 comparative studies, were included. Success rates were 73.5% (95% CI: 61.2-83.0) for His-CRT and 91.5% (95% CI: 88.0-94.1) for LBB-CRT. Compared to BiV-CRT, greater improvements were observed for LVEF (mean difference [MD] for His-CRT +3.4%; 95% CI [1.0; 5.7], and LBB-CRT: +4.4%; [2.5; 6.2]), LV end-systolic volume (His-CRT:17.2mL [29.7; 4.8]; LBB-CRT:15.3mL [28.3; 2.2]), QRSd (His-CRT: -17.1ms [-25.0; -9.2]; LBB-CRT: -17.4ms [-23.2; -11.6]), and NYHA (Standardized MD [SMD]: His-CRT:0.4 [0.8; 0.1]; LBB-CRT:0.4 [-0.7; -0.2]). Pacing thresholds at baseline and follow-up were significantly lower with LBB-CRT versus both His-CRT and BiV-CRT. CSP-CRT was associated with reduced mortality (R = 0.75 [0.61-0.91]) and hospitalizations risk (RR = 0.63 [0.42-0.96]).

CONCLUSION

This study found that CSP-CRT is associated with greater improvements in QRSd, echocardiographic, and clinical response. LBB-CRT was associated with lower pacing thresholds. Future randomized trials are needed to determine CSP-CRT efficacy.

Role of conduction system pacing in ablate and pace strategies for atrial fibrillation

With the advent of conduction system pacing, the threshold for performing 'ablate and pace' procedures for atrial fibrillation has gone down markedly in many centres due to the ability to provide a simple and physiological means of pacing the ventricles. This article reviews the technical considerations for this strategy as well as the current evidence, recognized indications, and future perspectives.

Conduction system pacing: overview, definitions, and nomenclature

Pacing from the right ventricle is associated with an increased risk of development of congestive heart failure, increases in total and cardiac mortality, and a worsened quality of life. Conduction system pacing has become increasingly realized as an alternative to right ventricular apical pacing. Conduction system pacing from the His bundle and left bundle branch area has been shown to provide physiologic activation of the ventricle and may be an alternative to coronary sinus pacing. Conduction system pacing has been studied as an alternative for both bradycardia pacing and for heart failure pacing. In this review, we summarize the clinical results of conduction system pacing under a variety of different clinical settings. The anatomic targets of conduction system pacing are illustrated, and electrocardiographic correlates of pacing from different sites in the conduction system are defined. Ultimately, clinical trials comparing conduction system pacing with standard right ventricular apical pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing will help define its benefit and risks compared with existing techniques.

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.

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.

Computational Modelling Enabling In Silico Trials for Cardiac Physiologic Pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has the potential to achieve physiological-paced activation by pacing the ventricular conduction system. Before CSP is adopted in standard clinical practice, large, randomised, and multi-centre trials are required to investigate CSP safety and efficacy compared to standard biventricular pacing (BVP). Furthermore, there are unanswered questions about pacing thresholds required to achieve optimal pacing delivery while preventing device battery draining, and about which patient groups are more likely to benefit from CSP rather than BVP. In silico studies have been increasingly used to investigate mechanisms underlying changes in cardiac function in response to pathologies and treatment. In the context of CSP, they have been used to improve our understanding of conduction system capture to optimise CSP delivery and battery life, and noninvasively compare different pacing methods on different patient groups. In this review, we discuss the in silico studies published to date investigating different aspects of CSP delivery.

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.

Predictors of implantation failure in left bundle branch area pacing using a lumenless lead in patients with bradycardia

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel conduction system pacing technique. In this multicenter study, we aimed to evaluate the procedural success, safety, and preoperative predictors of procedural failure of LBBAP.

Methods

LBBAP was attempted in 285 patients with pacemaker indications for bradyarrhythmia, which were mainly atrioventricular block (AVB) (68.1%) and sick sinus syndrome (26.7%). Procedural success and electrophysiological and echocardiographic parameters were evaluated.

Results

LBBAP was successful in 247 (86.7%) patients. Left bundle branch (LBB) capture was confirmed in 54.7% of the population. The primary reasons for procedural failure were the inability of the pacemaker lead to penetrate deep into the septum (76.3%) and failure to achieve shortening of stimulus to left ventricular (LV) activation time in lead V6 (18.4%). Thickened interventricular septum (odds ratio [OR], 2.48; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.15-5.35), severe tricuspid regurgitation (OR, 8.84; 95% CI, 1.22-64.06), and intraventricular conduction delay (OR, 8.16; 95% CI, 2.32-28.75) were preoperative predictors of procedural failure. The capture threshold and ventricular amplitude remained stable, and no major complications occurred throughout the 2-year follow-up. In patients with ventricular pacing burden >40%, the LV ejection fraction remained high regardless of LBB capture.

Conclusions

Successful LBBAP was affected by abnormal cardiac anatomy and intraventricular conduction. LBBAP is feasible and safe as a primary strategy for patients with AVB, depending on ventricular pacing.

Conduction System Pacing versus Conventional Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Where Are We Heading?

Over the last few years, pacing of the conduction system (CSP) has emerged as the new standard pacing modality for bradycardia indications, allowing a more physiological ventricular activation compared to conventional right ventricular pacing. CSP has also emerged as an alternative modality to conventional biventricular pacing for the delivery of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients. However, if the initial clinical data seem to support this new physiological-based approach to CRT, the lack of large randomized studies confirming these preliminary results prevents CSP from being used routinely in clinical practice. Furthermore, concerns are still present regarding the long-term performance of pacing leads when employed for CSP, as well as their extractability. In this review article, we provide the state-of-the-art of CSP as an alternative to biventricular pacing for CRT delivery in heart failure patients. In particular, we describe the physiological concepts supporting this approach and we discuss the future perspectives of CSP in this context according to the implant techniques (His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing) and the clinical data published so far.

Electrical Resynchronization and Clinical Outcomes During Long-Term Follow-Up in Intraventricular Conduction Delay Patients Applied Left Bundle Branch Pacing-Optimized Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) has shown encouraging results for QRS duration reduction and heart function improvement. However, the feasibility and efficacy of LOT-CRT have not been well established in intraventricular conduction delay patients. This study aims to assess and compare the efficacy and clinical outcome of CRT based on left bundle branch pacing, combined with coronary sinus left ventricular pacing (LOT-CRT) with CRT via biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) in intraventricular conduction delay patients indicated for CRT.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with intraventricular conduction delay and CRT indications were assigned nonrandomized to LOT-CRT (n=30) or BiV-CRT (n=55). Addition of the left bundle branch pacing (or coronary venous) lead was at the discretion of the implanting physician guided by suboptimal paced QRS complex and on clinical grounds. Echocardiographic parameters and clinical characteristics were accessed at baseline and during 2-years' follow-up.

RESULTS

Success rate for LOT-CRT and BiV-CRT was 96.8% and 96.4%. LOT-CRT had greater reduction of QRS duration compared with BiV-CRT (42.7±17.4 ms versus 21.9±21.5 ms; P<0.001). Higher left ventricular ejection fraction was also achieved in LOT-CRT than BiV-CRT at 6-month (36.7±9.8% versus 30.5±6.4%; P<0.05), 12-month (34.8±7.6% versus 30.3±6.2%; P<0.05), 18-month (36.3±7.9% versus 28.1±6.6%; P<0.005), and 24-month follow-up (37±9.5% versus 30.5±7%; P<0.05). Adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure rehospitalization and mortality were lower in LOT-CRT group for 24 months follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.33; P=0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

LOT-CRT improves ventricular electrical synchrony and may provide greater clinical outcomes as compared with BiV-CRT in intraventricular conduction delay patients. These findings need further evaluation in future randomized controlled trials.

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.

The evolving state of cardiac resynchronization therapy and conduction system pacing: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was proposed in the 1990s as a new therapy for patients with heart failure and wide QRS with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction despite optimal medical treatment. This review is aimed first to describe the rationale and the physiologic effects of CRT. The journey of the landmark randomized trials leading to the adoption of CRT in the guidelines since 2005 is also reported showing the high level of evidence for CRT. Different alternative pacing modalities of CRT to conventional left ventricular pacing through the coronary sinus have been proposed to increase the response rate to CRT such as multisite pacing and endocardial pacing. A new emerging alternative technique to conventional biventricular pacing, conduction system pacing (CSP), is a promising therapy. The different modalities of CSP are described (Hirs pacing and left bundle branch area pacing). This new technique has to be evaluated in clinical randomized trials before implementation in the guidelines with a high level of evidence.

Cardiac pacing and lead devices management: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

AIMS

Cardiac pacing represents a key element in the field of electrophysiology and the treatment of conduction diseases. Since the first issue published in 1999, EP Europace has significantly contributed to the development and dissemination of the research in this area.

METHODS

In the last 25 years, there has been a continuous improvement of technologies and a great expansion of clinical indications making the field of cardiac pacing a fertile ground for research still today. Pacemaker technology has rapidly evolved, from the first external devices with limited longevity, passing through conventional transvenous pacemakers to leadless devices. Constant innovations in pacemaker size, longevity, pacing mode, algorithms, and remote monitoring highlight that the fascinating and exciting journey of cardiac pacing is not over yet.

CONCLUSION

The aim of the present review is to provide the current 'state of the art' on cardiac pacing highlighting the most important contributions from the Journal in the field.

Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.

Cardiac Resynchronisation with Conduction System Pacing

To date, biventricular pacing (BiVP) has been the standard pacing modality for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. However, it is non-physiological, with the activation spreading between the left ventricular epicardium and right ventricular endocardium. Up to one-third of patients with heart failure who are eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy do not derive benefit from BiVP. Conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, has emerged as an alternative to BiVP for cardiac resynchronisation. There is mounting evidence supporting the benefits of CSP in achieving synchronous ventricular activation and repolarisation. The aim of this review is to summarise the current options and outcomes of CSP when used for cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay

The efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) is well established with Class I or IIa recommendation according to 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and CRT, whereas non-LBBB morphology is less recommended. There is insufficient evidence that proves patients with NICD could benefit from CRT. As patients with NICD are characterized by heterogeneity, the effect of CRT on these patients is still controversial. Although the proportion of NICD in the population is lower than that of LBBB patients, it is still worth investigating the effects of CRT on patients with NICD in an era of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP).