Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Lead performance of stylet-driven leads in left bundle branch area pacing: Results from a large single-center cohort and insights from in vitro bench testing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) requires deep septal lead deployment for left-sided conduction stimulation. Advancing leads toward deep septal positions might add mechanical stress on these leads. Concerns about lead performance and reliability remain an unanswered question.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to analyze lead performance and integrity of stylet-driven pacing leads (SDLs) for LBBAP.

METHODS

This study assessed lead fracture rates of SDL in a large single-center cohort of adult LBBAP patients. Fluoroscopic analysis of lead bending angulations at the septal insertion point and in vitro bench testing of lead preconditioning were performed to simulate clinical use conditions. Lead performance was compared between LBBAP and conventional right ventricular apical pacing (RVp) sites.

RESULTS

The study included 325 LBBAP patients (66% male; age 71±15 years). During median follow-up of 18 months, 2 patients (0.6%) experienced conductor fracture between tip housing and ring electrode, whereas no such fractures occurred with RVp patients (n = 149; P = .22). X-ray analysis revealed that high lead bending angulations occurred in 1.3% of the patients. Accelerated bench testing of excessive preconditioned leads showcased a higher probability of early conductor fracture compared to standard preconditioned leads.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of early conductor failure in LBBAP seems higher than with conventional RVp sites. The most vulnerable lead part seems to be the interelectrode space between the tip housing and ring electrode. Excessive angulation and preconditioning might contribute to early fatigue fracture.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Morbidity and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the morbidity and mortality associated with LBBAP versus BVP in patients undergoing CRT implantation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who received CRT from two high-volume implantation centers were retrospectively recruited. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization, and the secondary endpoint was all-cause death.

RESULTS

A total of 491 patients receiving CRT (154 via LBBAP and 337 via BVP) were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. The primary endpoint was reached by 21 (13.6%) patients in the LBBAP group, as compared with 74 (22.0%) patients in the BVP group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.14, P = 0.15]. There were 10 (6.5%) deaths in the LBBAP group, as compared with 31 (9.2%) in the BVP group (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.86, P = 0.79). No significant difference was observed in the risk of either the primary or secondary endpoint between LBBAP and BVP after multivariate Cox regression (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.23, P = 0.24, and HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.67, P = 0.51, respectively) or propensity score matching (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.29, P = 0.28, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.29-1.65, P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a comparable effect on morbidity and mortality relative to BVP in patients with indications for CRT.

2024 HRS expert consensus statement on arrhythmias in the athlete: Evaluation, treatment, and return to play

Youth and adult participation in sports continues to increase, and athletes may be diagnosed with potentially arrhythmogenic cardiac conditions. This international multidisciplinary document is intended to guide electrophysiologists, sports cardiologists, and associated health care team members in the diagnosis, treatment, and management of arrhythmic conditions in the athlete with the goal of facilitating return to sport and avoiding the harm caused by restriction. Expert, disease-specific risk assessment in the context of athlete symptoms and diagnoses is emphasized throughout the document. After appropriate risk assessment, management of arrhythmias geared toward return to play when possible is addressed. Other topics include shared decision-making and emergency action planning. The goal of this document is to provide evidence-based recommendations impacting all areas in the care of athletes with arrhythmic conditions. Areas in need of further study are also discussed.

Transvenous extraction of conduction system pacing leads: An international multicenter (TECSPAM) study

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) by His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is incorporated into Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for the management of bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Despite increasing adoption with both lumenless leads and stylet-driven leads, concerns regarding the feasibility and safety of the extraction of CSP leads remain.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study was to report on the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of the extraction of CSP leads.

METHODS

Patients undergoing the extraction of CSP leads from 10 international centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data regarding indications, lead location, lead type, extraction tools, procedural success, complications, and reimplantation in the conduction system were collected.

RESULTS

Overall, 341 patients (age 69 ± 15 years; female 34%; cardiomyopathy 46%; lead dwell time 22 ± 26 months) underwent the extraction of 224 His bundle pacing and 117 LBBAP leads (lumenless leads 321; stylet-driven leads 20). Complete procedural success was achieved in 338 (99%), while clinical success was 100% with retained distal fragments in 3 patients (1%). Among patients with a lead dwell time of >6 months (6-193 months; n = 226), manual extraction was successful in 198 (87%), mechanical tools in 22 (10%), and laser in 6 (3%). Femoral tools were necessary in 3 patients. Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (2.1%). CSP reimplantation was successful in 233 of 244 patients attempted (95%).

CONCLUSION

The overall success rates of the extraction of CSP leads were very high (although the LBBAP lead dwell time was <3 years), with a low need for extraction tools and minimal complication. Reimplantation in the conduction system is feasible and safe.

Current role of Conduction System Pacing in Patients Requiring Permanent Pacing

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) are novel methods of pacing directly pacing the cardiac conduction system. HBP while developed more than two decades ago, only recently moved into the clinical mainstream. In contrast to conventional cardiac pacing, conduction system pacing including HBP and LBBP utilizes the native electrical system of the heart to rapidly disseminate the electrical impulse and generate a more synchronous ventricular contraction. Widespread adoption of conduction system pacing has resulted in a wealth of observational data, registries, and some early randomized controlled clinical trials. While much remains to be learned about conduction system pacing and its role in electrophysiology, data available thus far is very promising. In this review of conduction system pacing, the authors review the emergence of conduction system pacing and its contemporary role in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Tricuspid regurgitation and infective endocarditis as a cause of lead dislodgement in left bundle branch area pacing

BACKGROUND

According to the current literature, there is no difference between left bundle brunch area pacing (LBBAP) and right ventricular apical pacing in terms of lead dislodgement and capture threshold elevation. However, there are no large-scale studies reporting the data about long-term lead stability in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We present a case of lead dislodgement with possible infective endocarditis six months after implantation in a patient with severe tricuspid regurgitation who underwent LBBAP.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that severe preoperative tricuspid regurgitation may cause lead dislodgement, and infective endocarditis may be a facilitator or main reason of lead dislodgement in cases of LBBAP.

Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in Japanese patients with bradycardia

Background

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) emerge as better alternatives to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP, HBP, and RVAP in Japanese patients with bradycardia.

Methods

A total of 424 patients who underwent successful pacemaker implantation (HBP, n = 53; LBBAP, n = 75; and RVAP, n = 296) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The primary study endpoint was the cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) during the follow-up.

Results

The success rate for implantation was higher in the LBBAP group than in the HBP group (94.9% and 81.5%, respectively). Capture threshold increase >1V during the follow-up occurred in the HBP and RVAP groups (9.4% and 5.1%, respectively), while it did not in the LBBAP group. The cumulative incidence of HFH was significantly lower in the LBBAP group than the RVAP (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.12 [95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.86]; p = .034); it did not differ between the HBP and RVAP groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.17-1.34]; p = .16). Advanced age, mean percent right ventricular pacing (per 10% increase), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, and RVAP were associated with HFH.

Conclusions

Compared to RVAP and HBP, LBBAP appeared more feasible and effective in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

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 area pacing versus conventional pacing in patients with advanced atrioventricular conduction abnormalities: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging pacing method that may prevent the deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing. The aim of this study is to compare the effects of LBBAP with right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) in patients with advanced atrioventricular conduction abnormalities and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction.

METHODS

The effect of pacing was evaluated by echocardiographic indices of dyssynchrony, including global myocardial work efficiency (GWE) and peak systolic dispersion (PSD). The primary endpoint was GWE postprocedural, at 3, 6, and 12 months after the procedure.

RESULTS

Twenty patients received LBBAP and 18 RVSP. Complete follow-up was accomplished in 37 patients (97.4%) due to the death of a patient (RVSP arm) from nonrelated cause. GWE was significantly increased in the group of LBBAP compared to RVSP at all time points (90.8% in LBBAP versus 85.8% in RVSP group at 12 months, p = 0.01). PSD was numerically lower in the LBBAP arm at all time points, yet not statistically significant (56.4 msec in LBBP versus 65.1 msec in RVSP arm at 12 months, p = 0.178). The implantation time was increased (median 93 min in LBBAP versus 45 min in RVSP group, p < 0.01), along with fluoroscopy time and dose area product (DAP), in the arm of LBBAP. There were no severe perioperative acute complications in either group.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP is an emerging and safe technique for patients with a pacing indication. Despite the longer procedural and fluoroscopy time, as well as higher DAP, LBBAP seems to offer better left ventricular synchrony compared to RVSP, according to GWE measurements.

Is left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) associated with better depolarization and repolarization kinetics than right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP)? - Comparison of frontal QRS -T angle in patients with LBBP, RVSP and normal ventricular conduction

AIMS

To assess the frontal QRS- T angle (f QRS- T angle) in patients with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) as compared to right ventricular mid septal pacing (RVSP) implanted for symptomatic high degree atrioventricular (AV) block and to compare with control subjects with normal ventricular conduction (CSNVC) METHODS: A total of one-fifty subjects were chosen (50 patients with LBBP, 50 patients with RVSP and 50 CSNVC). The indication for pacemaker implantation was symptomatic high degree AV block. Baseline clinical and electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters like QRS duration (QRSD), QRS axis and f QRS-T angle and Ejection Fraction (EF) were assessed. f QRS-T angle was measured as the difference between the computerised mean frontal QRS and T wave axes in the limb leads. If the difference between the QRS axis and T-wave axis exceeds 180°, then the resultant QRS-T angle would be calculated as 360° minus the absolute angle to obtain a value between 0° and 180°. Baseline, immediate post procedural and 6 month follow up (f/u) ECGs and EF were chosen for the analysis.

RESULTS

Patients who underwent LBBP had significantly shorter paced QRSD than patients who had undergone RVSP (112 ± 12 ms vs 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % confidence interval (CI): 43, -31; p<0.001). There was no significant difference in the QRSD before and after LBBP. The QRSD before and after pacing in RVSP was 111 ± 27 ms and 146 ± 13 ms; 95 % CI: 43, -28; p < 0.001. The QRSD in control patients with NVC was 82.94 ± 9.59 ms. RVSP was associated with wider f QRS-T angle when compared with LBBP (103 ± 53° vs 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 39, -1.0; p = 0.037). The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in LBBP was 70 ± 48° and 82 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 31, 5.3; p = 0.2. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle was 61 ± 43°; 95 % CI: 8.5, 35; p=0.002. The baseline and immediate post procedure f QRS-T angle in RVSP was 67 ± 51° and 103 ± 53°; 95 % CI: 54, -17; p < 0.001. At 6 months f/u, the f QRS-T angle in RVSP group was 87 ± 58°; 95 % CI: 2.6, 29; p = 0.020. The f QRS T angle in control patients with NVC was 24 ± 16°. When subgroup analysis was done the difference in the f QRS-T angle was significant between RVSP and LBBP groups only in patients who had wide QRS escape. The mean LVEF at 6-month follow-up in LBBP vs RVSP was 61 ± 3.7 % vs 57.1 ± 7.8 %; 95 % CI:1.48, 6.32, p = 0.002. In the RVSP group, three patients developed pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PIC) whereas no patients in the LBBP group developed PIC at 6-month follow-up; p=0.021. One patient with PIC had deterioration of functional status with new onset HF symptoms. The patient symptoms improved with medical therapy and needed no hospitalisation. The patient declined further interventions including upgradation to CRT or LBB pacing. No deaths or ventricular arrhythmias were observed during the study period.

CONCLUSION

LBBP is associated with narrower f QRS-T angle as compared to RVSP both at post implant period and at 6 month f/u period. These findings might be due to the more physiological depolarization and repolarization kinetics associated with LBBP. RVSP was associated with 6 % incidence of PIC. Hence wide f QRS-T angle might be a predictor of PIC.

Does asymptomatic atrial fibrillation exist?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is currently defined as symptomatic by asking patients if they are aware of when they are in AF and if they feel better in sinus rhythm. However, this approach of defining AF as symptomatic and asymptomatic fails to adequately consider the adverse effects of AF in patients who are unaware of their rhythm including progression from paroxysmal to persistent AF, and the development of dementia, stroke, sinus node dysfunction, valvular regurgitation, ventricular dysfunction, and heart failure. Labeling these patients as asymptomatic falsely suggests that their AF requires less intense therapy and puts into question the notion of truly asymptomatic AF. Because focusing on patient awareness ignores other important consequences of AF, clinical endpoints that are independent of symptoms are being developed. The concept of AF burden has more recently been used as a clinical endpoint in clinical trials as a more clinically relevant endpoint compared to AF-related symptoms or time to first recurrence, but its correlation with symptoms and other clinical outcomes remains unclear. This review will explore the impact of AF on apparently asymptomatic patients, the use of AF burden as an endpoint for AF management, and potential refinements to the AF burden metric. The review is based on a presentation by the senior author during the 2023 16th annual European Cardiac Arrhythmia Society (ECAS) congress in Paris, France.

Electrical therapies in heart failure: Evolving technologies and indications

Device therapy for heart failure has rapidly evolved over 2 decades. The knowledge of indications, assessment lead and device technology has expanded to include CRT, leadless pacing and conduction system pacing such as His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing. But there is still a lack of evidence for these new technologies as well as for common indications such as atrial fibrillation and upgrading from a previous device. The role of personalized medicine will become increasingly important when selecting candidates for CRT, primary preventive ICD ablation procedures and emerging new devices such as cardiac contractility modulation (CCM). Rapidity of therapy is associated with outcome which will be a challenge. If properly implemented devices and drugs will have a large positive affect of HF outcomes.

Association between left bundle branch block and ventricular septal mid-wall fibrosis in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The left bundle branch block (LBBB) is associated with ventricular septal mid-wall fibrosis (SMF) in patients with dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM). However, whether LBBB is also associated with SMF in patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) remains unclear.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective study of 210 patients with preserved LVEF (male, n = 116; female, n = 94; mean age, 44 ± 17 years). LBBB was defined as QRS duration ≥140 ms for men or ≥ 130 ms for women, QS or rS in V1-V2, mid-QRS notching or slurring in at least two leads (V1, V2, V5, V6, I, and aVL). SMF determined by late gadolinium-enhancement cardiovascular magnetic resonance was defined as stripe-like or patchy mid-myocardial hyper-enhancement in the interventricular septal segments.

RESULTS

SMF was detected in 24.8% (52/210) of these patients. The proportion of patients with SMF with LBBB was higher than the proportion of patients with SMF without LBBB (58.3% vs. 20.4%; P < 0.001). In the forward multivariate logistic analysis, LBBB (OR, 4.399; 95% CI, 1.774-10.904; P = 0.001) and age (OR, 1.028; 95% CI, 1.006-1.051; P = 0.011) were independently associated with SMF. The presence of LBBB showed a sensitivity of 27%%, specificity of 94%, positive predictive value of 58%%, and negative predictive value of 80% for the detection of SMF.

CONCLUSION

LBBB was significantly associated with SMF in hospitalized patients with preserved LVEF. Screening with a resting 12‑lead ECG may help to identify patients who are at a high risk of the presence of SMF.

Assessing Torque Transfer in Conduction System Pacing: Development and Evaluation of an Ex Vivo Model

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) faces challenges in achieving reliable and safe deployments. Complex interactions between tissue and lead tip can result in endocardial entanglement, a drill effect that prevents penetration. No verified ex vivo model exists to quantitatively assess this relationship.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively characterize CSP lead tip to tissue responses for 4 commonly used leads.

METHODS

CSP leads (from Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Abbott) were examined for helix rotation efficiency in ex vivo ovine right ventricular septa. A custom jig was utilized for rotation measurements. Fifteen turns were executed, documenting tissue-interface changes every 90° using high-resolution photography. Response curves (input rotation vs helix rotation) were evaluated using piecewise linear regression, with a focus on output vs input response slopes and torque breakpoint events.

RESULTS

We analyzed 3,840 quarter-turn CSP insertions with 4 different lead types. Helix rotations were consistently less than input: Abbott Tendril = 0.21:1, Medtronic 3830 = 0.21:1, Biotronik Solia = 0.47:1, and Boston Scientific Ingevity = 0.56:1. Torque breakpoint events were observed on average 7.22 times per insertion (95% CI: 6.08-8.35; P = NS) across all leads. In 57.8% of insertions (37 of 64), uncontrolled torque breakpoint events occurred, signaling unexpected excess helix rotations.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a robust ex vivo model, we revealed a muted helix rotation response compared with input turns on the lead, and frequent torque change events during insertion. This is critical for CSP implanters, emphasizing the potential for unexpected torque breakpoint events, and suggesting the need for novel lead designs or deployment methods to enhance CSP efficiency and safety.

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.

Case Report: Left bundle branch pacing in an amyloid light-chain cardiac amyloidosis patient with atrioventricular block

Introduction

Amyloid light-chain cardiac amyloidosis is a progressive infiltrative disease characterized by the deposition of amyloid fibrils in the cardiac tissue, which can cause serious atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation. Left bundle branch pacing has emerged as an alternative method for delivering physiological pacing to achieve electrical synchrony of the left ventricle. However, left bundle branch pacing in patients with amyloid light-chain cardiac amyloidosis has not been studied in detail. Therefore, in this study, we present a case of left bundle branch pacing in a patient with amyloid light-chain cardiac amyloidosis.

Case summary

A 66-year-old male patient with amyloid light-chain cardiac amyloidosis presented with syncope for 1 month. Holter monitoring revealed intermittent third-degree atrioventricular block. Left bundle branch pacing was performed successfully. During the 1-year follow-up, it was observed that the left bundle branch capture threshold remained stable without any pacemaker-related complications or left ventricle systolic dysfunction, and there was no recurrence of syncope.

Conclusion

Left bundle branch pacing appears to be a safe and feasible option for patients with amyloid light-chain cardiac amyloidosis experiencing atrioventricular block.

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.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Loss of capture of conduction system pacemaker caused by fibrosis surrounding the lead: a case report

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a novel technique that involves pacing the His-Purkinje system instead of the traditional right ventricular (RV) apex. This technique aims to avoid the adverse effects of RV apical pacing, which can lead to ventricular dyssynchrony and heart failure over time. CSP is gaining popularity but its long-term efficacy and challenges remain uncertain. This report discusses a case where CSP was initially successful but faced complications due to an increasing pacing threshold.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 65-year-old female with total atrioventricular block was referred for brady-pacing. Due to the potential for chronic RV pacing, CSP was chosen. The CSP implantation involved subcutaneous device placement, with a CSP lead in the left bundle branch area (LBBA) and an RV backup lead. A year after successful implantation, the LBBA pacing threshold progressively increased. Subsequent efforts to correct it led to anodal capture and battery depletion. Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (CMR) revealed mid-septal fibrosis at the area of LBBA lead placement and suggested cardiac sarcoidosis as a possible cause.

CONCLUSION

CSP is a promising technique for treating bradyarrhythmias, but this case underscores the need for vigilance in monitoring pacing thresholds. Increasing thresholds can render CSP ineffective, necessitating alternative pacing methods. The CMR findings of mid-septal fibrosis and the potential diagnosis of cardiac sarcoidosis emphasize the importance of pre-implantation assessment, as CSP may be compromised by underlying structural abnormalities. This report highlights the complexities of pacing strategy selection and the significance of comprehensive evaluation before adopting CSP.

Conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation in heart failure: The PACE-FIB study design

AIMS

Atrial fibrillation (AF) worsens the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). Successful treatments are still very scarce for those with permanent AF and preserved (HFpEF) or mildly reduced (HFmrEF) ejection fraction. In this study, the long-term benefits and safety profile of heart rate regularization through left-bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) will be explored in comparison with pharmacological rate-control strategy.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PACE-FIB trial is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized (1:1) clinical study that will take place between March 2022 and February 2027. A total of 334 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF and permanent AF will receive either LBBP followed by AVNA (intervention arm) or optimal pharmacological treatment for heart rate control according to European guideline recommendations (control arm). All patients will be followed up for a minimum of 36 months. The primary outcome measure will be the composite of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and worsening HF at 36 months. Other secondary efficacy and safety outcome measures such as echocardiographic parameters, functional status, and treatment-related adverse events, among others, will be analysed too.

CONCLUSION

LBBP is a promising stimulation mode that may foster the clinical benefit of heart rate regularization through AV node ablation compared with pharmacological rate control. This is the first randomized trial specifically addressing the long-term efficacy and safety of this pace-and-ablate strategy in patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF and permanent AF.

Acute performance of stylet driven leads for left bundle branch area pacing: A comparison with lumenless leads

Background

Lumenless leads (LLLs) are widely used for left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Recently, stylet-driven leads (SDLs) have also been used for LBBAP.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute performance of SDLs during LBBAP in comparison with LLLs.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing LBBAP for bradycardia or cardiac resynchronization therapy indications at 2 high-volume, early conduction system pacing adopters, tertiary centers were included from January 2019 to July 2023. Patients received either SDLs or LLLs at the discretion of the implanting physician. Acute performance and follow-up data of both lead types were evaluated.

Results

A total of 925 LBBAP implants were included, 655 using LLLs and 270 using SDLs. Overall, LBBAP acute success was significantly higher with LLLs than SDLs (95.3% vs 85.1%, respectively; P <.001) even after the learning curve (97% vs 86%; P = .013). LLLs were implanted in more mid-basal septal positions in comparison with SDLs, which tended to be implanted in more inferior and mid-apical septal positions. Acute lead-related complications were higher with SDLs than LLLs (15.9% vs 6.1%, respectively; P <.001) with 15 cases of lead damage during implant (4.4% vs 0.5%; P <.001) but decreased with acquired experience and were comparable in the last 100 patients included in each group. Lead implant and fluoroscopy times were shorter for SDLs, with lead dislodgment occurring in 0.9% with LLLs and 1.5% with SDLs (P = .489).

Conclusion

Acute lead performance proved to be different between LLLs and SDLs. A specific learning curve should be considered for SDLs even for implanters with extensive previous experience with LLLs.

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing for patients with stable coronary artery disease

Aims

Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is a prevalent comorbidity among patients requiring pacemaker implantation. This comorbidity may have an impact on the safety and prognosis of traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing modality. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and safety of LBBaP in patients with the stable CAD.

Methods

This study included 309 patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBaP from September 2017 to October 2021. We included 104 patients with stable CAD (CAD group) and 205 patients without CAD (non-CAD group). Additionally, 153 stable CAD patients underwent RVP, and 64 stable CAD patients underwent His-bundle pacing (HBP) were also enrolled in this study. The safety and prognosis of LBBaP was assessed by comparing pacing parameters, procedure-related complications, and clinical events.

Results

During a follow-up period of 17.4 ± 5.3 months, the safety assessment revealed that the overall rates of procedure-related complications were similar between the stable CAD group and the non-CAD group (7.7% vs. 3.9%). Likewise, similar rates of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (4.8% vs. 3.4%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD) and the primary composite outcome including death due to cardiovascular disease, HFH, or the necessity for upgrading to biventricular pacing (6.7% vs. 3.9%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD), were observed. In stable CAD patients, LBBaP demonstrated lower pacing thresholds and higher R wave amplitudes when compared to HBP. Additionally, LBBaP also had significantly lower occurrences of the primary composite outcome (6.7% vs. 19.6%, P = 0.003) and HFH (4.8% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.031) than RVP in stable CAD patients, particularly among patients with the higher ventricular pacing (VP) burden (>20% and >40%).

Conclusion

Compared with non-CAD patients, LBBaP was found to be attainable in stable CAD patients and exhibited comparable mid-term safety and prognosis. Furthermore, in the stable CAD population, LBBaP has demonstrated more stable pacing parameters than HBP, and better prognostic outcomes compared to RVP.

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.

Feasibility and Safety Study of Concomitant Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Atrioventricular Node Ablation with Same-Day Hospital Dismissal

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has rapidly emerged as a promising modality of physiologic pacing and has demonstrated excellent lead stability. In this retrospective study, we evaluate whether this pacing modality can allow concomitant atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation and same-day dismissal.

METHODS

Twenty-four consecutive patients (female 63%, male 37%) with an average age of 78 ± 5 years were admitted for pacemaker (75%)/defibrillator (25%) implantations and concomitant AVN ablation. Device implantation with LBBAP was performed first, followed by concomitant AVN ablation through left axillary vein access to allow for quicker post-procedure ambulation. The patients were discharged on the same day after satisfactory post-ambulation device checks.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successful in 22 patients (92% in total, 20 patients had an LBBP and two patients had a likely LBBP), followed by AVN ablation from left axillary vein access (21/24, 88%). All patients had successful post-op chest x-rays, post-ambulation device checks, and were discharged on the same day. After a mean follow up of three months, no major complications occurred, such as LBBA lead dislodgement requiring a lead revision. The LBBA lead pacing parameters immediately after implantation vs. three-month follow up were a capture threshold of 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms vs. 0.6 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms, sensing 9.9 ± 3.9 mV vs. 10.4 ± 4.1 mV, and impedance of 710 ± 216 ohm vs. 544 ± 110 ohm. The QRS duration before and after AVN ablation was 117 ± 32 ms vs. 123 ± 14 ms. Mean LVEF before and three months after the implantation was 44 ± 14% vs. 46 ± 12%.

CONCLUSION

LBBA pacing not only offers physiologic pacing, but also allows for a concomitant AVN ablation approach from the left axillary vein and safe same-day hospital dismissal.

Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing compared with right ventricular pacing in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Right Ventricular Pacing (RVP) may have detrimental effects in ventricular function. Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) is a new pacing strategy that appears to have better results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of LBBAP vs RVP in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE and Pubmed databases were searched for studies comparing LBBAP with RVP. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and complications. QRS duration, mechanical synchrony and LVEF changes were also assessed. Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using random and fixed effects models.

RESULTS

Twenty-five trials with 4250 patients (2127 LBBAP) were included in the analysis. LBBAP was associated with lower risk for HFH (RR:0.33, CI 95%:0.21 to 0.50; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (RR:0.52 CI 95%:0.34 to 0.80; p = 0.003), and AF occurrence (RR:0.43 CI 95%:0.27 to 0.68; p < 0.001) than RVP. Lead related complications were not different between the two groups (p = 0.780). QRSd was shorter in the LBBAP group at follow-up (WMD: -32.20 msec, CI 95%: -40.70 to -23.71; p < 0.001) and LBBAP achieved better intraventricular mechanical synchrony than RVP (SMD: -1.77, CI 95%: -2.45 to -1.09; p < 0.001). LBBAP had similar pacing thresholds (p = 0.860) and higher R wave amplitudes (p = 0.009) than RVP.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP has better clinical outcomes, preserves ventricular electrical and mechanical synchrony and has excellent pacing parameters, with no difference in complications compared to RVP.

Left bundle branch area pacing too far away from the tricuspid annulus may cause pacing induced cardiomyopathy

BACKGROUND

Physiologic pacing through left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a very promising alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and to avoid pacing induced cardiomyopathy. However, it is not clear whether the position of LABBP lead may affect the clinical outcomes.

CASE REPORT

We here report a case of likely LBBAP induced worsening heart failure and cardiomyopathy reversed by re-positioning of the pacing lead towards a more annular position. A 70-year-old male with a previous history of non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction 40%) who developed intermittent complete heart block and required permanent ventricular pacing. LBBAP was performed with the lead positioned to a position relatively far away from the tricuspid annulus (3.7 cm), due to difficulty in fixating the lead deep into the septum at a more annular position. One month post procedure, the patient's heart failure symptoms worsened, and his EF decreased to 31% despite good heart failure management. He underwent CRT upgrade with successful revision of the originally implanted LBBAP lead to a more annular position, using a deflectable delivery sheath. This resulted in further narrowing of the paced QRS duration from 135 to 106 ms. Two months post procedure, his heart failure symptoms improved by one functional class, and EF improved to 41% by echocardiogram.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP may be harmful when the lead is placed too far away from the annulus and may cause paced induced cardiomyopathy.

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.

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.

Left bundle branch pacing preserved left ventricular myocardial work in patients with bradycardia

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. Left ventricular (LV) myocardial work (MW) incorporates afterload and LV global longitudinal strain to estimate global and segmental myocardial contractility. However, the effect of LBBP on LV MW remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of LBBP on LV MW in patients receiving pacemaker for bradyarrhythmia.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 70 bradycardia patients with normal LV systolic function receiving LBBP (n = 46) and non-selective His-bundle pacing (NS-HBP) (n = 24). For comparative analysis, patients receiving right ventricular pacing (RVP) (n = 16) and control subjects (n = 10) were enrolled. Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography was performed. The LV pressure-strain loop was non-invasively constructed to assess global LV MW.

Results

After 6-month follow-up, LBBP group (with >40% ventricular pacing during 6 months) had shorter peak strain dispersion (PSD) compared with RVP group, and higher LV global longitudinal strain compared with RVP group and NS-HBP group, but had no difference in left intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony, including septal-to-posterior wall motion delay and PSD, compared with NS-HBP group. During ventricular pacing, LBBP group had higher global MW index (GWI) (2,189 ± 527 vs. 1,493 ± 799 mmHg%, P = 0.002), higher global constructive work (GCW) (2,921 ± 771 vs. 2,203 ± 866 mmHg%, P = 0.009), lower global wasted work (GWW) (211 ± 161 vs. 484 ± 281 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher global MW efficiency (GWE) (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 80.9 ± 8.3%, P < 0.001) compared with RVP group, and had lower GWW (211 ± 161 vs. 406 ± 234 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher GWE (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 86.4 ± 8.1%, P < 0.001) compared with NS-HBP group.

Conclusions

In this study we found that in patients with mid-term (6-month) high ventricular pacing burden (>40%), LBBP preserved more LV MW compared with NS-HBP and RVP. Further studies are warranted to assess the association between LV MW and long-term clinical outcomes in LBBP with high ventricular pacing burden.

Left bundle branch area pacing for heart failure patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBP) is a novel conduction system pacing method to achieve effective physiological pacing and an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We conduted this meta-analysis and systemic review to review current data comparing BVP and LBBP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT.

METHODS

We searched PubMed/Medline, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from the inception of the database to November 2022. All studies that compared LBBP with BVP in patients with HFrEF and indications for CRT were included. Two reviewers performed study selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We calculated risk ratios (RRs) with the Mantel-Haenszel method and mean difference (MD) with inverse variance using random effect models. We assessed heterogeneity using the I2 index, with I2  > 50% indicating significant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Ten studies (9 observational studies and 1 randomized controlled trial; 616 patients; 15 centers) published between 2020 and 2022 were included. We observed a shorter fluoroscopy time (MD: 9.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 4.49-14.87, I2  = 95%, p < .01, minutes) as well as a shorter procedural time (MD 33.68, 95% CI: 17.80-49.55, I2  = 73%, p < .01, minutes) during the implantation of LBBP CRT compared to conventional BVP CRT. LBBP was shown to have a greater reduction in QRS duration (MD 25.13, 95% CI: 20.06-30.20, I2  = 51%, p < .01, milliseconds), a greater left ventricular ejection fraction improvement (MD: 5.80, 95% CI: 4.81-6.78, I2  = 0%, p < .01, percentage), and a greater left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduction (MD: 2.11, 95% CI: 0.12-4.10, I2  = 18%, p = .04, millimeter). There was a greater improvement in New York Heart Association function class with LBBP (MD: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.05-0.68, I2  = 61%, p = .02). LBBP was also associated with a lower risk of a composite of heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and all-cause mortality (RR: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.25-0.90, I2  = 0%, p = .02) driven by reduced HFH (RR: 0.39, 95% CI: 0.19-0.82, I2  = 0%, p = .01). However, all-cause mortality rates were low in both groups (1.52% vs. 1.13%) and similar (RR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.21-4.68, I2  = 0%, p = .87).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of primarily nonrandomized studies suggests that LBBP is associated with a greater improvement in left ventricular systolic function and a lower rate of HFH compared to BVP. There was uniformity of these findings in all of the included studies. However, it would be premature to conclude based solely on the current meta-analysis alone, given the limitations stated. Dedicated, well-designed, randomized controlled trials and observational studies are needed to elucidate better the comparative long-term efficacy and safety of LBBP CRT versus BIV CRT.

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.

Pacing induced cardiomyopathy: recognition and management

Right ventricle (RV) apex continues to remain as the standard pacing site in the ventricle due to ease of implantation, procedural safety and lack of convincing evidence of better clinical outcomes from non-apical pacing sites. Electrical dyssynchrony resulting in abnormal ventricular activation and mechanical dyssynchrony resulting in abnormal ventricular contraction during RV pacing can result in adverse LV remodelling predisposing some patients for recurrent heart failure (HF) hospitalisation, atrial arrhythmias and increased mortality. While there are significant variations in the definition of pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PIC), combining both echocardiographic and clinical features, the most acceptable definition for PIC would be left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of <50%, absolute decline of LVEF by ≥10% and/or new-onset HF symptoms or atrial fibrillation (AF) after pacemaker implantation. Based on the definitions used, the prevalence of PIC varies between 6% and 25% with overall pooled prevalence of 12%. While most patients undergoing RV pacing do not develop PIC, male sex, chronic kidney disease, previous myocardial infarction, pre-existing AF, baseline LVEF, native QRS duration, RV pacing burden, and paced QRS duration are the factors associated with increased risk for PIC. While conduction system pacing (CSP) using His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing appear to reduce the risk for PIC compared with RV pacing, both biventricular pacing and CSP may be used to effectively reverse PIC.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with Atrioventricular Block: An Observational Cohort Study

Objective

We aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) regimens for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).

Methods

This observational cohort study included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for AVB indications from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, lead failure, or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). The secondary outcome included periprocedure complication, cardiac death, or recurrent unexplained syncope. A 1 : 1 propensity score-matched cohort was conducted for left ventricular (LV) function analysis.

Results

A total of 903 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed clinical follow-up. After adjusting for the possible confounders, LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009), including a lower risk of all-cause mortality and HFH. No significant difference in the secondary outcome was detected between the groups except that LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of recurrent unexplained syncope. In the propensity-score matching cohort of echocardiographic analysis, the LV systolic dyssynchrony index was lower in LBBAP compared with that in RVP (5.68 ± 1.92 vs. 6.50 ± 2.28%, p = 0.012).

Conclusions

Compared to conventional RVP, LBBAP is a feasible novel pacing model associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome. Moreover, LBBAP significantly reduces the risk of recurrent unexplained syncope and improves LV systolic synchrony. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05722379.