Current of Injury is an Indicator of Lead Depth and Performance during Left Bundle Branch Pacing Lead Implantation

Gradual development of left bundle branch current of injury during left bundle branch pacing lead implantation

A larger left bundle branch (LBB) potential or LBB current of injury (COI) indicates a low LBB capture threshold in LBB pacing. During LBB pacing in an 85-year-old woman, achieving a low LBB capture threshold did not initially present with a larger LBB potential or LBB COI, but rather with a new initial negative deflection in a ventricular electrogram. LBB COI gradually developed over 7 min thereafter, which suggested that the lead tip had reached the left ventricular subendocardium. Therefore, this negative deflection may be the first sign to avoid further lead rotation.

Current of injury amplitude during left bundle branch area pacing implantation: impact of filter settings, ventricular pacing, and lead type

AIMS

Monitoring current of injury (COI) during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implantation is useful to evaluate lead depth. Technical aspects for recording COI amplitude have not been well studied. Our aims were to evaluate the impact of high-pass filter settings on electrogram recordings during LBBAP implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with successful LBBAP implantation had unipolar recordings of COI at final lead position at different high-pass filter settings (0.01-1 Hz) from the tip electrode during sensing and pacing, and from the ring electrode during sensing. Duration of saturation-induced signal loss was also measured at each filter setting. COI amplitudes were compared between lumenless and stylet-driven leads. A total of 156 patients (96 males, aged 81.4 ± 9.6 years) were included. Higher filter settings led to significantly lower COI amplitudes. In 50 patients with COI amplitude < 10 mV, the magnitude of the drop was on average 1-1.5 mV (and up to 4 mV) between 0.05 and 0.5 Hz, meaning that cut-offs may not be used interchangeably. Saturation-induced signal loss was on average 10 s at 0.05 Hz and only 2 s with 0.5 Hz. When pacing was interrupted, the sensed COI amplitude varied (either higher or lower) by up to 4 mV, implying that it is advisable to periodically interrupt pacing to evaluate the sensed COI when reaching levels of ∼10 mV. Lead type did not impact COI amplitude.

CONCLUSION

High-pass filters have a significant impact on electrogram characteristics at LBBAP implantation, with the 0.5 Hz settings having the most favourable profile.

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.

Implant, assessment, and management of conduction system pacing

His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing, together referred to as conduction system pacing, have (re)gained considerable interest over the past years as it has the potential to preserve and/or restore a more physiological ventricular activation when compared with right ventricular pacing and may serve as an alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy. This review manuscript dives deeper into the implantation techniques and the relevant anatomy of the conduction system for both pacing strategies. Furthermore, the manuscript elaborates on better understanding of conduction system capture with its various capture patterns, its potential complications as well as appropriate follow-up care. Finally, the limitations and its impact on clinical care for both His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing are being discussed.

Practical and systematic approach using the steerable catheter and stylet-driven lead to deliver safe and effective left bundle branch area pacing

INTRODUCTION

Current delivery tools were not designed for left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Challenges using these tools include lack of reach into the right ventricle and poor support for the lead to penetrate the interventricular septum. Concerns using stylet-driven leads (SDL) for LBBAP have been previously highlighted. Knowledge and the technical know-how of using SDL for LBBAP need to be evaluated in a fair and consistent manner. A stepwise approach is devised for use of Agilis HisProTM steerable catheter with Tendril STS Model 2088TC lead for LBBAP and evaluated for safety and reproducibility.

METHODS

Consecutive patients undergoing LBBAP using the stepwise approach with Agilis HisProTM steerable catheter were analyzed. The safety, efficacy and reproducibility of the technique were evaluated. The lead parameters were analyzed in the immediate (1 day) and short-term period (3-6 months) post implantation.

RESULTS

LBBAP was attempted in 41 patients using the stepwise approach of which 37 (90.7%) were successful. The lead parameters were stable in the immediate and short-term post implantation in all our patients. There was no significant difference between the group of patients with multiple repositioning of the lead compared to those successful at the 1st attempt. There were no acute or short-term lead and procedural complications.

CONCLUSION

A stepwise and systematic approach using the Agilis HisProTM steerable catheter and proper handling of the Tendril STS Model 2088TC stylet-driven lead is an important part of the armamentarium to deliver LBBAP in a practical, effective and reproducible manner.

EDEN (Electrocardiographic Radial Depth Navigation): A Novel Approach to Navigate Inside Heart Muscle

BACKGROUND

Intramyocardial guidewire navigation is a novel technique that allows free transcatheter movement within ventricular muscle. Guidewire radial depth, between endocardial and epicardial surfaces, is ambiguous by x-ray and echocardiography.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to develop a simple tool, EDEN (Electrocardiographic Radial Depth Navigation), to indicate radial depth during intramyocardial guidewire navigation. Combined with routine imaging, EDEN facilitates a new family of intramyocardial catheter procedures to slice, reshape, pace, and ablate the heart.

METHODS

We mapped intramyocardial electrograms of left and right ventricular walls and septum during open- and closed-chest swine procedures (N = 53), including MIRTH (Myocardial Intramural Remodeling by Transvenous Tether) ventriculoplasty. We identified radial depth-dependent features on unipolar electrograms. We developed a machine learning-based classifier to indicate categorical position, and modeled the findings in silico to test understanding of the physiology.

RESULTS

EDEN signatures distinguished 5 depth zones throughout left and right ventricular free walls and interventricular septum. Relative ST-segment elevation magnitude best discriminated position and was maximum (40.1 ± 6.5 mV) in the midmyocardium. Subendocardial positions exhibited dominant Q waves with lower-amplitude ST segments (16.8 ± 5.8 mV), whereas subepicardial positions exhibited dominant R waves with lower-amplitude ST segments (15.7 ± 4.8 mV). EDEN was unaffected by pacing-induced left bundle branch block. ST-segment elevation declined over minutes and reappeared after submillimeter guidewire manipulation. Modeling recapitulated EDEN features. The machine learning-based classifier was 97% accurate. EDEN successfully guided MIRTH ventriculoplasty.

CONCLUSIONS

EDEN provides a simple and reproducible real-time reflection of categorical guidewire-tip radial depth during intramyocardial guidewire navigation. Used in tandem with x-ray, EDEN enables novel, transcatheter, intramyocardial therapies such as MIRTH, SESAME (Septal Surfing Along Midline Endocardium), and cerclage ventriculoplasty.

A Continuous Pacing and Recording Technique for Differentiating Left Bundle Branch Pacing From Left Ventricular Septal Pacing: Electrophysiologic Evidence From an Intrapatient-Controlled Study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a promising approach for achieving near-physiologic pacing. However, differentiating LBBP from left ventricular septal endocardial pacing (LVS(e)P) remains a challenge. This study aimed to establish a simple and effective method for differentiating LBBP from LVS(e)P and to evaluate their electrophysiologic characteristics.

METHODS

LBBP, using continuous uninterrupted pacing and real-time monitoring of electrocardiograms along with intracardiac electrograms, was performed in 97 consecutive patients. We evaluated the electrophysiologic characteristics observed during LBBP using 6 modalities: right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), intraventricular septal pacing (IVSP 1 and 2), LVS(e)P, nonselective LBBP (NSLBBP), and selective LBBP (SLBBP).

RESULTS

Of the 97 patients, 87 (89.7%) met the criteria (abrupt change in paced QRS morphology with a transition from Qr to QR/qR in lead V1 and shortening of stimulus to V6 R-wave peak time [Stim-V6RWPT] of ≥ 10 ms with constant output while rather than after lead screwing) for nonselective left bundle branch (LBB) capture. Selective LBB capture was observed in 82 patients (84.5%). The Stim-V6RWPT of NSLBBP and SLBBP were significantly shorter than LVS(e)P (respectively, 67.1 ± 8.7 ms, 67.0 ± 9.3 ms, and 82.1 ± 10.9 ms). Stim-QRSend was the narrowest in IVSP2 (136.6 ± 15.2 ms) instead of NSLBBP (140.0 ± 17.1 ms).

CONCLUSIONS

The uninterrupted pacing technique for differentiating LBBP from LVS(e)P in the same group of patients is feasible. Electrophysiologic evidence from our intrapatient-controlled study shows that LBBP and LVS(e)P differ in ventricular electrical synchronization.

Conduction System Pacing Today and Tomorrow

Conduction system pacing (CSP) encompassing His bundle (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is gaining increasing attention in the electrophysiology community. These relatively novel physiological pacing modalities have the potential to outperform conventional pacing approaches with respect to clinical endpoints, although data are currently still limited. While HBP represents the most physiological form of cardiac stimulation, success rates, bundle branch correction, and electrical lead performance over time remain a concern. LBBAP systems may overcome these limitations. In this review article, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence, implantation technique, device programming, and follow-up considerations concerning CSP systems. Moreover, we discuss ongoing technical developments and future perspectives of CSP.

Case report: Left bundle branch pacing guided by real-time monitoring of current of injury and electrocardiography

Background

Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing (LBBP) has recently emerged as a physiological pacing mode. Current of injury (COI) can be used as the basis for electrode fixation position and detection of perforation. However, because the intermittent pacing method cannot monitor the changes in COI in real time, it cannot obtain information about the entire COI change process during implantation.

Case summary

Left bundle branch pacing was achieved for treatment of atrioventricular block in a 76-year-old female. Uninterrupted electrocardiogram and electrogram were recorded on an electrophysiology system. In contrast to the interrupted pacing method, this continuous pacing and recording technique enables real-time monitoring of the change in ventricular COI and the paced QRS complex as the lead advances into the interventricular septum. During the entire screw-in process, the COI amplitude increased and then decreased gradually after reaching the peak, followed by a small but significant, rather than dramatic, decrease.

Conclusion

This case report aims to demonstrate the clinical significance of changes in COI and QRS morphology for LBBP using real-time electrocardiographic monitoring and filtered and unfiltered electrograms when the lead is deployed using a continuous pacing technique. The technique could be used to confirm LBB capture and avoid perforation.