Feasibility of leadless left ventricular septal pacing with the WiSE-CRT system to target the left bundle branch area: A porcine model and multicenter patient experience

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.

Systematic review of leadless pacemaker

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

Leadless pacemakers: Where are we?

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

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

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

Leadless Pacing: Therapy, Challenges and Novelties

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

Pacing interventions in non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy

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

Conduction system pacing in pediatric and congenital heart disease

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has evolved rapidly to become the pacing method of choice for many adults with structurally normal hearts. Studies in this population have repeatedly demonstrated superior hemodynamics and outcomes compared to conventional pacing with the recruitment of the native conduction system. Children and patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) are also likely to benefit from CSP but were excluded from original trials. However, very recent studies have begun to demonstrate the feasibility and efficacy of CSP in these patients, with growing evidence that some outcomes may be superior in comparison to conventional pacing techniques. Concerns regarding the technical challenges and long-term lead parameters of His Bundle Pacing (HBP) have been overcome to many extents with the development of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP), and both techniques are likely to play an important role in pediatric and CHD pacing in the future. This review aims to assimilate the latest developments in CSP and its application in children and CHD patients.

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

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

Leadless biventricular left bundle and endocardial lateral wall pacing versus left bundle only pacing in left bundle branch block patients

Biventricular endocardial (BIV-endo) pacing and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Both pacing methods can be delivered through leadless pacing, to avoid risks associated with endocardial or transvenous leads. We used computational modelling to quantify synchrony induced by BIV-endo pacing and LBP through a leadless pacing system, and to investigate how the right-left ventricle (RV-LV) delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect response. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of His-Purkinje networks with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Leadless biventricular (BIV) pacing was simulated by adding an RV apical stimulus and an LV lateral wall stimulus (BIV-endo lateral) or targeting the left bundle (BIV-LBP), with an RV-LV delay set to 5 ms. To test effect of prolonged RV-LV delays and RV pacing location, the RV-LV delay was increased to 35 ms and/or the RV stimulus was moved to the RV septum. BIV-endo lateral pacing was less sensitive to increased RV-LV delays, while RV septal pacing worsened response compared to RV apical pacing, especially for long RV-LV delays. To investigate how left bundle capture affects response, we computed 90% BIV activation times (BIVAT-90) during BIV-LBP with selective and non-selective capture, and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), simulated by pacing 1 cm below the left bundle. Non-selective LBP was comparable to selective LBP. LBBAP was worse than selective LBP (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 62.7 ± 6.5, p < 0.01), but it still significantly reduced activation times from baseline. Finally, we compared leadless LBP with RV pacing against optimal LBP delivery through a standard lead system by simulating BIV-LBP and selective LBP alone with and without optimized atrioventricular delay (AVD). Although LBP alone with optimized AVD was better than BIV-LBP, when AVD optimization was not possible BIV-LBP outperformed LBP alone, because the RV pacing stimulus shortened RV activation (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 66.9 ± 5.1 ms, p < 0.01). BIV-endo lateral pacing or LBP delivered through a leadless system could potentially become an alternative to standard CRT. RV-LV delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect leadless pacing efficacy and should be considered in future trial designs.

Clinical Updates in Cardiac Pacing—The Future Is Bright

The history of cardiac pacing has been defined by many innovation milestones starting in the early 1960s [...]