Rate and nature of complications of conduction system pacing compared with right ventricular pacing: results of a propensity-matched analysis from a multicentre registry

Closed loop stimulation in left bundle branch area pacing

INTRODUCTION

Closed Loop Stimulation (CLS) is a rate-responsive algorithm that adjusts heart rate (HR) based on changes in intracardiac impedance measured from the right ventricle lead. However, the use of CLS in conduction system pacing has not been investigated. In this retrospective study, we aimed to assess whether CLS with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) can generate an appropriate distribution of HR in daily life.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Our study included 24 patients with CLS pacing and chronotropic incompetence, comparing them with 19 patients receiving DDD pacing, all with LBBAP. Cumulative HR distribution charts were generated using data from a single device interrogation with a minimum follow-up period of 30 days. In DDD-CLS mode, there was a higher percentage of atrial pacing compared to DDD mode (median 58% [interquartile range 29%-83%] vs. 13% [10%-26%], p = .001), and CLS-paced beats were present across all frequency bins. The distribution of beats between the groups was similar (p = .643), resulting in comparable mean HR (72 bpm [70-77] vs. 73 bpm [65-75], p = .615).

CONCLUSIONS

In the context of LBBAP, CLS effectively modulates pacing rates over a wide frequency range. This lead position does not adversely affect the rate-responsive performance of the algorithm.

Complications of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of procedure-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled 668 consecutive patients (mean age 71.2 ± 10.0 years; 52.2% male; 59.4% with New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure symptoms) with left ventricular ejection fraction 33.4% ± 4.3% who underwent BVP (n = 561) or LBBAP (n = 107) for a class I or II indication for CRT. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 93 matched pairs. The rate and nature of intraprocedural and long-term post-procedural complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 18 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 16 patients: 12 in BVP (12.9%) and 4 in LBBAP (4.3%) (P = .036). Compared with patients who underwent LBBAP, those who underwent BVP showed a lower complication-free survival (P = .032). In multivariate analysis, BVP resulted an independent predictive factor associated with a higher risk of complications (hazard ratio 3.234; P = .042). Complications related to the coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in patients who underwent BVP (50.0% of all complications).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT.

Left bundle branch area versus conventional pacing after transcatheter valve implant for aortic stenosis: the LATVIA study

BACKGROUND

Atrioventricular block (AVB) is a frequent complication in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Right apex ventricular pacing (RVP) represents the standard treatment but may induce cardiomyopathy over the long term. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising alternative, minimizing the risk of desynchrony. However, available evidence with LBBAP after TAVI is still low.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP for AVB post-TAVI compared with RVP.

METHODS

Consecutive patients developing AVB early after TAVI were enrolled between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 at three high-volume hospitals and received LBBAP or RVP. Data on procedure and at short-term follow-up (at least 3 months) were collected.

RESULTS

A total of 38 patients (61% men, mean age 83 ± 6 years) were included; 20 patients (53%) received LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in all patients according to chosen pacing strategy. Electrical pacing performance at implant and after a mean follow-up of 4.2 ± 2.8 months was clinically equivalent for both pacing modalities. In the LBBAP group, procedural time was longer (70 ± 17 versus 58 ± 15 min in the RVP group, P  = 0.02) and paced QRS was shorter (120 ± 19 versus 155 ± 12 ms at implant, P  < 0.001; 119 ± 18 versus 157 ± 9 ms at follow-up, P  < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with AVB after TAVI, LBBAP is feasible and safe, resulting in a narrow QRS duration, either acutely and during the follow-up, compared with RVP. Further studies are needed to evaluate if LBBAP reduces pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this clinical setting.

Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications.

RESULTS

Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08-1.22); p < 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.78); p = 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21-0.72); p = 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.35); p < 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.

"Ablate and Pace" with Conduction System Pacing: Concomitant versus Delayed Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Objectives: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve the outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). In this setting, AVJA can be performed simultaneously with implantation or in a second procedure a few weeks after implantation. Comparison data on these two alternative strategies are lacking. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, observational study enrolled consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing CSP and AVJA performed in a single procedure or in two separate procedures. Data on the long-term outcomes and healthcare resource utilization were prospectively collected. Results: A total of 147 patients were enrolled: for 105 patients, CSP implantation and AVJA were performed simultaneously (concomitant AVJA); in 42, AVJA was performed in a second procedure, with a mean of 28.8 ± 19.3 days from implantation (delayed AVJA). After a mean follow-up of 12 months, the rate of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups (3.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.666). Concomitant AVJA was associated with a lower number of procedure-related hospitalizations per patient (1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 2.0 ± 0.3; p < 0.001) and with a lower number of hospital treatment days per patient (4.7 ± 1.8 vs. 7.4 ± 1.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Concomitant AVJA resulted as being as safe as delayed AVJA and was associated with a lower utilization of healthcare resources.

Early effects of left bundle branch area pacing on ventricular activation by speckle tracking echocardiography

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging cardiac pacing modality that preserves fast electrical activation of the ventricles and provides very good electrical measures. Little is known on mechanical ventricular activation during this pacing modality.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients receiving LBBAP. Electrocardiographic and electrical parameters were evaluated at implantation, < 24 h and 3 months. Transthoracic echocardiography with strain analysis was performed at baseline and after 3 months, when ventricular mechanical activation and synchrony were analyzed by time-to-peak standard deviation (TPSD) of strain curves for both ventricles. Intraventricular left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony was investigated by LV TPSD and interventricular dyssynchrony by left ventricle-right ventricle TPSD (LV-RV TPSD).

RESULTS

We screened 58 patients with permanent pacing indication who attempted LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in 56 patients (97%). Strain data were available in 50 patients. QRS duration was 124.1 ± 30.7 ms at baseline, while paced QRS duration was 107.7 ± 13.6 ms (p < 0.001). At 3 months after LBBAP, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 52.9 ± 10.6% at baseline to 56.9 ± 8.4% (p = 0.004) and both intraventricular LV dyssynchrony and interventricular dyssynchrony significantly improved (LV TPSD reduction from 38.2 (13.6-53.9) to 15.1 (8.3-31.5), p < 0.001; LV-RV TPSD from 27.9 (10.2-41.5) to 13.9 (4.3-28.7), p = 0.001). Ameliorations with LBBAP were consistent in all subgroups, irrespective of baseline QRS duration, types of intraventricular conduction abnormalities, and LVEF.

CONCLUSIONS

Echocardiographic strain analysis shows that LBBAP determines a fast and synchronous biventricular contraction with a stereotype mechanical activation, regardless of baseline QRS duration, pattern, and LV function.

Clinical value of the fibrosis-4 index in predicting mortality in patients with right ventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

The fibrosis-4 (FIB-4) index has attracted attention as a predictive factor for cardiovascular events and mortality in patients with heart disease. However, its clinical value in patients with implanted pacemakers remains unclear.

METHODS

This study included patients who underwent pacemaker implantation. The FIB-4 index was calculated based on blood tests performed during the procedure. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality, and the secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, non-cardiovascular death, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; composite of cardiovascular death, heart failure hospitalization, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal stroke). The FIB-4 index was stratified into tertiles. Between-group comparisons were performed using log-rank tests and multivariate analysis using Cox proportional hazards. The predictive accuracy and cut-off value of the FIB-4 index were calculated from the receiver operating characteristic curve for all-cause mortality. Finally, based on the calculated cut-off values, the patients were divided into two groups for outcome validation and subgroup analysis.

RESULTS

This study included 201 participants, of whom 38 experienced death during the observation period (median: 1097 days). All-cause mortality, non-cardiovascular death, and MACE differed significantly between groups stratified by the FIB-4 index tertiles (log-rank test: P<0.001, P<0.001, and P = 0.045, respectively). Using Cox proportional hazards analysis, the unadjusted hazard ratio was 4.75 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.05-11.0, P<0.001) for Tertile 3 compared to Tertile 1. After adjustment for confounding factors, including sex, the presence or absence of left bundle branch block at baseline, QRS duration during pacing, and pacing rate at the last check, the hazard ratio was 4.79 (95% CI: 2.04-11.2, P<0.001). The cut-off value of the FIB-4 index was 3.75 (area under the curve: 0.72, 95% CI: 0.62-0.82).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with pacemakers, the FIB-4 index may be a predictor of early all-cause mortality, with a cut-off value of 3.75.

Spontaneous Sinus Rhythm Restoration in Patients With Refractory, Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Who Underwent Conduction System Pacing and Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Ablate and pace (A&P) with conduction system pacing (CSP) improves outcomes in patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). Data on spontaneous sinus rhythm restoration (SSRR) in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to assess the incidence and the predictors of SSRR in a population of patients with permanent AF who underwent A&P with CSP. Prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic permanent AF (of documented duration >6 months) and uncontrolled, drug-refractory high ventricular rate, who underwent A&P with CSP. The incidence and predictors of SSRR were prospectively assessed. A total of 107 patients (79.0 ± 9.1 years, 33.6% male, 74.8% with New York Heart Association class ≥III, 56.1% with ejection fraction <40%) were enrolled: 40 received His' bundle pacing, 67 left bundle branch area pacing. During a median follow-up of 12 months SSRR was observed in 14 patients (13.1%), occurring a median of 3 months after A&P (interquartile range 1 to 6; range 0 to 17). Multivariable analysis identified a duration of permanent AF <12 months (hazard ratio 7.7, p = 0.040) and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 (hazard ratio 14.8, p = 0.008) as independent predictors of SSRR. In patients with coexistence of both predictors the incidence of SSRR was of 41.4%. In a population of patients with symptomatic, permanent AF, treated with A&P with CSP, SSRR was observed in 13% of patients during follow-up. A duration of permanent AF <12 months and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 were independent predictors of this phenomenon.

Diagnostic electrocardiographic trap: A case of conduction system pacing

His-bundle pacing (HBP) is a relatively new method of cardiac pacing, with recent studies showing an association between HBP and a lower risk of developing right ventricular heart failure compared to classical pacing methods. However, HBP is also associated with a higher risk of lead dislodgement, undersensing, and loss of capture. As such, a detailed assessment of pacing effectiveness in pacemaker patients is vital. In the presented case, an electrocardiogram (ECG) recording seems to present successful selective His-bundle pacing, while pacemaker follow-up demonstrated the loss of ventricular capture. In conclusion, patients receiving HBP should undergo ECG alongside pacing parameter analysis and pacing electrograms, as differences in successful and unsuccessful pacing ECG can be very subtle.

Ablate and pace: Comparison of outcomes between conduction system pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), have been proposed as alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients scheduled for ablate and pace (A&P) strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes, including the rate and nature of device-related complications, between BVP and CSP in a cohort of patients undergoing A&P.

METHODS

Prospective, multicenter, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing A&P. The risk of device-related complications and of heart failure (HF) hospitalization was prospectively assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 373 patients (75.3 ± 8.7 years, 53.9% male, 68.9% with NYHA class ≥III) were enrolled: 263 with BVP, 68 with HBP, and 42 with LBBAP. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were similar. Compared to BVP and HBP, LBBAP was associated with the shortest mean procedural and fluoroscopy times and with the lowest acute capture thresholds (all p < .05). At 12-month follow-up LBBAP maintained the lowest capture thresholds and showed the longest estimated residual battery longevity (all p < .05). At 12-months follow-up the three study groups showed a similar risk of device-related complications (5.7%, 4.4%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .650), and of HF hospitalization (2.7%, 1.5%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .850).

CONCLUSIONS

In the setting of A&P, CSP is a feasible pacing modality, with a midterm safety profile comparable to BVP. LBBAP offers the advantage of reducing procedural times and obtaining lower and stable capture thresholds, with a positive impact on the device longevity.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) Auto Threshold algorithms Evaluation for Conduction System Pacing: The LATECS pilot Trial

BACKGROUND

Automated threshold measurements (ATM) and output adaptation improved safety and follow-up of cardiac implantable devices (CIED) in the last years. These algorithms were validated for conventional cardiac pacing; however, they were not suitable for permanent His Pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging technique to obtain physiologic cardiac stimulation; we tried to assess if ATM could be applied to this setting.

METHODS

Consecutive patients receiving ATM-capable CIED and LBBAP in our hospital were enrolled in this prospective, observational trial; they were evaluated 3 months after implant, comparing pacing thresholds manually assessed and obtained via ATM. Subsequent remote follow-up was carried on when available.

RESULTS

Forty-five patients were enrolled. ATM for LBBAP lead provided consistent results in all the patients and was therefore activated; mean value of manually obtained LBBAP capture threshold was 0.66 ± 0.19 V versus ATM of 0.64 ± 0.19 V. TOST analysis showed equivalence of the two measures (p = .66). At subsequent follow-up (mean follow up 7.7 ± 3.2 months), ATM was effective in assessing pacing thresholds and no clinical adverse event was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

ATM algorithms proved equivalent to manual testing in determining capture threshold and were reliably employed in patients receiving LBBAP CIED.

Conduction system pacing is superior to biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure: Insights from the pooled clinical studies

Background: The effects of conduction system pacing (CSP) compared with conventional biventricular pacing (BVP) on heart function in patients with heart failure remain elusive. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane's Library and Web of science databases were searched up to 1 October 2022 for pertinent controlled studies. Random or fixed-effect model were used to synthesize the clinical outcomes. Subgroup analysis was performed to screen the potential confounding factors. Results: Fifteen studies including 1,347 patients were enrolled. Compared with BVP, CSP was significantly associated with shortened QRS duration [WMD -22.51 ms; p = 0.000], improved left ventricular ejection fraction [WMD 5.53%; p = 0.000], improved NYHA grade [WMD -0.42; p = 0.000], higher response rate and lower heart failure rehospitalization rate. CSP resulted in better clinical outcomes in higher male proportion group than lower one compared with BVP. No significant differences of clinical outcomes were observed between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) and his bundle pacing (HBP) except the pacing threshold. The pacing threshold of LBBaP was significantly lower than those in BVP and HBP. Conclusion: This study suggests that CSP might be superior to conventional BVP for HF patients. In a higher male proportion group, CSP may be associated with more benefits than BVP. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022355991; Identifier: CRD42022355991.