Correlation of pacing site in right ventricle with paced QRS complex duration

A First-in-Human Complete Insertion of Single-Chamber Cardiac Pacemaker Using Ultrasound

Pacemaker insertion incurs significant costs for fluoroscopy machines and operator-related musculoskeletal injuries from long-term use of radiation protection equipment. Moreover, there are small potential risks to patients from pneumothorax, lead dislodgment, and cardiac perforation. We report a first-in-human case report of successful pacemaker insertion performed entirely with ultrasound. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Comparing Ventricular Synchrony in Left Bundle Branch and Left Ventricular Septal Pacing in Pacemaker Patients

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been introduced as a novel physiological pacing strategy. Within LBBAP, distinction is made between left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP, no left bundle capture). Objective: To investigate acute electrophysiological effects of LBBP and LVSP as compared to intrinsic ventricular conduction. Methods: Fifty patients with normal cardiac function and pacemaker indication for bradycardia underwent LBBAP. Electrocardiography (ECG) characteristics were evaluated during pacing at various depths within the septum: starting at the right ventricular (RV) side of the septum: the last position with QS morphology, the first position with r’ morphology, LVSP and—in patients where left bundle branch (LBB) capture was achieved—LBBP. From the ECG’s QRS duration and QRS morphology in lead V1, the stimulus- left ventricular activation time left ventricular activation time (LVAT) interval were measured. After conversion of the ECG into vectorcardiogram (VCG) (Kors conversion matrix), QRS area and QRS vector in transverse plane (Azimuth) were determined. Results: QRS area significantly decreased from 82 ± 29 µVs during RV septal pacing (RVSP) to 46 ± 12 µVs during LVSP. In the subgroup where LBB capture was achieved (n = 31), QRS area significantly decreased from 46 ± 17 µVs during LVSP to 38 ± 15 µVs during LBBP, while LVAT was not significantly different between LVSP and LBBP. In patients with normal ventricular activation and narrow QRS, QRS area during LBBP was not significantly different from that during intrinsic activation (37 ± 16 vs. 35 ± 19 µVs, respectively). The Azimuth significantly changed from RVSP (−46 ± 33°) to LVSP (19 ± 16°) and LBBP (−22 ± 14°). The Azimuth during both LVSP and LBBP were not significantly different from normal ventricular activation. QRS area and LVAT correlated moderately (Spearman’s R = 0.58). Conclusions: ECG and VCG indices demonstrate that both LVSP and LBBP improve ventricular dyssynchrony considerably as compared to RVSP, to values close to normal ventricular activation. LBBP seems to result in a small, but significant, improvement in ventricular synchrony as compared to LVSP.

Conventional single-chamber pacemakers versus transcatheter pacing systems in a "real world" cohort of patients: A comparative prospective single-center study

Purpose

Despite the developments in conventional transvenous pacemakers (VVI-PM), the procedure is still associated with significant complications. Although there are no prospective clinical trials that compared VVI-PM with transcatheter pacemaker systems (TPS).

Methods

This is a prospective, observational, single-center study that included all patients with an indication for a single-chamber pacemaker implant within a 4-year period. All clinical, ECG and echocardiographic characteristics at implant, electrical parameters, associated complications and mortality were analyzed. A Cox survival model and a Bayesian cohort analysis were performed for differences in complication rates between groups.

Results

There were 443 patients included (198 TPS and 245 VVI-PM). The mean age was 81.5 years (TPS group, 79.2 ± 6.6 years; VVI-PM group, 83.5 ± 8.9 years). There was a male predominance in TPS group (123, 62.1% vs. 67, 27.3%; p < 0.001). The presence of systolic dysfunction and renal insufficiency were more frequent in VVI-PM group than in TPS patients. Mean follow-up was 22.3 ± 15.9 months. In a multivariable paired data the TPS group presented fewer complications than VVI-PM group (HR = 0.39 [0.15–0.98], p-value 0.013), but major complications were not different (6, 3% vs 14, 5.6% respectively, p = 0.1761). There was no difference in the mortality rate between the groups. The TPS group had less risk than VVI-PM group to have a complication, with a 96% of probability.

Conclusions

TPS patients had a lower overall complication rate than VVI-PM patients including matched-pair samples using a Bayesian analysis. These results confirm the safety profile of TPS in clinical practice.