Selection of Permanent Ventricular Pacing Site⁎Editorials published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiologyreflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of JACCor the American College of Cardiology

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing left bundle branch pacing, his bundle branch pacing, and right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block

Background

Although right ventricular pacing (RVP) is recommended by most of the guidelines for atrioventricular block, it can cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony, impair left ventricular function, and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Recently, the His-Purkinje system pacing, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), has emerged as a physiological pacing modality. However, few studies have compared their efficacy and safety in atrioventricular block (AVB).

Methods and results

The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for observational studies and randomized trials of patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing, from database inception until 10 January 2022. The primary outcomes were complications and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing parameters, procedure duration, and success rate. After extracting the data at baseline and the longest follow-up duration available, a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, whereas mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs or 95% CrIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Seven studies and 1,069 patients were included. Overall, 43.4% underwent LBBP, 33.5% HBP, and 23.1% RVP. Compared with RVP, LBBP and HBP were associated with a shorter paced QRS duration and a more preserved LVEF. HBP significantly increased the pacing threshold and reduced the R-wave amplitude. There was no difference in the risk of complications or the implant success rate. The pacing threshold remained stable during follow-up for the three pacing modalities. The pacing impedance was significantly reduced in HBP, while a numerical but non-significant pacing impedance decrease was observed in both LBBP and RVP. LBBP was associated with an increased R-wave amplitude during follow-up.

Conclusion

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in paced QRS duration and preservation of LVEF for patients with atrioventricular block. LBBP was associated with a lower pacing threshold and a greater R-wave amplitude than HBP. However, the stability of the pacing output of LBBP may be a concern. Further investigation of the long-term efficacy in left ventricular function and the risk of heart failure hospitalization is needed.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315046], identifier [CRD42022315046].

A network meta-analysis and systematic review of change in QRS duration after left bundle branch pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing, or right ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacemaker

Cardiac dyssynchrony is the proposed mechanism for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, which can be prevented by biventricular pacing. Left bundle branch pacing and His bundle pacing are novel interventions that imitate the natural conduction of the heart with, theoretically, less interventricular dyssynchrony. One of the surrogate markers of interventricular synchrony is QRS duration. Our study aimed to compare the change of QRS duration before and after implantation between types of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): left bundle branch pacing versus His bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing and conventional right ventricular pacing. A literature search for studies that reported an interval change of QRS duration after CIED implantation was conducted utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. All relevant works from database inception through November 2020 were included in this analysis. A random-effects model, Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to analyze QRS duration changes (eg, electrical cardiac synchronization) across different CIED implantations. The mean study sample size, from 14 included studies, was 185 subjects. The search found 707 articles. After exclusions, 14 articles remained with 2,054 patients. The His bundle pacing intervention resulted in the most dramatic decline in QRS duration (mean difference, - 53 ms; 95% CI - 67, - 39), followed by left bundle branch pacing (mean difference, - 46 ms; 95% CI - 60, - 33), and biventricular pacing (mean difference, - 19 ms; 95% CI - 37, - 1.8), when compared to conventional right ventricle apical pacing. When compared between LBBP and HBP, showed no statistically significant wider QRS duration in LBBP with mean different 6.5 ms. (95% CI - 6.7, 21). Our network meta-analysis found that physiologic pacing has the greatest effect on QRS duration after implantation. Thus, HBP and LBBP showed no significant difference between QRS duration after implantation. Physiologic pacing interventions result in improved electrocardiography markers of cardiac synchrony, narrower QRS duration, and might lower electromechanical dyssynchrony.

Paced QRS duration predicts left ventricular function in patients with permanent pacemakers - One-year follow-up study using equilibrium radionuclide angiography (ERNA)

Permanent pacing, being non physiological, often results in ventricular dysfunction over time. Narrower paced QRS duration from pacing the right ventricular outflow tract septum, might result in relatively preserved ventricular function over long term follow up.

Comparison of the acute hemodynamic effect of right ventricular apex, outflow tract, and dual-site right ventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

We studied the acute effect of pacing at the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT), right ventricular apex (RVA) and simultaneous RVA and RVOT-dual-site right ventricular pacing (DuRV) in random order on systolic function using impedance cardiography.

METHODS

Seventy-three patients (46 males), aged 52-89 years (mean 71.4 years) subjected to routine dual chamber pacemaker implantation with symptomatic chronic II or atrioventricular block, were included to the study.

RESULTS

DuRV pacing resulted in significantly higher cardiac index (CI) in comparison to RVOT and RVA and CI at RVOT was higher than at RVA pacing (2.46 vs 2.35 vs 2.28; P < 0.001). In patients with ejection fraction >50% significantly higher CI was observed during DuRV pacing when compared to RVOT and RVA pacing and there was no difference of CI between RVOT and RVA pacing (2.53 vs 2.41 vs 2.37; P < 0.001). In patients with ejection fraction <50%, DuRV and RVOT pacing resulted in significantly higher CI in comparison to RVA pacing while no difference in CI was observed between RVOT and DuRV pacing (2.28 vs 2.21 vs 2.09; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Dual-site right ventricular pacing in comparison to RVA pacing improved cardiac systolic function. RVOT appeared to be more advantageous than RVA pacing in patients with impaired, but not in those with preserved left ventricular function. No clear hemodynamic benefit of DuRV in comparison to RVOT pacing in patients with impaired systolic function was observed.

Reversible left ventricular dyssynchrony and dysfunction resulting from right ventricular pre-excitation

We report observations in a 7-year-old girl with right ventricular pre-excitation due to an accessory atrioventricular pathway (AP), and depressed cardiac function. Echocardiographic findings consisted of left ventricular (LV) dilatation with asynchronous ventricular wall motion and diminished LV ejection fraction. Electrophysiological study revealed a para-Hisian AP. She underwent successful AP ablation, after which asynchronous ventricular wall motion disappeared. Cardiac size and function were normal after 3 months follow-up. These findings suggest that ventricular pre-excitation leading to asynchronous ventricular motion was a possible cause of LV dilation and dysfunction and that catheter ablation reversed undesirable cardiac remodelling in this patient.

First-degree atrioventricular block

Marked first-degree AV block (PR> or =0.30 s) can produce a clinical condition similar to that of the pacemaker syndrome. Clinical evaluation often requires a treadmill stress test because patients are more likely to become symptomatic with mild or moderate exercise when the PR interval cannot adapt appropriately. Uncontrolled studies have shown that many such symptomatic patients with normal left ventricular (LV) function improve with conventional dual chamber pacing (Class IIa indication). In contrast, marked first-degree AV block with LV systolic dysfunction and heart failure is still a Class IIb indication, a recommendation that is now questionable because a conventional DDD(R) pacemaker would be committed to right ventricular pacing (and its attendant risks) virtually 100% of the time. It would seem prudent at this juncture to consider a biventricular DDD device in this situation. Patients with suboptimally programmed pacemakers may develop functional atrial undersensing because the P wave tends to migrate easily into the postventricular atrial refractory period (PVARP). Retrograde vetriculoatrial conduction block is uncommon in marked first-degree AV block so a relatively short PVARP can often be used at rest with little risk of endless loop tachycardia. The usefulness of a short PVARP may be negated by special PVARP functions in some pulse generators designed to time out a long PVARP at rest and a gradually shorter one with activity. First-degree AV block during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) predisposes to loss of ventricular resynchronization during biventricular pacing because it favors the initiation of electrical "desynchronization" especially in association with a relatively fast atrial rate and a relatively slow programmed upper rate. Patients with first-degree AV block have a poorer outcome with CRT than patients with a normal PR interval, a response that may involve several mechanisms. (1) The long PR interval may be a marker of more advanced heart disease. (2) Patients with first-degree AV block may experience more episodes of undetected "electrical desynchronization". (3) "Concealed resynchronization" whereupon ventricular activation in patients with a normal PR interval may result from fusion of electrical wavefronts coming from the right bundle branch and the impulse from the LV electrode. The resultant hemodynamic response may be superior because the detrimental effects of right ventricular stimulation (required in the setting of a longer PR interval) are avoided.