Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy With Wireless Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing

Emerging Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Technologies

The last several years have witnessed an abundance of new and disruptive cardiac implantable electronic device innovations. These can be categorized in terms of cardiac pacing, noncardiac electrical stimulation, and leadless technology. A working knowledge of these new options for patients on the part of the clinical cardiology community is critical.

Leadless Ultrasound-Based Cardiac Resynchronization System in Heart Failure

Importance

Approximately 40% of patients with heart failure (HF) who are eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) either fail to respond or are untreatable due to anatomical constraints.

Objective

To assess the safety and efficacy of a novel, leadless, left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing system for patients at high risk for a CRT upgrade or whose coronary sinus (CS) lead placement/pacing with a conventional CRT system failed.

Design, Setting, and Participants

The SOLVE-CRT study was a prospective multicenter trial enrolling January 2018 through July 2022, with follow-up at 6 months. Data were analyzed from January 17, 2018, through February 15, 2023. The trial combined data from an initial randomized, double-blind study (n = 108) and a subsequent single-arm part (n = 75). It took place at 36 centers across Australia, Europe, and the US. Participants were nonresponders, previously untreatable (PU), or high-risk upgrades (HRU). All participants contributed to the safety analysis. The primary efficacy analysis (n = 100) included 75 PU-HRU patients from the single-arm part and 25 PU-HRU patients from the randomized treatment arm.

Interventions

Patients were implanted with the WiSE CRT System (EBR Systems) consisting of a leadless LV endocardial pacing electrode stimulated with ultrasound energy delivered by a subcutaneously implanted transmitter and battery.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary safety end point was freedom from type I complications. The primary efficacy end point was a reduction in mean LV end systolic volume (LVESV).

Results

The study included 183 participants; mean age was 68.1 (SD, 10.3) years and 141 were male (77%). The trial was terminated at an interim analysis for meeting prespecified stopping criteria. In the safety population, patients were either New York Heart Association Class II (34.6%) or III (65.4%). The primary efficacy end point was met with a 16.4% (95% CI, -21.0% to -11.7%) reduction in mean LVESV (P = .003). The primary safety end point was met with an 80.9% rate of freedom from type I complications (P < .001), which included 12 study device system events (6.6%), 5 vascular events (2.7%), 3 strokes (1.6%), and 7 cardiac perforations which mostly occurred early in the study (3.8%).

Conclusions and Relevance

The SOLVE-CRT study has demonstrated that leadless LV endocardial pacing with the WiSE CRT system is associated with a reduction in LVESV in patients with HF. This novel system may represent an alternative to conventional CRT implants in some HF patient populations.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0292203.

Left ventricular electrical delay predicts volumetric response to leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing is an emerging cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) technology. Predictors of response to leadless CRT are poorly understood. Implanting the LV endocardial pacing electrode in sites with increased electrical latency (Q-LV) may improve response rates.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to examine the association between Q-LV and echocardiographic remodeling response to leadless CRT delivered with the WiSE-CRT system.

METHODS

A post hoc analysis (n = 122) of the SOLVE-CRT trial examined the relationship between LV pacing site Q-LV with rate of left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduction >15% at 6 months. Multivariable regression analysis, adjusting for age, sex, previous CRT nonresponse, cardiomyopathy etiology, QRS morphology, and QRS duration was performed, followed by receiver operating characteristic analysis and analysis of variance by Q-LV quartile. A subgroup analysis of the ischemic cardiomyopathy cohort was undertaken.

RESULTS

Complete Q-LV data were available for 122 of 153 patients (80%) in the active arms SOLVE-CRT. Overall, the 6-month LVESV response rate was 46%. Logistic regression identified Q-LV as an independent response predictor with borderline significance (adjusted odds ratio 1.015; P = .05). Analysis by Q-LV quartile demonstrated a significant improvement in response rate in quartile 4 (longest Q-LV 64%) compared to quartile 1 (shortest Q-LV 28%) (P <.01). This association was primarily driven by strong Q-LV-response correlation in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, demonstrated by subgroup logistic regression (adjusted odds ratio 1.034; P = .004).

CONCLUSION

Increased Q-LV was associated with improved reverse remodeling following leadless CRT. Targeting LV endocardial sites of high Q-LV may deliver additional benefit compared to empirical LV electrode implantation.

Optimizing electrical efficacy of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy and leadless left ventricular septal pacing: Insights on left and right ventricular activation from electrocardiographic imaging

Background

Leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an emerging heart failure treatment. An implanted electrode delivers lateral or septal endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing (LVP) upon detection of a right ventricular (RV) pacing stimulus from a coimplanted device, thus generating biventricular pacing (BiVP). Electrical efficacy data regarding this therapy, particularly leadless LV septal pacing (LVSP) for potential conduction system capture, are limited.

Objectives

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute performance of leadless CRT using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) and assess the optimal pacing modality (OPM) of LVSP on the basis of RV and LV activation.

Methods

Ten WiSE-CRT recipients underwent an ECGi study testing: RV pacing, BiVP, LVP only, and LVP with an optimized atrioventricular delay (LV-OPT). BiV, LV, and RV activation times (shortest time taken to activate 90% of the ventricles [BIVAT-90], shortest time taken to activate 95% of the LV, and shortest time taken to activate 90% of the RV) plus LV and BiV dyssynchrony index (standard deviation of LV activation times and standard deviation of all activation times) were calculated from reconstructed epicardial electrograms. The individual OPM yielding the greatest improvement from baseline was determined.

Results

BiVP generated a 23.7% improvement in BiVAT-90 (P = .002). An improvement of 43.3% was observed at the OPM (P = .0001), primarily through reductions in shortest time taken to activate 90% of the RV. At the OPM, BiVAT-90 improved in patients with lateral (43.3%; P = .0001; n = 5) and septal (42.4%; P = .009; n = 5) LV implants. The OPM varied by individual. LVP and LV-OPT were mostly superior in patients with LVSP, and in those with sinus rhythm and left bundle branch block (n = 4).

Conclusion

Leadless CRT significantly improves acute ECGi-derived activation and dyssynchrony metrics. Using an individualized OPM improves efficacy in selected patients. Effective LVSP is feasible, with fusion pacing at LV-OPT mitigating the potential deleterious effects on RV activation.

Beyond Medical Therapy-An Update on Heart Failure Devices

Heart failure (HF) is a complex and progressive disease marked by substantial morbidity and mortality rates, frequent episodes of decompensation, and a reduced quality of life (QoL), with severe financial burden on healthcare systems. In recent years, several large-scale randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have widely expanded the therapeutic armamentarium, underlining additional benefits and the feasibility of rapid titration regimens. This notwithstanding, mortality is not declining, and hospitalizations are constantly increasing. It is widely acknowledged that even with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) on board, HF patients have a prohibitive residual risk, which highlights the need for innovative treatment options. In this scenario, groundbreaking devices targeting valvular, structural, and autonomic abnormalities have become crucial tools in HF management. This has led to a full-fledged translational boost with several novel devices in development. Thus, the aim of this review is to provide an update on both approved and investigated devices.

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.

Evolving Concepts in Cardiac Physiologic Pacing in the Era of Conduction System Pacing

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP) has become a well-established therapy for patients with cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) in the presence of a left bundle branch block. In addition, CPP can be highly beneficial in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and patients with existing cardiomyopathy expected to have a right ventricular pacing burden of >40%. The benefits of CPP with traditional biventricular pacing are only realized if adequate resynchronization can be achieved. However, left ventricular lead implantation can be limited by individual anatomic variation within the coronary venous system and can be adversely affected by underlying abnormal myocardial substrate (i.e., scar tissue), especially if located within the basal lateral wall. In the last 7 years the investigation of conduction system pacing (CSP) and its potential salutary benefits are being realized and have led to a rapid evolution in the field of cardiac resynchronization pacing. However, supportive evidence for CSP for patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization remains limited compared with data available for biventricular cardiac resynchronization, mostly derived from leading CSP investigative centers. In this review, we perform an up-to-date comprehensive review of the available literature on CPP.

Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing

Cardiac pacing to treat bradyarrhythmias has evolved in recent decades. Recognition that a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients can develop heart failure due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from traditional right ventricular apical pacing has led to development of more physiologic pacing methods that better mimic normal cardiac conduction and provide synchronized ventricular contraction. Conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease but can be limited by scarring and fibrosis. His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing are novel techniques that can provide more physiologic ventricular activation as an alternative to conventional or biventricular pacing. Leadless pacing has emerged as another alternative pacing technique to overcome limitations in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Our objective is to review the evolution of cardiac pacing and explore these new advances in pacing strategies.

The Micra Transcatheter Pacing System: past, present and the future

Leadless permanent pacemakers represent an important innovation in cardiac device developments. Although transvenous permanent pacemakers have become indispensable in managing bradyarrhythmia and saving numerous lives, the use of transvenous systems comes with notable risks tied to intravascular leads and subcutaneous pockets. This drawback has spurred the creation of leadless cardiac pacemakers. Within this analysis, we compile existing clinical literature and proceed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the Micra Transcatheter Pacing System. We also delve into the protocols for addressing a malfunctioning or end-of-life Micra as well as device extraction. Lastly, we explore prospects in this domain, such as the emergence of entirely leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator devices.

Lead management in patients undergoing percutaneous tricuspid valve replacement or repair: a 'heart team' approach

Clinically significant tricuspid regurgitation (TR) has historically been managed with either medical therapy or surgical interventions. More recently, percutaneous trans-catheter tricuspid valve (TV) replacement and tricuspid trans-catheter edge-to-edge repair have emerged as alternative treatment modalities. Patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) have an increased incidence of TR. Severe TR in this population can occur for multiple reasons but most often results from the interactions between the CIED lead and the TV apparatus. Management decisions in patients with CIED leads and clinically significant TR, who are undergoing evaluation for a percutaneous TV intervention, need careful consideration as a trans-venous lead extraction (TLE) may both worsen and improve TR severity. Furthermore, given the potential risks of 'jailing' a CIED lead at the time of a percutaneous TV intervention (lead fracture and risk of subsequent infections), consideration should be given to performing a TLE prior to a percutaneous TV intervention. The purpose of this 'state-of-the-art' review is to provide an overview of the causes of TR in patients with CIEDs, discuss the available therapeutic options for patients with TR and CIED leads, and advocate for including a lead management specialist as a member of the 'heart team' when making treatment decisions in patients TR and CIED leads.

Long-Term Outcome of the First Completely Leadless Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in the United States

Completely leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy is feasible with the combination of Micra AV pacemaker (Medtronic Inc) and WiSE-CRT (EBR Inc) systems. Several reports have highlighted this combination in Europe. This case report presents a 1- year follow-up the first reported concomitant use of the leadless systems in the United States. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

Leadless Pacemakers: Current Achievements and Future Perspectives

Despite the technological advances in pacemaker technology, the transvenous implanted leads are still considered the Achilles' heel of this rhythm-control therapy. The leadless permanent pacemaker system was developed as an option to bypass the weakness of the transvenous approach. Advances in battery technology and deep miniaturisation of electronics now offer the opportunity to implant the whole pacemaker system into the right ventricle. This review aims to provide a comprehensive report on the advent of leadless pacemakers, their clinical usefulness and the future perspectives of this disruptive and promising technology. Further research is required before some of these technologies are safely and routinely used in clinical practice.

Beyond Conventional Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: A Review of Electrophysiological Options in the Management of Chronic Heart Failure

The incidence of heart failure (HF) continues to grow and burden our health care system. Electrophysiological aberrations are common amongst patients with heart failure and can contribute to worsening symptoms and prognosis. Targeting these abnormalities with cardiac and extra-cardiac device therapies and catheter ablation procedures augments cardiac function. Newer technologies aimed to improvement procedural outcomes, address known procedural limitations and target newer anatomical sites have been trialled recently. We review the role and evidence base for conventional cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) and its optimisation, catheter ablation therapies for atrial arrhythmias, cardiac contractility and autonomic modulation therapies.

Variation in optimal hemodynamic atrio-ventricular delay of biventricular pacing with different endocardial left ventricular lead locations using precision hemodynamics

INTRODUCTION

It is not known whether the optimal atrioventricular (AVopt ) delay varies between left ventricular (LV) pacing site during endocardial biventricular pacing (BiVP) and may therefore needs consideration.

METHODS

We assessed the hemodynamic AVopt in patients with chronic heart failure undergoing endocardial LV lead implantation. AVopt was assessed during atrio-BiVP with a "roving LV lead." Up to four locations were studied: mid-lateral wall, mid-septum (or a close alternative), site of greatest hemodynamic improvement, and LV lead implant site. The AVopt was compared to a fixed AV delay of 180 ms.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were included (12 male, aged 66.5 ± 12.8 years, ejection fraction 26 ± 7%, 16 left bundle branch block or high percentage of right ventricular pacing [RVP], QRS duration 167 ± 27 ms). In most locations (62/63), AVopt increased systolic blood pressure during BiVP compared with RVP (relative improvement 6 mmHg, interquartile range [IQR] 4-9 mmHg). Compared to a fixed AV delay, the hemodynamic improvement at AVopt was higher (1 mmHg, IQR 0.2-2.6 mmHg, p < .001). Within most patients (16/17), we observed a difference in AVopt between pacing sites (median paced AVopt 209 ms, IQR 117-250). Within this range, the hemodynamic impact of these differences was small (median loss 0.6 mmHg, IQR 0.1-2.6 mmHg).

CONCLUSION

Within a patient, different endocardial LV lead locations have slightly different hemodynamic AVopt which are superior to a fixed AV delay. The hemodynamic consequence of applying an optimum from a different lead location is small.

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.

Strategies for Safe Implantation and Effective Performance of Single-Chamber and Dual-Chamber Leadless Pacemakers

Leadless pacemakers (LPMs) have emerged as an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers to eliminate the complications associated with leads and subcutaneous pockets. However, LPMs still present with complications, such as cardiac perforation, dislodgment, vascular complications, infection, and tricuspid valve regurgitation. Furthermore, the efficacy of the leadless VDD LPMs is influenced by the unachievable 100% atrioventricular synchrony. In this article, we review the available data on the strategy selection, including appropriate patient selection, procedure techniques, device design, and post-implant programming, to minimize the complication rate and maximize the efficacy, and we summarize the clinical settings in which a choice must be made between VVI LPMs, VDD LPMs, or conventional transvenous pacemakers. In addition, we provide an outlook for the technology for the realization of true dual-chamber leadless and battery-less pacemakers.

Leadless Cardiac Pacing: New Horizons

Since the introduction of transvenous cardiac pacing leads, pacemaker system design has remained similar for several decades. Progressive miniaturisation of electronic circuitry and batteries has enabled a smaller, single pacing unit comprising the intracardiac electrodes, generator and computer. This review explores the development of leadless pacing, the clinical trials comparing leadless to transvenous pacing in addition to the future developments of multi-chamber leadless pacing.

Advances in novel devices for the treatment of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is one of the leading causes of global health impairment. Current drugs are still limited in their effectiveness in the treatment and reversal of HF: for example, drugs for acute HF (AHF) help to reduce congestion and relieve symptoms, but they do little to improve survival; most conventional drugs for HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) do not improve the prognosis; and drugs have extremely limited effects on advanced HF. In recent years, progress in device therapies has bridged this gap to a certain extent. For example, the availability of the left ventricular assist device has brought new options to numerous advanced HF patients. In addition to this recognizable device, a range of promising novel devices with preclinical or clinical trial results are emerging that seek to treat or reverse HF by providing circulatory support, repairing structural abnormalities in the heart, or providing electrical stimulation. These devices may be useful for the treatment of HF. In this review, we summarized recent advances in novel devices for AHF, HFpEF, and HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) with the aim of providing a reference for clinical treatment and inspiration for novel device development.

First-in-human noninvasive left ventricular ultrasound pacing: A potential screening tool for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

A screening tool to predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) could improve patient selection and outcomes.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to investigate the feasibility and safety of noninvasive CRT via transcutaneous ultrasonic left ventricular (LV) pacing applied as a screening test before CRT implants.

Methods

P-wave-triggered ultrasound stimuli were delivered during bolus dosing of an echocardiographic contrast agent to simulate CRT noninvasively. Ultrasound pacing was delivered at a variety of LV locations with a range of atrioventricular delays to achieve fusion with intrinsic ventricular activation. Three-dimensional cardiac activation maps were acquired via the Medtronic CardioInsight 252-electrode mapping vest during baseline, ultrasound pacing, and after CRT implantation. A separate control group received only the CRT implants.

Results

Ultrasound pacing was achieved in 10 patients with a mean of 81.2 ± 50.8 ultrasound paced beats per patient and up to 20 consecutive beats of ultrasound pacing. QRS width at baseline (168.2 ± 17.8 ms) decreased significantly to 117.3 ± 21.5 ms (P <.001) in the best ultrasound paced beat and to 125.8 ± 13.3 ms (P <.001) in the best CRT beat. Electrical activation patterns were similar between CRT pacing and ultrasound pacing with stimulation from the same area of the LV. Troponin results were similar between the ultrasound pacing and the control groups (P = .96), confirming safety.

Conclusion

Noninvasive ultrasound pacing before CRT is safe and feasible, and it estimates the degree of electrical resynchronization achievable with CRT. Further study of this promising technique to guide CRT patient selection is warranted.

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.

Plasma Extracellular Vesicles as Liquid Biopsy to Unravel the Molecular Mechanisms of Cardiac Reverse Remodeling Following Resynchronization Therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become a valuable addition to the treatment options for heart failure, in particular for patients with disturbances in electrical conduction that lead to regionally different contraction patterns (dyssynchrony). Dyssynchronous hearts show extensive molecular and cellular remodeling, which has primarily been investigated in experimental animals. Evidence showing that at least several miRNAs play a role in this remodeling is increasing. A comparison of results from measurements in plasma and myocardial tissue suggests that plasma levels of miRNAs may reflect the expression of these miRNAs in the heart. Because many miRNAs released in the plasma are included in extracellular vesicles (EVs), which protect them from degradation, measurement of myocardium-derived miRNAs in peripheral blood EVs may open new avenues to investigate and monitor (reverse) remodeling in dyssynchronous and resynchronized hearts of patients.

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.

Proposed strategies to overcome venous occlusion in the implantation of a cardiac implantable electronic device: A case report and literature review

This case report describes a successful balloon venoplasty to overcome a total occlusion from the brachiocephalic vein to the superior vena cava in a patient undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy. It is crucial for implanting physicians to be familiar with strategies to overcome venous occlusion in lead implantation, especially balloon venoplasty, which is an effective and safe approach.

Alternative pacing strategies for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) improves morbidity, mortality, and quality of life, especially in subsets of patients with impaired cardiac function and wide QRS. However, the rate of unsuccessful or complicated left ventricular (LV) lead placement through coronary sinus is 5-7%, and the rate of "CRT non-response" is approximately 30%. These reasons have pushed physicians and engineers to collaborate to overcome the challenges of LV lead implantation. Thus, various alternatives to BVP have been proposed to improve CRT effectiveness. His bundle pacing (HBP) has been increasingly used by activating the His-Purkinje system but is constrained by challenging implantation, low success rates, high and often unstable thresholds, and low perception. Therefore, the concept of pacing a specialized conduction system distal to the His bundle to bypass the block region was proposed. Multiple clinical studies have demonstrated that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has comparable electrical resynchronization with HBP but is superior in terms of simpler operation, higher success rates, lower and stable capture thresholds, and higher perception. Despite their well-demonstrated effectiveness, the transvenous lead-related complications remain major limitations. Recently, leadless LV pacing has been developed and demonstrated effective for these challenging patient cohorts. This article focuses on the current state and latest progress in HBP, LBBAP, and leadless LV pacing as alternatives for failed or non-responsive conventional CRT as well as their limits and prospects.

A new Electromechanical Wave Imaging dispersion metric for the characterization of ventricular activation in different Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy pacing schemes

Conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established treatment for heart failure patients. Recently, multiple novel CRT delivering technologies such as His-Bundle pacing have been investigated as alternative pacing strategies for optimal treatment benefit. Electromechanical Wave Imaging (EWI), a high frame-rate echocardiography-based modality, is capable of visualizing the change from dyssynchronous activation to resynchronized BiV-paced ventricles in 3D. This proof-of-concept study introduces a new EWI-based dispersion metric to further characterize ventricular activation. Patients with His-Bundle device implantation (n=4), left-bundle branch block (n=10), right-ventricular (RV) pacing (n=10), or BiV pacing (n=15) were imaged, as well as four volunteers in normal sinus rhythm (NSR). EWI successfully mapped the ventricular activation resulting from His-Bundle pacing. Additionally, very similar activation patterns were obtained in the NSR subjects, confirming recovery of physiological activation with His pacing. The dispersion metric was the most sensitive EWI-based metric that identified His pacing as the most efficient treatment (lowest activation time spread), followed by BiV and RV pacing. More specifically, the dispersion metric significantly (p 0.005) distinguished His pacing from the other two pacing schemes as well as LBBB. The initial findings presented herein indicate that EWI and its new dispersion metric may provide a useful resynchronization evaluation clinical tool in CRT patients under both novel His-Bundle pacing and more conventional BiV pacing strategies.

Treatment of cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responders: current approaches and new frontiers

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has developed into a very effective technology for patients with decreased systolic function and has substantially improved patients' clinical course. However, non-responsiveness to CRT, described as lack of reverse cardiac chamber remodeling, leading to lack to improve symptoms, heart failure hospitalizations or mortality, is common, rather unpredictable, and not fully understood.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to discuss key factors that are impacting CRT response; from patient selection to LV lead position, to structured follow-up in CRT clinics. Secondly, common causes and interventions for CRT non-responsiveness are discussed. Next, insight is given into technologies representing new and feasible interventions as well as pacing strategies in this group of patients that remain challenging to treat. Finally, an outlook is given into future scientific development.

EXPERT OPINION

Despite the progress that has been made, CRT non-response remains a significant and complex problem. Patient management in interdisciplinary teams including heart failure, imaging, and cardiac arrhythmia experts appears critical as complexity is increasing and CRT non-response often is a multifactorial problem. This will allow optimization of medical therapy, the use of new integrated sensor technologies and telemedicine to ultimately optimize outcomes for all patients in need of CRT.

Leadless Pacing: Where We Currently Stand and What the Future Holds

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Leadless pacemakers (LPs) are emerging as alternative cardiac implantable devices for the treatment of bradyarrhythmia. This article aims to review the data behind the safety and efficacy of these devices while highlighting their pros and cons.

RECENT FINDINGS

Prospective non-randomized studies and registries have found that LPs are associated with lower rate of device-related complications mainly driven by lower need for lead-related interventions as compared to traditional pacemakers. On the other hand, cardiac perforation appears to occur more frequently with LPs. LPs are associated with lower rate of device-related complications as compared to the traditional pacemakers. However, the rate of pericardial effusion is higher and is more severe. As we transition to multi-chamber LPs, it is important to ensure the safety and efficacy of these devices.

Rescue left bundle branch area pacing in coronary venous lead failure or nonresponse to biventricular pacing: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is effective in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and reduced left ventricular function. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been reported as an alternative option for CRT.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LBBAP in patients who failed conventional BVP because of coronary venous (CV) lead complications or who were nonresponders to BVP.

METHODS

At 16 international centers, LBBAP was attempted in patients with conventional CRT indication who failed BVP because of CV lead complications or lack of therapeutic response to BVP. Heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and death, echocardiographic outcomes, procedural data, pacing parameters, and lead complications including CV lead failure are reported.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successfully performed in 200 patients (CV lead failures 156; nonresponders 44) (age 68 ± 11 years; female 35%; LBBB 55%; right ventricular pacing 23%; ischemic cardiomyopathy 28%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy 63%; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35% in 80%). Procedural duration was 119.5 ± 59.6 minutes, and fluoroscopy duration was 25.7 ± 18.5 minutes. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.68 ± 0.35 V @ 0.45 ms and 10.4 ± 5 mV at implant, respectively, and remained stable during mean follow-up of 12 ± 10.1 months. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing from 170 ± 28 ms to 139 ± 25 ms (P <.001) with V₆ R-wave peak times of 85 ± 17 ms. LVEF improved from 29% ± 10% at baseline to 40% ± 12% (P <.001) during follow-up. The risk of death or HFH was lower in those with CV lead failure than in nonresponders (hazard ratio 0.357; 95% confidence interval 0.168-0.756; P = .007) CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a viable alternative to CRT in patients who failed conventional BVP due to CV lead failure or who were nonresponders.

Leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Leadless left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a novel procedure for treatment of patients with dyssynchronous heart failure. Current evidence is limited to observational studies with small patient numbers.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the safety and efficacy of leadless LV endocardial pacing.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. Mean differences (MDs) in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class and LV ejection fraction (LVEF) from baseline to 6 months postprocedure were combined using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was evaluated using the Cochrane Q test, I2, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis. Funnel plots were constructed to detect publication bias.

RESULTS

Five studies with 181 patients were included in the final analysis. Procedural success rate was 90.6%. Clinical response rate was 63%, with mean improvement in NYHA functional class of 0.43 (MD -0.43; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.76 to -0.1; P = .01), with high heterogeneity (P <.001; I2 = 81.1%). There was a mean increase in LVEF of 6.3% (MD 6.3; 95% CI 4.35-8.19; P <.001, with low heterogeneity (P = 0.84; I2 <0.001%). The echocardiographic response rate was 54%. Procedure-related complication and mortality rates were 23.8% and 2.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of leadless LV endocardial pacing for CRT supports its use as a second-line therapy in patients in whom standard CRT is not possible or has been ineffective. Improvements in safety profile will facilitate widespread uptake in the treatment of these patients.

Leadless Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: Advances, Challenges and Future Directions

Leadless left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) represents the merger of two rapidly progressing areas in the field of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). It combines the attractive concepts of pacing the native conduction system to allow more physiological activation of the myocardium than conventional biventricular pacing, with the potential added benefits of avoiding long-term complications associated with transvenous leads via leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing. This perspective article will first review the evidence for the efficacy of leadless pacing in CRT. We then summarise the procedural steps and pilot data for leadless LBBAP, followed by a discussion of the safety and efficacy of this novel technique. Finally, we will examine how further mechanistic evidence may shed light to which patients may benefit most from leadless LBBAP, and how improvements in current experience and technology could promote widespread uptake and expand current clinical indications.

Programming Algorithms for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Current cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implant guidelines emphasize the presence of electrical dyssynchrony (left bundle branch block (LBBB) and QRS > 150 ms) yet have modest predictive value for response and have not reduced the 30% nonresponse rate. Optimized programming to optimize CRT delivery has promised much but to date has largely been ineffective. What is missing is the understanding of LV paced effects (which are unpredictable) and optimal paced AV interval (that can be conserved during physiologic variations) that then can be incorporated into an individualized programming prescription. Automatic device-based algorithms that deliver electrical optimization and maintain this during ambulatory fluctuations in AV interval are discussed.

Left Ventricular Endocardial Pacing: Update and State of the Art

Initially, left ventricular (LV) endocardial pacing was performed as a bailout procedure after unsuccessful transvenous cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation in the presence of surgical contraindications. Additional possible advantages of endocardial LV pacing are a more physiologic activation, being less arrhythmogenic, more effective on the hemodynamic level, with better thresholds, and without the risk of phrenic stimulation. Different techniques have been proposed to stimulate the LV endocardium in humans, with feasibility and safety studies involving limited numbers of patients. In this review, we will describe the different techniques proposed to allow LV endocardial pacing, the results observed, and then we will discuss the reasons why LV endocardial pacing seems to be out of fashion today and what are the possible perspectives for development.

Electrical management of heart failure: from pathophysiology to treatment

Electrical disturbances, such as atrial fibrillation (AF), dyssynchrony, tachycardia, and premature ventricular contractions (PVCs), are present in most patients with heart failure (HF). While these disturbances may be the consequence of HF, increasing evidence suggests that they may also cause or aggravate HF. Animal studies show that longer-lasting left bundle branch block, tachycardia, AF, and PVCs lead to functional derangements at the organ, cellular, and molecular level. Conversely, electrical treatment may reverse or mitigate HF. Clinical studies have shown the superiority of atrial and pulmonary vein ablation for rhythm control and AV nodal ablation for rate control in AF patients when compared with medical treatment. Ablation of PVCs can also improve left ventricular function. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established adjunct therapy currently undergoing several interesting innovations. The current guideline recommendations reflect the safety and efficacy of these ablation therapies and CRT, but currently, these therapies are heavily underutilized. This review focuses on the electrical treatment of HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). We believe that the team of specialists treating an HF patient should incorporate an electrophysiologist in order to achieve a more widespread use of electrical therapies in the management of HFrEF and should also include individual conditions of the patient, such as body size and gender in therapy fine-tuning.

WiSE CRT Is Beneficial for Heart Failure Patients as a Rescue Therapy: Evidence From a Meta-Analysis

Background

Leadless endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing resynchronization therapy is a novel solution for patients with heart failure (HF) in whom conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) failed.

Methods

PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched for relevant cohort studies. Clinical outcomes of interest such as ejection fraction (EF), QRS duration (QRSd), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) were extracted and analyzed.

Results

Five studies involving 175 HF patients for WiSE CRT were included, and patients were followed-up for 6 months. The implanted success rate ranged from 76.5 to 100%. WiSE CRT resulted in significantly narrower QRSd [mean difference (MD): −38.21 ms, 95% confidence interval (CI): −44.36 to −32.07, p &lt; 0.001], improved left ventricular ejection fraction (MD: 6.07%, 95% CI: 4.43 to 7.71, I2 = 0%, p &lt; 0.001), reduced left ventricular end-systolic volume (MD: −23.47 ml, 95% CI: −37.18 to −9.13, p &lt; 0.001), and reduced left ventricular end-diastolic volume (MD: −24.02 ml, 95% CI: −37.01 to −11.03, p = 0.02).

Conclusion

Evidence from current studies suggests that leadless endocardial LV pacing resynchronization is effective for HF patients who failed conventional CRT or needed a device upgrade, and it may be an interesting rescue therapy.

A systemic review of endocardial left ventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Endocardial left ventricular pacing is an alternative technique used in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), when placement of a left ventricular lead is not possible via the coronary sinus or in non-responders to conventional CRT.

OBJECTIVES

To review the evidence regarding the efficacy and safety of endocardial left ventricular pacing.

METHODS

Systematic research on Medline (PubMed), ClinicalTrials.gov and Embase with the terms "endocardial left ventricular pacing", "biventricular pacing" or "endocardial left pacing" was performed with the identification of 1038 results. Eleven studies with endocardial left ventricular pacing patients were included, independent of the technique being applied to naïve CRT patients or con non-responders to conventional CRT. The end-point of this analysis was the impact of endocardial left ventricular pacing techniques regarding New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and QRS width, and the occurrence of complications Mean differences (MD) and confidence interval (CI) was used as a measurement of treatment.

RESULTS

A total of 560 patients were included, with different techniques used (trans-atrial septal technique, trans-ventricular septal technique and transapical technique). Significant improvement was registered in NYHA class (MD 0.73, CI 0.48-0.98, p<0.00001, I2 = 87%), LVEF (MD -7.63, CI -9.93 - -5.33, p<0.00001, I2 = 69%) and QRS width (MD 29.25, CI 9.99-48.50, p<0.00001, I2 = 91%). Several complications were reported after the procedure, 11 pocket infections, 22 transient ischemic attacks, 18 ischemic strokes, 41 thromboembolic events, among other complications. The mortality rate during the follow-up was 20.54%.

CONCLUSION

Left ventricular endocardial pacing is a feasible alternative to conventional CRT, with clinical, electrocardiographic and echocardiogrphic improvement. However, first data regarding this procedure was associated with significant complications rates.

Technical feasibility of leadless left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization: a case series

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel form of conduction system pacing which can reverse left bundle branch block and deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The WiSE-CRT system delivers leadless endocardial pacing with symptomatic and left ventricular (LV) remodelling improvements following intervention. We report the technical feasibility of delivering leadless LBBAP using the WiSE-CRT system.

Case summary

In Case 1, a 57-year-old male with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and complete heart block underwent implantation of the WiSE-CRT system, using a retrograde transaortic approach, after failed conventional CRT. Temporary left bundle stimulation from the LV septum achieved superior electrical resynchronization and equivalent haemodynamic response compared to endocardial pacing at the lateral LV wall. In Case 2, an 82-year-old gentleman with tachyarrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy underwent WiSE-CRT implantation via a trans-septal inter-atrial approach, with the endocardial electrode successfully deployed in the LV septum.

Discussion

Here we report the first case of deployment of the WiSE-CRT endocardial electrode in the LV septum and demonstrate the technical feasibility of leadless LBBAP. Entirely leadless CRT is an attractive option for patients with venous access issues or recurrent lead complications and has previously been successful using the WiSE-CRT system and a leadless pacemaker in the right ventricle. Further studies are required to assess long-term efficacy and safety of leadless LBBAP.

Endocardial left ventricular pacing

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure; however, 30–50% of patients fail to improve after implant. Endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing is an alternative therapy for patients who do not respond to conventional CRT or in whom placement of a lead via the coronary sinus is not possible. It enables pacing at a wide variety of sites, without restrictions due to coronary sinus anatomy, and there is evidence of superior electrical resynchronization and hemodynamic response compared with conventional epicardial CRT. In this article, we discuss the potential advantages and disadvantages of endocardial LV pacing compared with conventional CRT, review the evidence for the delivery of endocardial LV pacing using both lead-based and leadless systems, and explore possible future directions of this novel technology.

[New developments in leadless pacing systems]

Leadless pacing systems, especially the Micra™ TPS system, deliver an effective and safe alternative to the previous conventional transvenous systems in patients with impossible transvenous access and seem to be compatible with other implantable devices (S-ICD, deep brain stimulators) with no limitations in efficacy or safety. Also, new outlooks on leadless resynchronization therapy seem promising and could prevent future patients from lead- or operation-associated complications. Current limits to the implementation in everyday clinical practice are mostly the unavailability of the devices or cost issues through lack of health insurance reimbursement. However, more promising data through further studies and rising implantation rates are expected based on the positive current clinical data.

The wireless pacemaker is on again; from electro-stimulation to synchronization

Leadless stimulation of the right ventricle is now a reality, especially in patients with very specific indications and clinical characteristics, even in the absence of randomized studies to support its use. The reduction of device costs and the refinement of atrioventricular synchronization algorithms will sanction its greater diffusion in the future. The possibility of using leadless technology also for resynchronization therapy, on the other hand, is currently a promising option but, pending randomized studies with robust case histories and adequate follow-ups, it should still be considered as a niche therapy, to be limited to centres highly specialized and in patients in whom conventional resynchronization has been impossible or ineffective.

Optimal CRT Implantation-Where and How To Place the Left-Ventricular Lead?

Purpose of Review

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) represents a well-established and effective non-pharmaceutical heart failure (HF) treatment in selected patients. Still, a significant number of patients remain CRT non-responders. An optimal placement of the left ventricular (LV) lead appears crucial for the intended hemodynamic and hence clinical improvement. A well-localized target area and tools that help to achieve successful lead implantation seem to be of utmost importance to reach an optimal CRT effect.

Recent Findings

Recent studies suggest previous multimodal imaging (CT/cMRI/ECG torso) to guide intraprocedural LV lead placement. Relevant benefit compared to empirical lead optimization is still a matter of debate. Technical improvements in leads and algorithms (e.g., multipoint pacing (MPP), adaptive algorithms) promise higher procedural success. Recently emerging alternatives for ventricular synchronization such as conduction system pacing (CSP), LV endocardial pacing, or leadless pacing challenge classical biventricular pacing.

Summary

This article reviews current strategies for a successful planning, implementation, and validation of the optimal CRT implantation. Pre-implant imaging modalities offer promising assistance for complex cases; empirical lead positioning and intraoperative testing remain the cornerstone in most cases and ensure a successful CRT effect.