Impact of Physiologic Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing Among Patients With Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Greater Than 35%: A Systematic Review for the 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with preserved ejection fraction undergoing permanent cardiac pacemaker placement

BACKGROUND

Chronic right-ventricular (RV) pacing can worsen heart failure in patients with a low ejection fraction (EF), but little is known about pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with preserved EF. We aimed to investigate risk factors of PICM in these patients during long-term follow-up.

METHODS

The prospective registry at Chosun University Hospital, South Korea, included de novo patients with preserved EF undergoing transvenous permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation for atrioventricular blockage from 2017 to 2021. Patients with EF ≥ 50% and expected ventricular pacing ≥ 40% were included. Composite outcomes were cardiac death (pump failure), hospitalization because of heart failure, PICM, and biventricular pacing (BVP) upgrade.

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients (69 men, 76.3 ± 10.4 years) were included. During three years of follow-up, one patient died, 14 were hospitalized, 16 suffered PICM, and two underwent BVP upgrade. PICM were associated with reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS), prolonged paced QRS duration (pQRSd) and diastolic variables (E/e', LAVI). Cox regression analysis identified pQRSd (hazard ratio [HR], 1.111; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.011-1.222; P = 0.03) and reduced GLS (HR, 1.569; 95% CI, 1.163-2.118; P = 0.003) as independent predictors of PICM. GLS showed high predictive accuracy for PICM, with an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.779-0.894; P < 0.001) [GLS -12.0, 62.5% sensitivity, and 86.1% specificity].

CONCLUSION

RV pacing increased the risk of PICM in patients with preserved EF. Reduced GLS and prolonged pQRSd could help identify individuals at high risk of PICM even with preserved EF.

Upgrade of right ventricular pacing to cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure: a randomized trial

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

De novo implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with left bundle branch block, heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, among HFrEF patients with right ventricular pacing (RVP), the efficacy of CRT-D upgrade is uncertain.

METHODS

In this multicentre, randomized, controlled trial, 360 symptomatic (New York Heart Association Classes II-IVa) HFrEF patients with a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), high RVP burden ≥ 20%, and a wide paced QRS complex duration ≥ 150 ms were randomly assigned to receive CRT-D upgrade (n = 215) or ICD (n = 145) in a 3:2 ratio. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or <15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization.

RESULTS

Over a median follow-up of 12.4 months, the primary outcome occurred in 58/179 (32.4%) in the CRT-D arm vs. 101/128 (78.9%) in the ICD arm (odds ratio 0.11; 95% confidence interval 0.06-0.19; P < .001). All-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 22/215 (10%) in the CRT-D arm vs. 46/145 (32%) in the ICD arm (hazard ratio 0.27; 95% confidence interval 0.16-0.47; P < .001). The incidence of procedure- or device-related complications was similar between the two arms [CRT-D group 25/211 (12.3%) vs. ICD group 11/142 (7.8%)].

CONCLUSIONS

In pacemaker or ICD patients with significant RVP burden and reduced ejection fraction, upgrade to CRT-D compared with ICD therapy reduced the combined risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or absence of reverse remodelling.

Electrophysiological demonstration of nonselective His-Purkinje system capture with para-Hisian pacing

BACKGROUND

The adverse effects of conventional right ventricular (RV) apical pacing prompted the search for more physiological pacing sites, such as selective and nonselective His bundle pacing (HBP), a variant of nonselective HBP (para-Hisian pacing), and mid-septal pacing. However, knowledge of their true benefit on the physiology of ventricular activation, lead stability, and pacing thresholds is limited.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We included 152 consecutive patients (mean age 61 ± 24, 63% men) in this retrospective study. Of these, 137 patients with different bradyarrhythmias underwent active fixation lead implantation at the RV apex (n = 54), para-Hisian region (n = 66), or mid interventricular septum (n = 17). Fifteen patients with ventricular preexcitation due to an accessory pathway not undergoing pacing were included as controls. A 12‑lead ECG was recorded in all patients, and cardiac electrical synchrony was assessed using the Synchromax® cross-correlation cardiac synchrony index (CSI).

RESULTS

QRS duration was prolonged in all pacing sites: from 114 ± 28 to 160 ± 29 (RV apex), from 110 ± 28 to 122 ± 29 (para-Hisian), and from 121 ± 24 to 154 ± 30 (mid interventricular septum). The CSI was significantly improved only in patients undergoing para-Hisian pacing, despite a slight widening of the QRS interval. There was no difference in pacing thresholds and sensed R-wave voltage between pacing sites. Only 1 lead, implanted at the para-Hisian region (1.5%), was dislodged towards the mid septum 48 h after implantation but did not require repositioning.

CONCLUSIONS

QRS duration was not associated with changes in CSI, meaning that QRS width does not significantly affect electrical synchrony.

Feasibility and safety of both His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing in atrial fibrillation patients: intermediate term follow-up

PURPOSE

His bundle pacing (HBP) improves heart failure (HF) in atrial fibrillation (AF) pacing-dependent patients with a potential for a progressively increased threshold. HBP with right ventricular pacing (RVP) as a backup is always the preferred choice; however, RVP may induce HF. His Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) includes HBP and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). LBBAP maintains left ventricular synchrony but has not been proven to be safe over the long term. We assessed the feasibility and safety of both HBP and LBBAP in AF pacing-dependent patients and compared the parameters of both leads at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up.

METHODS

A total of 16 AF patients in our center, who successfully attempted both HBP and LBBAP, were prospectively enrolled unless only one of these treatment statuses was attained. The electrocardiogram characteristics, leading parameters, echocardiography results, and clinical outcomes were assessed.

RESULTS

Thirteen out of 16 patients achieved both HBP and LBBAP successfully in the same AF pacing-dependent patients. In symptomatic HF patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (n = 10), the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was reduced from 51.8 ± 4.4 to 48.3 ± 3.1 mm (p = 0.01) with the use of diuretics, either reduced or stopped (n = 7). During the follow-up, one patient in the group without HF had an increased HBP threshold and developed HF symptoms. His HF symptoms disappeared when switched into LBBAP mode. Another patient in the group with HF got his LVEF elevated by HBP for 3 months by utilizing left bundle branch block(LBBB)correction and continued to increase when switched into LBBAP for another 3 months due to an increased HBP correction threshold. The average unipolar pacing threshold of LBBAP was lower than that of HBP. No perforation or dislodgement occurred in our study.

CONCLUSION

Both HBP and LBBAP could be attempted successfully in the same AF patients when one of the two modes could be adopted and switched according to the clinical feasibility. Compared with HBP, LBBAP yielded better and more stable parameters but showed comparable effects during the 6-month follow-up.

Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular pacing (RVP) may cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony leading to impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We investigated the outcomes of RVP with His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker (PPM) for bradyarrhythmia.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing HBP or LBP with RVP for de novo PPM implantation between 01 January 2013 and 17 November 2020 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), LVEF, QRS duration, lead revision, atrial fibrillation, procedure parameters, and pacing metrics. Overall, 9 studies were included (6 observational, 3 randomised). HBP compared with RVP was associated with decreased HFH (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.94), preservation of LVEF (mean difference [MD] 0.81, 95% CI - 1.23 to 2.85 vs. - 5.72, 95% CI - 7.64 to -3.79), increased procedure duration (MD 15.17 min, 95% CI 11.30-19.04), and increased lead revisions (RR 5.83, 95% CI 2.17-15.70, p = 0.0005). LBBP compared with RVP was associated with shorter paced QRS durations (MD 5.6 ms, 95% CI - 6.4 to 17.6) vs. (51.0 ms, 95% CI 39.2-62.9) and increased procedure duration (MD 37.78 min, 95% CI 20.04-55.51).

CONCLUSION

Of the limited studies published, this meta-analysis found that HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in maintaining physiological ventricular activation as an initial pacing strategy.

Impact of diastolic dysfunction in patients with preserved ejection fraction undergoing permanent cardiac pacemaker placement

Background

Chronic right-ventricular (RV) pacing can exacerbate heart failure in patients with a low ejection fraction (EF). There is little information on the effects of diastolic dysfunction (DD) in patients with preserved EF undergoing permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes in these patients.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective analysis of PPM use in Chonnam, South Korea, included all patients with preserved EF undergoing transvenous PPM implantation for atrioventricular blockage from 2017 to 2019. Patients were divided into two groups according to DD, which were assessed by including mitral flow velocities (E′ velocity, E/E′ ratio), peak velocity of the tricuspid regurgitant, and left atrial maximum volume index. Composite outcomes were defined as (1) cardiovascular death, and (2) hospitalization by heart failure during the follow-up period.

Results

One hundred sixty-seven patients (66 men; overall mean age, 75.3 ± 11.9 years) were divided into two groups: 125 normal versus 42 DD. Compared with normal subjects, the DD group included older patients (mean age, 79.1 ± 9.9 vs. 74.0 ± 12.3; p = 0.016), and had longer paced QTc interval (pQTc, 168.5 ± 20.1 vs. 159.1 ± 16.3 ms; p < 0.001). Fifteen patients were hospitalized and two died. In a Cox proportional regression analysis, DD (hazard ratio [HR], 7.343; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.035–26.494; p = 0.002) and pQRSd (HR, 1.046; 95% CI, 1.004–1.091; p = 0.033) were independent predictors of composite outcomes.

Conclusion

In patients with DD, RV pacing raised the risk of pacing-induced heart failure despite preserved left-ventricular function. Thus, patients with DD should be monitored intensively.

Unexplained Left Ventricular Hypertrophy with Symptomatic High-Grade Atrioventricular Block in Elderly Patients: A Case Report

Left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) is common among older adults. Amidst all causes, Fabry disease (FD) should be considered when LVH occurs with family history, specific clinical manifestations, or cardiac alert signs. Here, we report a case of a 76-year-old male who presented late onset concentric LVH with symptomatic high-grade atrioventricular (AV) block. After dual-chamber pacemaker implantation, interrogation revealed frequent right ventricular (RV) pacing with a wide QRS duration. The patient developed heart failure symptoms with rapid deterioration of LV systolic function. Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) was suspected, and the pacemaker was upgraded to biventricular pacing. Further FD surveys were performed, including biochemical examinations, cardiac biopsies, and genetic sequencing, and the patient was ultimately diagnosed with a cardiac variant of FD. Particularly, we strongly suggest that physiologic pacing should be initially considered for patients with FD who have symptomatic high-grade AV block, rather than traditional RV pacing to prevent PICM.

Generating Evidence to Support the Physiologic Promise of Conduction System Pacing: Status and Update on Conduction System Pacing Trials

Conduction system pacing avoids the potential deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and provides an alternative approach to cardiac resynchronization therapy. We focus on the available observational and randomized evidence and review studies supporting the safety, feasibility, and physiologic promise of conduction system approaches. We evaluate the randomized data generated from the available clinical trials of conduction system pacing, which have led to the recent inclusion of CSP in international guidelines. The scope for future randomized trials will building on the physiologic promise of conduction system approaches and offering information on clinical end points is explored.

[His bundle and left bundle branch pacing]

Cardiac pacemakers are an extremely effective treatment for bradycardia but can, however, cause desynchronization of ventricular contraction leading to cardiomyopathy. Pacing of the conduction system can prevent and even reverse desynchronization, which is impressively visible in echocardiography with speckle tracing. His' bundle and left bundle branch pacing requires a specific implantation technique, sheaths and leads which can achieve successful stimulation of the conduction system in up to 98% of cases. Data on conduction system pacing have been acquired in numerous studies but only a few randomized outcome studies. Therefore, in the current European guidelines His' bundle and left bundle branch pacing only have a low level recommendation. The guidelines recommend His' bundle pacing in patients in whom a coronary sinus lead cannot be implanted and in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and planned atrioventricular (AV) node ablation for heart rate control. Additionally, conduction system pacing appears to be meaningful in patients with an AV block who require pacing of the ventricle for ≥20% of the time or who already show a slightly or moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (36-50%). Even in patients scheduled for generator replacement who have developed a cardiac pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, the opportunity should not be missed to upgrade the system by implantation of a His' bundle electrode.

Emerging Implantable Device Technology for Patients at the Intersection of Electrophysiology and Heart Failure Interdisciplinary Care

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), including implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), are part of guideline- indicated treatment for a subset of patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Current technological advancements in CIEDs have allowed the detection of specific patient physiologic parameters used for forecasting clinical decompensation through algorithmic, multiparameter remote monitoring. Other recent emerging technologies, including cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) and baroreflex activation therapy (BAT), may provide symptomatic or physiologic benefit in patients without an indication for CRT. Our goal in this state-of-the-art review is to describe the commercially available new technologies, purported mechanisms of action, evidence surrounding their clinical role, limitations, and future directions. Finally, we underline the need for standardized workflow and close interdisciplinary management of this population to ensure the delivery of high-quality care.

Factors associated with temporary pacing insertion in patients with inferior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction

Background

High-degree atrioventricular block (HAVB) is a prognostic factor for survival in patients with inferior ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). However, there is little information about factors associated with temporary pacing (TP). The aim of this study was to find factors associated with TP in patients with inferior STEMI.

Methods

We included 232 inferior STEMI patients, and divided those into the TP group (n = 46) and the non-TP group (n = 186). Factors associated with TP were retrospectively investigated using multivariate logistic regression model.

Results

The incidence of right ventricular (RV) infarction was significantly higher in the TP group (19.6%) than in the non-TP group (7.5%) (p = 0.024), but the incidence of in-hospital death was similar between the 2 groups (4.3% vs. 4.8%, p = 1.000). Long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), which were defined as a composite of all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and readmission for heart failure, were not different between the 2 groups (p = 0.100). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis, statin at admission [odds ratio (OR) 0.230, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.062–0.860, p = 0.029], HAVB at admission (OR 9.950, 95% CI 4.099–24.152, p<0.001), and TIMI-thrombus grade ≥3 (OR 10.762, 95% CI 1.385–83.635, p = 0.023) were significantly associated with TP.

Conclusion

Statin at admission, HAVB at admission, and TIMI-thrombus grade ≥3 were associated with TP in patients with inferior STEMI. Although the patients with TP had the higher incidence of RV infarction, the incidence of in-hospital death and long-term MACE was not different between patients with TP and those without.

His Bundle Pacing – Stand-alone or adjunctive physiological pacing: a systematic review

His-bundle pacing (HBP) appears to be a viable stand-alone or adjunctive physiological pacing therapy in pacemaker dependent patients. It could also serve as an effective adjunct or alternative pacing therapy for heart failure patients who require cardiac resynchronization therapy or pacemaker upgrade. His-bundle pacing has demonstrated improvement of His-Purkinje conduction, left ventricular electrical / mechanical synchronization, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) compared with right ventricle pacing. Patients who have high pacing dependence and/or LVEF impairment would benefit most from HBP in terms of heart failure hospitalization and LVEF improvement. Mortality benefit has not been consistently demonstrated in latest meta-analysis. The long-term clinical benefit and safety profile of HBP remains to be explored in future studies.  Key words: His bundle pacing, physiologic pacing, upgrade pacing

Pros and Cons of Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has recently emerged as a promising alternative modality for conduction system pacing. However, limited real-world data exists on the advantages and complications associated with LBBP. We analyzed the Rush conduction system pacing registry on LBBP to assess the success rates and complications associated with LBBP.

METHODS

All patients with an indication for permanent pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy that underwent LBBP for various reasons from June 2018 to April 2020 were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 57 of 59 patients underwent successful LBBP (success rate 97%). The average follow-up duration was 6.2±5 months. The implanted devices included 38 dual-chamber pacemakers, 17 cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators, and 2 cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing systems. The most common reason for performing LBBP was a high His-Bundle pacing threshold (n=23) at implant. The mean LBBP capture threshold at implant was 0.62±0.21 V at 0.4 ms which remained stable during follow-up at 0.65±0.68 V at 0.4ms. In 21 patients with cardiomyopathy, there was a significant improvement in left ventricle ejection fraction from 30±11% to 42±15%. A total of 7 lead-related complications (12.3%) were noted in the follow-up period. Three patients (5.3%) required lead revision during the follow-up period. Interventricular septal perforation occurred (as late sequela) after 2 weeks in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP can be achieved with a high success rate and low capture thresholds. Left ventricular dysfunction improved significantly during follow-up. Lead-related complications were relatively common occurring in 12.3% of initially successful implants. Lead revision was required in 3 (5%) of patients.

Cardiac MRI demonstrates compressibility in healthy myocardium but not in myocardium with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

The professional guidelines assume that the myocardial volume in systole (MVs) is equal to that in diastole (MVd), despite some limited evidence that points to the contrary. The aim of this manuscript is to determine whether this is true in healthy myocardium using gold standard cardiac MRI, as well as transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). The secondary aim is to determine whether there are similar MV changes in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

METHOD

A prospectively derived cohort at Mayo Clinic of 115 adult subjects (mean age 42.8 years, 58% female) with no cardiac risk factors was identified. Cardiac MRI was obtained on all 115 patients, 51 of whom also consented to a TTE. MRI from a retrospectively derived cohort of 50 HFrEF patients was also collected. MVs and MVd was calculated using standard approaches with inclusion of the papillary muscles.

RESULTS

In the healthy population, MRI demonstrated MVs/MVd = 0.87 (SD 0.04) and TTE demonstrated MVs/MVd = 0.79 (SD 0.07), suggesting compressibility (p < 0.0001). In the 51 healthy patients who received both imaging modalities, MVs/MVd was 8.0% higher in MRI than TTE (p < 0.0001), but both modalities had MVs/MVd < 1 (p < 0.0001). A Bland-Altman plot demonstrated that as the mean MVs/MVd increases, the difference in MVs/MVd MRI-TTE declines (r = -0.53, p < 0.0001). However, in HFrEF populations, MVs/MVd = 1.01 (0.03), suggesting myocardial incompressibility.

CONCLUSION

Contrary to currently accepted standards, healthy myocardium is compressible but HFrEF myocardium is incompressible. The ratio MVs/MVd merits further study in an expanded normal cohort and in disease states.

Intraventricular flow patterns during right ventricular apical pacing

Objectives

To assess differences in blood flow momentum (BFM) and kinetic energy (KE) dissipation in a model of cardiac dyssynchrony induced by electrical right ventricular apical (RVA) stimulation compared with spontaneous sinus rhythm.

Methods

We cross-sectionally enrolled 12 consecutive patients (mean age 74±8 years, 60% male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 58%±6 %), within 48 hours from pacemaker (PMK) implantation. Inclusion criteria were: age>18 years, no PMK-dependency, sinus rhythm with a spontaneous narrow QRS at the ECG, preserved ejection fraction (>50%) and a low percentage of PMK-stimulation (<20%). All the participants underwent a complete echocardiographic evaluation, including left ventricular strain analysis and particle image velocimetry.

Results

Compared with sinus rhythm, BFM shifted from 27±3.3 to 34±7.6° (p=0.016), while RVA-pacing was characterised by a 35% of increment in KE dissipation, during diastole (p=0.043) and 32% during systole (p=0.016). In the same conditions, left ventricle global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) significantly decreased from 17±3.3 to 11%±2.8% (p=0.004) during RVA-stimulation. At the multivariable analysis, BFM and diastolic KE dissipation were significantly associated with LV GLS deterioration (Beta Coeff.=0.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.00, p=0.034 and Beta Coeff.=0.29, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57, p=0.049, respectively).

Conclusions

In RVA-stimulation, BFM impairment and KE dissipation were found to be significantly associated with LV GLS deterioration, when controlling for potential confounders. Such changes may favour the onset of cardiac remodelling and sustain heart failure.

Permanent His bundle pacing in heart failure patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the standard-of-care therapy for the patients with heart failure and left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony. However, approximately 30% of the patients show no response. Recent studies have shown that His bundle pacing (HBP) could be an alternative for the patients with CRT indications. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of HBP in patients with heart failure.

METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase databases for studies evaluating HBP in patients with heart failure and LV dyssynchrony. The successful rate of implantation, QRS duration, pacing threshold, LV function at baseline and follow-up, and mortality rates were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

Eleven studies including 494 patients were included in this analysis. The overall successful rate for implantation was 82.4%. The main indications for HBP were CRT candidates and cardiomyopathy with atrial fibrillation undergoing atrioventricular node ablation. Permanent HBP resulted in narrow QRS duration of 116.3 ± 13.9 ms after implantation. LV functions, including echocardiographic parameters and clinical outcomes, significantly improved at follow-up (P < 0.001). However, there was a trend of increased capture and bundle branch block correction thresholds at follow-up compared to baseline (P = 0.01 and 0.02, respectively). During a mean follow-up of 23.7 months, 5.9% of the patients experienced heart failure-related hospitalization and the mortality rate was 9.1%.

CONCLUSION

Permanent HBP has shown promising results for heart failure patients in small observational studies. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy of HBP in these patients.