Procedural Success of Left Ventricular Lead Placement for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

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.

Safety and efficacy of orthodromic snare technique in left ventricular lead delivery in cardiac resynchronization implantation

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves ventricular function, but a positive response to CRT is often limited due to left ventricular (LV) lead placement in a suboptimal position. Complex coronary venous anatomy can hinder the placement of an LV lead in the target vessel, leading to poor CRT response.

OBJECTIVE

To report experience with snare-assisted LV lead delivery in CRT and compare outcomes with the conventional LV lead delivery.

METHODS

This is a single-center retrospective case-control study of CRT implants between 2016 and 2021. Snare-assisted lead delivery was performed in cases where conventional lead placement failed or when a preferred target vessel had anatomy amenable to the technique. Safety and outcomes were compared to conventional LV lead placement cases.

RESULTS

Among 180 CRT cases, 33 were snare-assisted, and 147 were conventional LV lead placements. Median follow-up was 924 days in the snare and 618.5 days in the control group. The lead placement was successful in 28/33 snare and 138/147 control cases. A mid-vessel segment was attained in 89.3% of snare and 72.5% of control cases(p = .03). The apical position was more frequently observed in the control group (26.8% vs. 7.1%, p = .03). All-cause mortality trended lower in the snare group (6.1%) compared to (17.1%) in the control group (p = .13).

CONCLUSION

Snare-assisted LV lead delivery is a safe and effective technique that can be utilized for overcoming complex venous anatomy.

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

Factors that Determined a Positive Response to Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure and Cardiac Dyssynchrony. One Center Experience

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) associated with cardiac dyssynchrony and to identify the factors that influence the CRT efficacy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This retrospective study included 155 patients after implantation of CRT devices. The CRT devices with a built-in cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D) and without it (CRT-P) were implanted in 139 (89.7%) and 16 (10.3%) patients, respectively. The follow-up period was 52.37±35.94 months. Based on the study results, two groups of patients were formed depending on the presence of a clinical response to CRT, responders and non-responders. The factors that influenced the clinical response to CRT were studied. The effect of the baseline state of patients on the effect of therapy was assessed. The need for CRT optimization and a possibility of using electrocardiographic criteria for that purpose were studied. Modern devices and leads for CRT, their functional capabilities and their influence on the CRT efficacy were characterized. Statistical analysis was performed with an IBM SPSS Statistics 21.0 (Chicago, USA) package.

RESULTS

CRT implantation with the left ventricular lead placement according to the traditional technique, through the coronary sinus, was successful in 130 (87.9%) patients. Difficulties with the left ventricular lead placement were noted in 13 (8.3%) patients when other techniques were used. After 6 months, a hemodynamic and clinical response was observed in 112 (72.2%) patients, and no positive response in 43 (27.8%). The increase in left ventricular ejection fraction in the responder group was more than 21.8±3.7%, which was associated with an improvement of the 6-minute walk test results. Th clinical response was significantly influenced by the possibility of stimulation from the basal parts of the heart; the use of more modern devices for CRT and quadripolar left ventricular leads; timely CRT optimization; and persistent dyssynchrony in non-responders. During the follow-up period, 34 (21.9%) patients died. The death rate in the non-responder group was significantly higher than in the responder group, 18 (41.3%) vs. 16 (14.3%), p=0.001. The main cause of death in the group of non-responders was CHF. Heart transplantation was performed in 3 (1.9%) patients.

CONCLUSION

CRT increases the life span and improves the quality of life in patients with CHF and cardiac dyssynchrony. There was a group of patients with no benefit from CRT in this study. Modern devices allow increasing the number of patients who benefit from CRT. Periodic optimization of CRT is necessary. When optimizing CRT, it is possible to use electrocardiographic criteria of effectiveness: duration of the QRS complex and changes in the position of the electrical axis of the heart.

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.

Physiological pacing: just a lot of buzz or the next paradigm shift in bradycardia pacing?

ABSTRACT

Cardiac pacing has been an established therapy for bradyarrhythmia due to sinus or atrioventricular nodal disease since the 1950s. However, contemporary studies have shown that conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) causes electromechanical dyssynchrony, which can lead to atrial fibrillation, heart failure and even death. Recently, the push for a more physiological cardiac pacing has seen a revival in the utilisation and development of conduction system pacing (CSP). There has been a shift towards adopting His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) in bradycardia patients worldwide and in Singapore. This review serves to outline the electrophysiological concepts behind CSP and illustrate the different paced electrocardiogram characteristics of HBP, LBBaP and RVP to aid understanding of this revolutionary pacing approach among medical practitioners in Singapore.

A Personalized Approach to the Management of Congestion in Acute Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) is the common final pathway of several conditions and is characterized by hyperactivation of numerous neurohumoral pathways. Cardiorenal interaction plays an essential role in the progression of the disease, and the use of diuretics is a cornerstone in the treatment of hypervolemic patients, especially in acute decompensated HF (ADHF). The management of congestion is complex and, to avoid misinterpretations and errors, one must understand the interface between the heart and the kidneys in ADHF. Congestion itself may impair renal function and must be treated aggressively. Transitory elevations in serum creatinine during decongestion is not associated with worse outcomes and diuretics should be maintained in patients with clear hypervolemia. Monitoring urinary sodium after diuretic administration seems to improve the response to diuretics as it allows for adjustments in doses and a personalized approach. Adequate assessment of volemia and the introduction and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy are mandatory before discharge. An early visit after discharge is highly recommended, to assess for residual congestion and thus avoid readmissions.

Conduction system pacing in difficult cardiac anatomies: Systematic approach with the 3D electroanatomic mapping guide

INTRODUCTION

Restoring physiological cardiac electrical activity in patients with conduction disease can be crucial for the survival and quality of life. Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a valuable option, although it is limited by technical challenges in difficult anatomies. 3D electroanatomical mapping (3D-EAM) can support CSP ensuring high electro-anatomical precision and low fluoroscopy.

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a systematic 3D-EAM use to guide CSP in difficult anatomical scenarios (highly dilated atria, congenital cardiomyopathies, failed biventricular implants (BiV) and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM)).

METHODS

Forty-three consecutive patients (27 males, 75 ± 10 years old) with standard pacing indications and difficult anatomical scenarios were included. The right atrium, His cloud, and atrio-ventricular septum were reconstructed by 3D-EAM. The His bundle (HB) was the initial target, while left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) was aimed at in case of unsatisfactory parameters, sub-optimally paced QRS, or impossibility of reaching the HB.

RESULTS

CSP was successful in 37 (86%) patients (15 HBP; 22 LBBAP). Mean mapping, fluoroscopy, and procedural times were 18 ± 7 min, 7 ± 5 min, 98 ± 47 min, respectively. The mean pacing threshold, R wave sensing, and pacing impedance of CSP lead were 1.2 ± 0.5V@0.5ms, 11.4 ± 6.2 mV, 736 ± 306 Ω, respectively. Baseline and paced QRS were 139 ± 38 ms and 114 ± 23 ms, respectively. No procedural complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

3D-EAM allowed the accurate definition of the His cloud and high ventricular septum and effectively guided CSP. It facilitated CSP in complex anatomies, with a procedural success rate of 86%. The results were satisfactory and reproducible, with acceptable fluoroscopy and procedural times.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one-third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiple strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged in recent years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP, appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations, and future directions.

A multifunctional soft robot for cardiac interventions

In minimally invasive endovascular procedures, surgeons rely on catheters with low dexterity and high aspect ratios to reach an anatomical target. However, the environment inside the beating heart presents a combination of challenges unique to few anatomic locations, making it difficult for interventional tools to maneuver dexterously and apply substantial forces on an intracardiac target. We demonstrate a millimeter-scale soft robotic platform that can deploy and self-stabilize at the entrance to the heart, and guide existing interventional tools toward a target site. In two exemplar intracardiac procedures within the right atrium, the robotic platform provides enough dexterity to reach multiple anatomical targets, enough stability to maintain constant contact on motile targets, and enough mechanical leverage to generate newton-level forces. Because the device addresses ongoing challenges in minimally invasive intracardiac intervention, it may enable the further development of catheter-based interventions.

Video-assisted thoracoscopic epicardial pacing: A contemporary overview

Video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) has revolutionized the approach and management of pulmonary and cardiac diseases, and its applications have significantly expanded in the last two decades. Beyond its established role in thoracic procedures, VATS has also emerged as a valuable technique for various electrophysiological procedures, including pacemaker implantations, ablation procedures, and left atrial appendage exclusion. This paper presents a thorough review of the existing literature on pacing procedures performed using a VATS approach. By analyzing and synthesizing the available studies, we aim to provide an in-depth understanding of the current knowledge and advancements in VATS-based pacing procedures. A key focus of this review is the detailed description of implantation techniques via a VATS approach.

Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.

Left Bundle Branch Block: Characterization, Definitions, and Recent Insights into Conduction System Physiology

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is not just a simple electrocardiogram alteration. The intricacies of this general terminology go beyond simple conduction block. This review puts together current knowledge on the historical concept of LBBB, clinical significance, and recent insights into the pathophysiology of human LBBB. LBBB is an entity that affects patient diagnosis (primary conduction disease, secondary to underlying pathology or iatrogenic), treatment (cardiac resynchronization therapy or conduction system pacing for heart failure), and prognosis. Recruiting the left bundle branch with conduction system pacing depends on the complex interaction between anatomy, site of pathophysiology, and delivery tools.

Conduction system pacing improves the outcomes on patients with high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSP in patients with a high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with HFmrEF.

Methods

Patients who underwent CSP for HFmrEF and ventricular pacing >40% were consecutively enrolled from January 2018 to May 2021. All participants were followed up at least 12 months. Clinical data including cardiac performance and lead outcomes were compared before and after the procedure. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured using the biplane Simpson's method. HFmrEF was defined as heart failure with the LVEF ranging from 41%-49%.

Results

CSP was successfully performed in 64 cases (96.97%), which included 16 cases of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and 48 cases of His bundle pacing (HBP). After a mean of 23.12 ± 8.17 months follow-up, NYHA classification (P < 0.001), LVEF (42.45 ± 1.84% vs. 49.97 ± 3.57%, P < 0.001) and left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (55.59 ± 6.17 mm vs. 51.66 ± 3.48 mm, P < 0.001) improved significantly. During follow-up, more than half (39/64,60.9%) of patients returned to normal LVEF and LVEDD with complete reverse remodeling. The pacing threshold in LBBP was lower (0.90 ± 0.27 V@0.4 ms vs. 1.61 ± 0.71 V@0.4 ms, P < 0.001) than that in HBP. No perforation, electrode dislodging, thrombosis or infection was observed during follow-up.

Conclusions

CSP could improve the clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF and a high percentage of ventricular pacing. LBBP might be a better choice because of its feasibility and safety, especially in patients with infranodal atrioventricular block.

Paradigm Shifts in Cardiac Pacing: Where Have We Been and What Lies Ahead?

The history of cardiac pacing dates back to the 1930s with externalized pacing and has evolved to incorporate transvenous, multi-lead, or even leadless devices. Annual implantation rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices have increased since the introduction of the implantable system, likely related to expanding indications, and increasing global life expectancy and aging demographics. Here, we summarize the relevant literature on cardiac pacing to demonstrate the enormous impact it has had within the field of cardiology. Further, we look forward to the future of cardiac pacing, including conduction system pacing and leadless pacing strategies.

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.

Effects of haemodynamically atrio-ventricular optimized His bundle pacing on heart failure symptoms and exercise capacity: the His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE-HF) randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial

AIMS

Excessive prolongation of PR interval impairs coupling of atrio-ventricular (AV) contraction, which reduces left ventricular pre-load and stroke volume, and worsens symptoms. His bundle pacing allows AV delay shortening while maintaining normal ventricular activation. HOPE-HF evaluated whether AV optimized His pacing is preferable to no-pacing, in a double-blind cross-over fashion, in patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, PR interval ≥200 ms and either QRS ≤140 ms or right bundle branch block.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients had atrial and His bundle leads implanted (and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead if clinically indicated) and were randomized to 6 months of pacing and 6 months of no-pacing utilizing a cross-over design. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake during symptom-limited exercise. Quality of life, LVEF and patients' holistic symptomatic preference between arms were secondary outcomes. Overall, 167 patients were randomized: 90% men, 69 ± 10 years, QRS duration 124 ± 26 ms, PR interval 249 ± 59 ms, LVEF 33 ± 9%. Neither peak oxygen uptake (+0.25 ml/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23 to +0.73, p = 0.3) nor LVEF (+0.5%, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.6, p = 0.4) changed with pacing but Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life improved significantly (-3.7, 95% CI -7.1 to -0.3, p = 0.03). Seventy-six percent of patients preferred His bundle pacing-on and 24% pacing-off (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

His bundle pacing did not increase peak oxygen uptake but, under double-blind conditions, significantly improved quality of life and was symptomatically preferred by the clear majority of patients. Ventricular pacing delivered via the His bundle did not adversely impact ventricular function during the 6 months.

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.

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.

Thoracoscopic Implantation of Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

(1) Background: Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of epicardial left ventricular (LV) lead placement using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). (2) Methods: Acute and post-discharge outcomes of CRT were compared between patients with epicardial LV leads (Epicardial-LV group, n = 13) and those with endocardial LV leads (Endocardial-LV group, n = 243). (3) Results: Epicardial LV leads were implanted via VATS alone (n = 8) or along with mini-thoracotomy (n = 5), for failed endocardial implantation (n = 11) or recurrent lead dislodgement (n = 2). All epicardial procedures under general anesthesia with one-lung ventilation were successfully completed in 1.0 ± 0.4 h without phrenic nerve stimulation. LV pacing thresholds in the epicardial-LV (1.5 ± 1.0 V) and endocardial-LV (1.3 ± 0.8 V) were comparable (p = 0.651). All patients were discharged alive post-VATS 8.8 ± 3.9 days. During the follow-up (34.3 ± 28.6 months), all patients with epicardial LV leads stayed alive except for one cardiac death post-CRT 14 months and one heart transplantation post-CRT 30 months. All epicardial LV leads maintained stable performance without dislodgement/significant changes in pacing threshold/impedance. LV lead dislodgement occurred only in endocardial-LV (7/243, 2.9%). Efficacy in both groups was comparable in terms of QRS narrowing, increase in LV ejection fraction, and survival free of cardiac death, or heart-failure-related hospitalization. (4) Conclusions: Epicardial LV lead placement using VATS can be a safe and effective alternative to endocardial implantation, with comparable acute and post-discharge outcomes achieved by both approaches.

Anatomical variations in Coronary Venous Drainage: Challenges and Solutions in Delivering Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

AIMS

To investigate the abnormalities of the coronary venous system in candidates for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and describe methods for circumventing the resulting difficulties.

METHODS

From 4 implanting institutes, data of all CRT implants between October 2008-October 2020 were screened for abnormal cardiac venous anatomy, defined as an anatomical variation not conforming to the accepted 'normal' anatomy. Patient demographics, procedural detail and subsequent left ventricle (LV) lead pacing indices were collected.

RESULTS

From a total of 3548 CRT implants, 15 (0.42%) patients (80% male) of 72.2±10.6 years in age with a LV ejection fraction of 34±10.3% were identified to have had an abnormal cardiac venous anatomy over the study period. There were 13 cases of persistent left side superior vena cava (pLSVC), 5 of which had coronary sinus ostium atresia (CSOA) including 2 with an 'unroofed' coronary sinus (CS); 1 patient had a unique anomalous origin of the CS and 1 patient had an isolated CSOA. In total 14 patients (60% repeat attempt) had successful percutaneous implant under general anaesthesia (46.7%) via the cephalic vein (59.1%), using the femoral approach (53.3%) for levophase venography and/or pull-through, including 1 case of endocardial LV implant. Pacing follow-up over 37.64±37.6 months demonstrated LV lead threshold between 0.62-2.9 volts (pulsewidth 0.4-1.5 milliseconds) in all cases; 5 patients died within 2.92±1.6 years of successful implant.

CONCLUSION

CRT devices can be implanted percutaneously even in the presence of substantial abnormalities of coronary venous anatomy. Alternative routes of venous access may be required. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Short QRS Duration After His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Predicts Left Ventricular Complete Reverse Remodeling in Patients With True Left Bundle Branch Block and Heart Failure

Objective

This study aimed to explore the outcomes of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) and to screen the predictors of left ventricular (LV) complete reverse remodeling in patients with true left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF).

Methods

Patients who underwent HPCSP for true LBBB and HFrEF from April 2018 to August 2020 were consecutively enrolled. All participants were followed up for at least 1 year. Thrombosis, infection, lead dislodgement, perforation, and other complications were observed after HPCSP. Clinical data, including echocardiographic parameters, electrocardiogram measurements, and cardiac function, were assessed before and after the procedure.

Results

A total of 46 patients were enrolled. HPCSP was successfully deployed in 42 cases (91.30%), which included 37 cases with His bundle pacing (HBP) and 5 cases with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). The QRS duration decreased significantly (169.88 ± 19.17 ms vs. 113.67 ± 20.68 ms, P < 0.001). Left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) (167.67 ± 73.20 ml vs. 85.97 ± 62.24 ml, P < 0.001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (63.57 ± 8.19 mm vs. 55.46 ± 9.63 mm, P = 0.003) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (26.52 ± 5.60% vs. 41.86 ± 11.56%, P < 0.001) improved dramatically. Complete reverse remodeling of the LV with normalized LVEF and LVEDD was found in nearly half of the patients (45.24%). A short QRS duration after HPCSP was a strong predictor of normalized LVEF and LVEDD (P < 0.001). The thresholds increased markedly in two patients approximately 6 months after HBP. No patients died during the total follow-up period of 20.07 ± 6.45 months.

Conclusion

Complete reverse remodeling of the LV could be found in nearly half of the patients with HFrEF and true LBBB after HPCSP, and the short QRS duration after HPCSP was a strong predictor.

Emerging Technologies in Electrophysiology: From Single Chamber to Biventricular Leadless Pacemakers

BACKGROUND

Transvenous pacemakers have been shown to improve quality of life and mortality in patients with bradycardia and cardiac conduction blocks. However, they possess inevitable drawbacks as they have a relatively high incidence of lead and device pocket-related complications. Therefore, leadless pacemakers have emerged as a solution to reduce the complications seen with conventional pacemakers. However, there have been no clinical trials to date comparing transvenous to leadless pacemakers.

SUMMARY

Currently, the Micra TPS or AV device has been approved for commercial use worldwide but is limited to single-chamber pacing with single or dual-chamber sensing. Although the leadless pacemaker, Nanostim, was initially promising, it has been recalled due to concerns of battery failures and is no longer approved in Europe. In addition, the lack of defibrillation capabilities with leadless pacemakers has been a limiting factor; therefore, a leadless pacemaker with the already approved subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator system is currently being studied in humans. Moreover, the WiSE-CRT device has been approved in Europe, with the capabilities for leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), to provide CRT for patients with unsuitable coronary sinus anatomy. Furthermore, retrieval of leadless pacemakers has been an area of concern; however, clinic data has signaled towards safe extraction of these devices with minimal complications. Key messages: This review will encompass the current literature regarding clinical safety and outcomes of these novel leadless pacemakers and discuss the evolving technologies in the field of cardiac pacing.

Long-Term Performance Comparison of Bipolar Active vs. Quadripolar Passive Fixation Leads in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy

Background: Bipolar active fixation (BipolarAFL) and quadripolar passive fixation left-ventricular leads (QuadPFL) have been designed to reduce the risk of phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS), enable targeted left-ventricular pacing, and overcome problems of difficult coronary venous anatomy and lead dislodgment. This study sought to report the long-term safety and performance of a BipolarAFL, Medtronic Attain Stability 20066, compared to QuadPFL. Methods: We performed a single-operator retrospective analysis of 81 patients receiving cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) (36 BipolarAFL, 45 QuadPFL). Immediate implant data and electrical and clinical data during follow-up (FU) were analyzed. Results: BipolarAFL has been chosen in patients with significantly larger estimated vein diameter (at the lead tip: 7.2 ± 4.1 Fr vs. 4.1 ± 2.3 Fr, p < 0.001) without significant time difference until the final lead position was achieved (BipolarAFL: 20.9 ± 10.5 min, vs. QuadPFL: 18.9 ± 8.9 min, p = 0.35). At 12 month FU no difference in response rate to CRT was recorded between BipolarAFL and QuadPFL according to left ventricular end-systolic volume (61.1 vs. 60.0%, p = 0.82) and New York Heart Association (66.7 vs. 62.2%, p = 0.32). At median FU of 48 months (IQR: 44-54), no lead dislodgment occurred in both groups but a significantly higher proportion of PNS was recorded in QuadPFL (13 vs. 0%, p < 0.05). Electrical parameters were stable during FU in both groups without significant differences. Conclusion: BipolarAFL can be implanted with ease in challenging coronary venous anatomy, shows excellent electrical performance and no difference in clinical outcome compared to QuadPFL.

Marshall to the rescue in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Left ventricular lead placement in coronary sinus ostial atresia

This case highlights the importance of proper identification of congenital anomalies of the coronary sinus for the successful placement of left ventricular lead during cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation. We discuss an alternate route for left ventricular lead placement via the vein of Marshall when the coronary sinus ostium in the right atrium was atretic and was facing difficulty initially in detecting the anomaly.

Left Bundle Branch Block: Characterization, Definitions, and Recent Insights into Conduction System Physiology

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is not just a simple electrocardiogram alteration. The intricacies of this general terminology go beyond simple conduction block. This review puts together current knowledge on the historical concept of LBBB, clinical significance, and recent insights into the pathophysiology of human LBBB. LBBB is an entity that affects patient diagnosis (primary conduction disease, secondary to underlying pathology or iatrogenic), treatment (cardiac resynchronization therapy or conduction system pacing for heart failure), and prognosis. Recruiting the left bundle branch with conduction system pacing depends on the complex interaction between anatomy, site of pathophysiology, and delivery tools.

Left ventricular lead placement using inner guiding catheter alone in cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantation

BACKGROUND

Subselection inner catheters (Inner-Cath) are used adjunctively with outer guiding catheters (Outer-Cath) during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation. This study aims to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of left ventricular lead placement (LV-LP) guided by Inner-Cath alone.

METHODS

A total of 74 patients undergoing de novo CRT implantation were investigated. LV-LP was initially guided by Inner-Cath in 42 patients (Inner-Cath group) and Outer-Cath in 32 patients (Outer-Cath group). In the Inner-Cath group, a 7Fr Inner-Cath was advanced to the coronary sinus through a 7 Fr sheath inserted in a subclavian vein. In the Outer-Cath group, 9Fr or 10Fr Outer-Caths were used. Success rate of LV-LP, additional use of inner or outer catheters and procedure-related complications were compared between groups.

RESULTS

LV-LP was successful in all patients in the Inner-Cath group, while LV-LP had to be abandoned in two patients (6.3%) of the Outer-Cath group due to CS perforation caused by Outer-Cath manipulation. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Inner-Cath group (148 vs. 168 min; p = .024). Deployment of both an inner and outer cath became necessary less frequently for the Inner-Cath group (4.8% vs. 56.3%; p < .001). Mechanical CS injuries due to guiding catheter manipulation were only observed in the Outer-Cath group (0% vs. 15.6%, p = .013).

CONCLUSION

LV-LP guided by Inner-Cath alone was feasible in over 95% of the patients without severe complications. This methodology for LV-LP may be preferable in CRT candidates with severe LV dysfunction in terms of shorter procedure time, smaller guiding sheath, and less procedure-related complications.

Left bundle area pacing, an elegant alternative in failed cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation: A case report

Left ventricular lead placement for cardiac resynchronization therapy may be challenging or even impossible. Left bundle area pacing has emerged as an interesting alternative method in case of failed implantation.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy with intraoperative epicardial mapping via minithoracotomy: 10 years' experience

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is considered an efficient method to improve the left ventricular (LV) dysfunction with left bundle branch block. However, coronary venous anatomy is not appropriate in about 10% of the cases; thus other alternatives, such as epicardial lead implantation via minithoracotomy are needed.

METHODS

During the period 2007-2017, a total of 57 patients were operated at our institute via left anterior minithoracotomy after an unsuccessful transvenous CRT. The best position of the LV epicardial electrode was determined by intraoperative epicardial mapping, that is locating the latest activation spot relative to the right ventricular (RV) electrode. The authors analyzed the survival by Kaplan-Meier estimator with Tarone-Ware equality test and multiple Cox regression analysis, the changes of the LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and dimensions, the development of the impedance and threshold of the LV epicardial electrode, the possible associations between the survival and intraoperative sensed RV-LV activation delay.

RESULTS

The intraoperative RV-LV activation delay was 92.250 ± 26.538 milliseconds. There were no intraoperative complications except ventricular fibrillation in three patients. Within 30 days there were neither wound healing complications nor pocket hematoma. There was no significant difference in survival with regard to gender or etiology, but significantly better survival was found in the cohort with intraoperative sensed RV-LV activation delay >86 milliseconds. The LVEF and dimensions improved following the operation and continued to be improved in the survivors.

CONCLUSION

CRT via minithoracotomy with epicardial mapping is a safe, efficient, simple, and reproducible second-line alternative to the transvenous method.

Successful use of venovenous snare to fix the wire in a collateral vein for proper placement of the left ventricular lead during cardiac resynchronization therapy: a case report

Background

In cardiac resynchronization therapy, left ventricular (LV) lead placement at the desired position may be difficult due to abnormal coronary sinus (CS) and lateral vein anatomy. We present a case with difficult anatomy in which we used ‘an indigenous snare’ made from hardware used for coronary angioplasty procedures, which is available in any cardiac catheterization laboratory.

Case summary

A 52-year-old man presented with dyspnoea due to chronic heart failure was evaluated for cardiac resynchronization therapy. The LV lead was difficult to advance into the only target lateral branch of the CS due to a combination of angulation and proximal stenosis. Balloon dilation was tried first, but we failed to track the LV lead. We formed a venovenous loop, advancing the coronary guidewire 0.014″ into the posterolateral vein; subsequently into the middle cardiac vein via a collateral. The wire was advanced into the CS and then to superior vena cava. The guidewire then snared through the same left subclavian vein and exteriorized by using indigenous snare. Over this loop, the LV lead of the cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator device was implanted successfully.

Discussion

We have used the snare technique, with the use of a snare prepared from a coronary guidewire. Use of such an indigenous snare has not been described before in the literature. The hardware used in this case is routinely used for coronary angioplasty procedures in all catheterization labs. The importance of our case is that no special hardware like dedicated snare was required to negotiate the LV lead at its desired location.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Nonrandomized On-Treatment Comparison With His Bundle Pacing and Biventricular Pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We compared on-treatment outcomes with His bundle pacing (HBP) and biventricular pacing (BVP) in this nonrandomized observational study.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with left-ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40% and typical left bundle branch block (LBBB) referred for CRT received BVP, HBP, or LBBP. QRS duration, pacing threshold, LVEF, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class were assessed.

RESULTS

One hundred thirty-seven patients were recruited: 49 HBP, 32 LBBP, and 54 BVP; 2 did not receive CRT. The majority of patients had nonischemic cardiomyopathy. Mean paced QRS duration was 100.7 ± 15.3 ms, 110.8 ± 11.1 ms, and 135.4 ± 20.2 ms during HBP, LBBP, and BVP, respectively. HBP and LBBP demonstrated a similar absolute increase (Δ) in LVEF (+23.9% vs +24%, P = 0.977) and rate of normalized final LVEF (74.4% vs 70.0%, P = 0.881) at 1-year follow-up. This was significantly higher than in the BVP group (Δ LVEF +16.7% and 44.9% rate of normalized final LVEF, P < 0.005). HBP and LBBP also demonstrated greater improvements in NYHA class compared with BVP. LBBP was associated with higher R-wave amplitude (11.2 ± 5.1 mV vs 3.8 ± 1.9 mV, P < 0.001) and lower pacing threshold (0.49 ± 0.13 V/0.5 ms vs 1.35 ± 0.73 V/0.5 ms, P < 0.001) compared with HBP.

CONCLUSION

LBBP appears to be a promising method for delivering CRT. We observed similar improvements in symptoms and LV function with LBBP and HBP. These improvements were significantly greater than those seen in patients treated with BVP in this nonrandomized study. These promising findings justify further investigation with randomized trials.

Lead one ratio in left bundle branch block predicts poor cardiac resynchronization therapy response

BACKGROUND

A low electrocardiogram (ECG) lead one ratio (LOR) of the maximum positive/negative QRS amplitudes is associated with lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and worse outcomes in left bundle branch block (LBBB); however, the impact of LOR on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes is unknown. We compared clinical outcomes and echocardiographic changes after CRT implantation by LOR.

METHODS

Consecutive CRT-defibrillator recipients with LBBB implanted between 2006 and 2015 at Duke University Medical Center were included (N = 496). Time to heart transplant, left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, or death was compared among patients with LOR <12 vs ≥12 using Cox-proportional hazard models. Changes in LVEF and LV volumes after CRT were compared by LOR.

RESULTS

Baseline ECG LOR <12 was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 1.69 (95% CI: 1.12-2.40, P = .01) for heart transplant, LVAD, or death. Patients with LOR <12 had less reduction of LV end diastolic volume (ΔLVEDV -4 ± 21 vs -13 ± 23%, P = .04) and LV end systolic volume (ΔLVESV -9 ± 27 vs -22 ± 26%, P = .03) after CRT. In patients with QRS duration (QRSd) ≥150 ms, LOR <12 was associated with an adjusted HR of 2.01 (95% CI 1.21-3.35, P = .008) for heart transplant, LVAD, or death, compared with LOR ≥12.

CONCLUSIONS

Baseline ECG LOR <12 portends worse outcomes after CRT implantation in patients with LBBB, specifically among those with QRSd ≥150 ms. This ECG ratio may identify patients with a class I indication for CRT implantation at high risk for poor postimplantation outcomes.

Real-world experience of leadless left ventricular endocardial cardiac resynchronization therapy: A multicenter international registry of the WiSE-CRT pacing system

Background

Biventricular endocardial pacing (BiV ENDO) is a therapy for heart failure patients who cannot receive transvenous epicardial cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) or have not responded adequately to CRT. BiV ENDO CRT can be delivered by a new wireless LV ENDO pacing system (WiSE-CRT system; EBR Systems, Sunnyvale, CA), without the requirement for lifelong anticoagulation.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess the safety and efficacy of the WiSE-CRT system during real-world clinical use in an international registry.

Methods

Data were prospectively collected from 14 centers implanting the WiSE-CRT system as part of the WiCS-LV Post Market Surveillance Registry. (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02610673).

Results

Ninety patients from 14 European centers underwent implantation with the WiSE-CRT system. Patients were predominantly male, age 68.2 ± 10.5 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 30.6% ± 8.9%, mean QRS duration 180.7 ± 27.0 ms, and 40% with ischemic etiology. Successful implantation and delivery of BiV ENDO pacing was achieved in 94.4% of patients. Acute (<24 hours), 1- to 30-day, and 1- to 6-month complications rates were 4.4%, 18.8%, and 6.7%, respectively. Five deaths (5.6%) occurred within 6 months (3 procedure related). Seventy percent of patients had improvement in heart failure symptoms.

Conclusion

BiV ENDO pacing with the WiSE-CRT system seems to be technically feasible, with a high success rate. Three procedural deaths occurred during the study. Procedural complications mandate adequate operator training and implantation at centers with immediately available cardiothoracic and vascular surgical support.

Coronary venoplasty during cardiac resynchronization therapy device implantations: Acute results and clinical outcomes

BACKGROUND

Optimal left ventricular (LV) lead placement improves response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) but can be hindered by unfavorable venous anatomy. Interventional procedures in the coronary veins have been described with promising short-term outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to establish the safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary venoplasty (PCV) during CRT implantation and assess medium-term lead performances and clinical outcomes against matched controls not requiring PCV.

METHODS

Each consecutive PCV case was matched according to age, gender, and bundle branch morphology to 2 controls from a large prospective registry of CRT recipients. Demographics, procedural success, lead performance, and response to CRT were tracked using a comprehensive electronic medical records system.

RESULTS

Of 422 consecutive CRT recipients treated between 2012 to 2018, 29 patients (6.9%; mean age 65.7 ± 10.7 years; 7 female; 17 ischemic cardiomyopathy; 22 left bundle branch block) required PCV, which was successful in 21 cases (72%). Target veins measuring 1.1 ± 0.6 mm were dilated by noncompliant balloons with mean diameter 2.8 ± 0.5 mm. No complications occurred. Fluoroscopic and procedural durations were longer in the PCV group (P <.01) Over mean follow-up of 33.0 ± 25.0 months, no differences in lead performance, CRT response, or 2-year survival were observed compared to the control group.

CONCLUSION

PCV during CRT device implant is typically successful, safe and associated with long-term clinical outcomes comparable to patients who did not need PCV. This is an important technique to optimize LV lead placement and maximize CRT response.

His bundle pacing, learning curve, procedure characteristics, safety, and feasibility: Insights from a large international observational study

Background

His‐bundle pacing (HBP) provides physiological ventricular activation. Observational studies have demonstrated the techniques’ feasibility; however, data have come from a limited number of centers.

Objectives

We set out to explore the contemporary global practice in HBP focusing on the learning curve, procedural characteristics, and outcomes.

Methods

This is a retrospective, multicenter observational study of patients undergoing attempted HBP at seven centers. Pacing indication, fluoroscopy time, HBP thresholds, and lead reintervention and deactivation rates were recorded. Where centers had systematically recorded implant success rates from the outset, these were collated.

Results

A total of 529 patients underwent attempted HBP during the study period (2014‐19) with a mean follow‐up of 217 ± 303 days. Most implants were for bradycardia indications.

In the three centers with the systematic collation of all attempts, the overall implant success rate was 81%, which improved to 87% after completion of 40 cases.

All seven centers reported data on successful implants. The mean fluoroscopy time was 11.7 ± 12.0 minutes, the His‐bundle capture threshold at implant was 1.4 ± 0.9 V at 0.8 ± 0.3 ms, and it was 1.3 ± 1.2 V at 0.9 ± 0.2 ms at last device check.

HBP lead reintervention or deactivation (for lead displacement or rise in threshold) occurred in 7.5% of successful implants.

There was evidence of a learning curve: fluoroscopy time and HBP capture threshold reduced with greater experience, plateauing after approximately 30‐50 cases.

Conclusion

We found that it is feasible to establish a successful HBP program, using the currently available implantation tools. For physicians who are experienced at pacemaker implantation, the steepest part of the learning curve appears to be over the first 30‐50 cases.

Understanding non-response to cardiac resynchronisation therapy: common problems and potential solutions

Heart failure is a complex clinical syndrome associated with a significant morbidity and mortality burden. Reductions in left ventricular (LV) function trigger adaptive mechanisms, leading to structural changes within the LV and the potential development of dyssynchronous ventricular activation. This is the substrate targeted during cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT); however, around 30-50% of patients do not experience benefit from this treatment. Non-response occurs as a result of pre-implant, peri-implant and post implant factors but the technical constraints of traditional, transvenous epicardial CRT mean they can be challenging to overcome. In an effort to improve response, novel alternative methods of CRT delivery have been developed and of these endocardial pacing, where the LV is stimulated from inside the LV cavity, appears the most promising.

Left ventricular endocardial pacing in the real world: Five years of experience at a single center

BACKGROUND

A left ventricular (LV) endocardial lead implant to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is feasible when a conventional implant failed due to anatomical or technical issues or when the venous implant was performed but the patient did not respond to the therapy.

METHODS

Data about the implantation procedure (age, sex, clinical characteristics, anticoagulant use, and previous devices), patient characteristics (indication, technique used, lead model, complications), and follow-up (clinical and echocardiographic outcome, LV lead electrical measurements) were analyzed for all CRT systems implanted using LV endocardial lead, due to failed conventional implant or nonresponse, between April 2011 and November 2016.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were implanted with an active fixation LV endocardial lead during the study period, without significant complications. There were no dislodgements or severe complications related to the implant procedure in the follow-up period (36 ± 20 months) and a high percentage of patients responded to therapy, as assessed by several indicators.

CONCLUSIONS

An LV endocardial lead implant was feasible when the conventional technique had previously failed or was not effective. A high rate of response was achieved without any significant complications.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of left ventricular endocardial pacing in advanced heart failure: Clinically efficacious but at what cost?

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization using a left ventricular (LV) epicardial lead placed in the coronary sinus is now routinely used in the management of heart failure patients. LV endocardial pacing is an alternative when this is not feasible, with outcomes data sparse.

OBJECTIVE

To review the available evidence on the efficacy and safety of endocardial LV pacing via meta-analysis.

METHODS

EMBASE, MEDLINE, and COCHRANE databases with the search term "endocardial biventricular pacing" or "endocardial cardiac resynchronization" or "left ventricular endocardial" or "endocardial left ventricular." Comparisons of pre-and post-QRS width, LV ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification was performed, and mean differences (and respective 95% confidence interval [CI]) applied as a measurement of treatment effect.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies, including 362 patients, were selected. During a mean follow-up of 40 ± 24.5 months, death occurred in 72 patients (11 per 100 patient-years). Significant improvements in LVEF (mean difference 7.9%, 95% CI 5-10%, P < 0.0001; I²  = 73%), QRS width (mean difference: -41% 95% -75 to -7%; P < 0.0001; I²  = 94%), and NYHA class (mean difference: -1.06, 95% CI -1.2 to -0.9, P < 0.0001; I²  = 60%), (all P < 0.0001) occurred. Stroke rate was 3.3-4.2 per 100 patient-years, which is higher than equivalent heart failure trial populations and recent meta-analysis that included small case series.

CONCLUSION

LV endocardial lead implantation is a potentially efficacious alternative to CS lead placement, but preliminary data suggest a potentially higher risk of stroke during follow-up when compared to the expected incidence of stroke in similar cohorts of patients.