Electrocardiographic Analysis for His Bundle Pacing at Implantation and Follow-Up

Mid-term performance of His bundle pacing and usefulness of backup leads

Ventricular backup leads may be considered in selected patients with His bundle pacing (HBP), but it remains unknown to what extent this is useful. A total of 184 HBP patients were studied. At last follow-up, 147 (79.9%) patients retained His bundle capture at programmed output. His bundle pacing lead revision was performed in 5/36 (13.9%) patients without a backup lead and in 3/148 (2.0%) patients with a backup lead (P = 0.008). One patient without a backup lead had syncope due to atrial oversensing. Thus, implantation of ventricular backup leads may avoid lead revision and adverse events in selected HBP patients.

Conduction system pacing: how far are we from the "electrical" bypass?

Conduction system pacing is an alternative practice to conventional right ventricular apical pacing. It is a method that maintains physiologic ventricular activation, based on a correct pathophysiological basis, in which the pacing lead bypasses the lesion of the electrical fibers and the electrical impulse transmits through the intact adjacent conduction system. For this reason, it might be reasonably characterized by the term "electrical bypass" compared to the coronary artery bypass in revascularization therapy. In this review, reference is made to the sequence of events in which conventional right ventricular pacing may cause adverse outcomes. Furthermore, there is a reference to alternative strategies and pacing sites. Interest focuses on the modalities for which there are data from the literature, namely for the right ventricular (RV) septal pacing, the His bundle pacing (HBP), and the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). A more extensive reference is about the HBP, for which there are the most updated data. We analyze the considerations that limit HBP-wide application in three axes, and we also present the data for the implantation and follow-up of these patients. The indications with their most important studies to date are then described in detail, not only in their undoubtedly positive findings but also in their weak aspects, because of which this pacing mode has not yet received a strong recommendation for implementation. Finally, there is a report on LBBP, focusing mainly on its points of differentiation from HBP.

Result of the Physiologic Pacing Registry, an international multicenter prospective observational study of conduction system pacing

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option for patients with indication for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant success, safety, and electrical performances of HBP and LBBAP in the multinational Physiological Pacing Registry.

METHODS

The international prospective observational registry included 44 sites from 16 countries globally between November 2018 and May 2021.

RESULTS

Of 870 subjects enrolled, CSP lead implantation was attempted in 849 patients. Subjects with successful CSP lead implantation were followed for 6 months (5 ± 2 months). CSP lead implantation was successful in 768 patients (90.4%). Implant success was 95.2% (239/251) for LBBAP and 88.5% (529/598) for HBP (P = .002). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy duration were comparable between LBBAP and HBP (P = .537). Capture threshold at implant was 0.69 ± 0.39 V at 0.46 ± 0.15 ms in LBBAP and 1.44 ± 1.03 V at 0.71 ± 0.33 ms in HBP (P <.001). Capture threshold at 6 months was 0.79 ± 0.33 V at 0.44 ± 0.13 ms in LBBAP and 1.59 ± 0.97 V at 0.67 ± 0.31 ms in HBP (P <.001). Pacing threshold rise ≥1 V was observed at 6 months in 3 of 208 (1.4%) of LBBAP and 55 of 418 (13.2%) of HBP (P <.001). Serious adverse events related to implant procedure or CSP lead occurred in 5 of 251 (2.0%) with LBBAP and 25 of 598 (4.2%) with HBP (P = .115).

CONCLUSION

This large prospective multicenter study demonstrates that CSP is technically feasible in most patients with relatively higher implant success and suggests that, with current technology, LBBAP may have better pacing parameters than HBP.

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.

Feasibility of His bundle pacing facilitated by EASI derived 12‑lead ECG

INTRODUCTION

His bundle pacing (HBP) has become popular in recent years as a more physiological alternative to conventional right ventricular pacing. Implantation requires 12‑lead ECG during surgery, which is not readily available in a standard operating room. Often but not always HBP is performed in an electrophysiology lab. EASI is a reduced lead system which enables derived 12‑lead ECG. EASI derived 12‑lead ECGs on modern tablet computers offer a more mobile and lightweight ECG solution which does not obstruct fluoroscopy during implantation. This case series aims to compare standard 12‑lead ECG to EASI derived 12‑lead ECG in patients undergoing HBP implantation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 11 patients received permanent HBP guided only by fluoroscopy, a pacing system analyzer (Medtronic CareLink SmartSync Device Manager) and EASI derived 12‑lead ECG (CardioSecur Pro). During the first postoperative device interrogation HBP criteria, as defined in the EHRA consensus paper on conduction system pacing, were evaluated with the EASI derived system as well as a standard 12‑lead ECG and compared to each other. There was perfect agreement with regards to these criteria which lead to identical conclusions in all cases.

CONCLUSION

HBP implantation can be performed with EASI derived 12‑lead ECG instead of conventional 12‑lead ECG. Criteria for discriminating between selective His bundle, non-selective His bundle or myocardial capture alone are clearly visible in the EASI derived ECG leading to the same conclusion when compared to standard 12‑lead ECG. Compared to a conventional 12‑lead ECG the EASI system offers a leaner setup with less visual obstruction on fluoroscopy.

Conduction system pacing: overview, definitions, and nomenclature

Pacing from the right ventricle is associated with an increased risk of development of congestive heart failure, increases in total and cardiac mortality, and a worsened quality of life. Conduction system pacing has become increasingly realized as an alternative to right ventricular apical pacing. Conduction system pacing from the His bundle and left bundle branch area has been shown to provide physiologic activation of the ventricle and may be an alternative to coronary sinus pacing. Conduction system pacing has been studied as an alternative for both bradycardia pacing and for heart failure pacing. In this review, we summarize the clinical results of conduction system pacing under a variety of different clinical settings. The anatomic targets of conduction system pacing are illustrated, and electrocardiographic correlates of pacing from different sites in the conduction system are defined. Ultimately, clinical trials comparing conduction system pacing with standard right ventricular apical pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing will help define its benefit and risks compared with existing techniques.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Redefining QRS transition to confirm left bundle branch capture during left bundle branch area pacing

Background

QRS transition criteria during dynamic manoeuvers are the gold-standard for non-invasive confirmation of left bundle branch (LBB) capture, but they are seen in <50% of LBB area pacing (LBBAP) procedures.

Objective

We hypothesized that transition from left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) to LBB pacing (LBBP), when observed during lead penetration into the deep interventricular septum (IVS) with interrupted pacemapping, can suggest LBB capture.

Methods

QRS transition during lead screwing-in was defined as shortening of paced V6-R wave peak time (RWPT) by ≥10 ms from LVSP to non-selective LBBP (ns-LBBP) obtained during mid to deep septal lead progression at the same target area, between two consecutive pacing manoeuvres. ECG-based criteria were used to compared LVSP and ns-LBBP morphologies obtained by interrupted pacemapping.

Results

Sixty patients with demonstrated transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP during dynamic manoeuvers were compared to 44 patients with the same transition during lead screwing-in. Average shortening in paced V6-RWPT was similar among study groups (17.3 ± 6.8 ms vs. 18.8 ± 4.9 ms for transition during dynamic manoeuvres and lead screwing-in, respectively; p = 0.719). Paced V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, V6-V1 interpeak interval and the recently described LBBP score, were also similar for ns-LBBP morphologies in both groups. LVSP morphologies showed longer V6-RWPT and aVL-RWPT, shorter V6-V1 interpeak interval and lower LBBP score punctuation, without differences among the two QRS transition groups. V6-RWPT < 75 ms or V6-V1 interpeak interval > 44 ms criterion was more frequently achieved in ns-LBBP morphologies obtained during lead screwing-in compared to those obtained during dynamic manoeuvres (70.5% vs. 50%, respectively p = 0.036).

Conclusions

During LBBAP procedure, QRS transition from LVSP to ns-LBBP can be observed as the lead penetrates deep into the IVS with interrupted pacemapping. Shortening of at least 10 ms in paced V6-RWPT may serve as marker of LBB capture.

Combination of current and new electrocardiographic-based criteria: a novel score for the discrimination of left bundle branch capture

AIMS

Most of the criteria used to diagnose direct capture of the left bundle branch (LBB) have never been validated in an external sample. We hypothesized that lead aVL might add relevant information, and the combination of several electrocardiograph (ECG)-based criteria might discriminate better LBB capture from left ventricular septal (LVS) capture, than each criterion separately.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Single-centre study involving all consecutive patients who received LBB area pacing. LBB capture was defined according to QRS morphology transition criteria during decremental pacing. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to develop a predictive score for LBB capture. A total of 71 patients with confirmed LBB capture were analysed. The optimal cut-off values of R wave peak time (RWPT) in lead V6 (V6-RWPT) and V6-V1 interpeak interval for the discrimination of LBB capture were <83 ms and ≥33 ms, respectively. The RWPT in lead aVL (aVL-RWPT) showed a good discrimination power for the differential diagnosis of LBB capture and LVS capture. The optimal value for aVL-RWPT was 79 ms [sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP) of 71.2% and 88.4%, respectively]. A new score, with a good diagnostic performance (area under the curve of 0.976), was constructed gathering the information from V6-RWPT, aVL-RWPT, and V6-V1 interpeak interval. The optimal score of 3 points showed a SN and SP of 89.2% and 100%, respectively for the differentiation of LBB capture.

CONCLUSIONS

ECG-based criteria are useful to confirm the capture of the LBB. The combination of V6-RWPT, aVL-RWPT, and V6-V1 interpeak interval values demonstrated better diagnostic performance than isolated measurements.

Right bundle branch pacing: Criteria, characteristics, and outcomes

BACKGROUND

Targets for right-sided conduction system pacing (CSP) include His bundle and right bundle branch. Electrocardiographic patterns, diagnostic criteria, and outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) are not known.

OBJECTIVE

Our aims were to delineate electrocardiographic and electrophysiological characteristics of RBBP and to compare outcomes between RBBP and His bundle pacing (HBP).

METHODS

Patients with confirmed right CSP were divided according to the conduction system potential to QRS complex interval at the pacing lead implantation site. Six hypothesized RBBP criteria as well as pacing parameters, echocardiographic outcomes, and all-cause mortality were analyzed.

RESULTS

All analyzed criteria discriminated between HBP and RBBP: double QRS complex transition during the threshold test, selective paced QRS complex different from conducted QRS complex, stimulus to selective-QRS complex > potential-QRS complex, small increase in V₆ R-wave peak time (V₆RWPT) during QRS complex transition, equal capture thresholds of CSP and myocardium, and stimulus-V₆RWPT > potential-V₆RWPT (adopted as the diagnostic standard). According to the last criterion, RBBP was observed in 19.2% of patients (64 of 326) who had been targeted for HBP, present mainly among patients with potential to QRS complex interval <35 ms (90.6% [48 of 53]) and occasionally among the remaining patients (5.6% [16 of 273]). RBBP was characterized by longer QRS complex (by 10.5 ms), longer V₆RWPT (by 11.6 ms), and better sensing (by 2.6 mV) compared with HBP. During a median follow-up duration of 29 months, no differences in capture threshold, echocardiographic outcomes, or mortality were found.

CONCLUSION

RBBP has distinct features that separate it from HBP and is observed in approximately a fifth of patients in whom HBP is intended.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation in treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures: A case report

In patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation refractory to optimal medical therapy, atrioventricular node ablation followed by permanent pacemaker implantation is an effective treatment option. A 66-year-old woman with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures was referred to our institution. After optimal drug therapy, the patient still had obvious symptoms. Sequential His-Purkinje conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation were performed. Left bundle branch pacing was used as a backup pacing method if thresholds of His bundle pacing were too high or loss of His bundle capture occurred in the follow-up. At the 6-month follow-up, the European Heart Rhythm Association classification for AF was improved, the score of the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life was enhanced, and the 6-Minute Walk Test was ameliorated. The present case was subjected to His-Purkinje conduction system pacing in combination with atrioventricular node ablation as treatment for a symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures, and this procedure alleviated symptoms and improved the quality of life in a short-term follow-up.

Results of Using Various Conduction System Pacing Options in Patients with Bradyarrhythmia

Chronic right ventricular myocardial pacing causes an asynchronous pattern of left ventricular activation, reduces left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and may be associated with worsening of clinical outcomes in the long term. Although with the emergence of algorithms that minimize ventricular pacing it became possible to reduce the percentage of paced complexes in patients with sinus node dysfunction, permanent ventricular pacing is still inevitable in patients with high-degree atrioventricular (AV) block. The use of permanent conduction system pacing is a promising method for preserving the physiological activation of the ventricular myocardium and preventing the development of heart failure due to ventricular dyssynchrony. The aim. To analyze the immediate and long-term results of the use of conduction system pacing in patients with indications for permanent ventricular pacing. Materials and methods. This study included 18 patients with indications for permanentventricular pacing who were operated at the National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine in the period from 01/01/2013 to 12/31/2022, in whom permanent conduction system pacing was used. There were 17 patients with bradyarrhythmias, of these 16 (88%) suffered from high-degree AV block (including 1 patient with Frederick’s syndrome and 1 (5%) patient with atrial ϐibrillation with slow ventricular response) and 1 (5%) patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy with left bundle branch block and ϐirstdegree AV block with indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy. The mean age of the patients was 55 ± 16 years (8 men, 10 women), LVEF at the time of the intervention was 56.42 ± 9.13 %, end diastolic volume 130.2 ± 23.8 ml, end systolic volume 55.1 ± 17.7 ml, diameter of the left atrium 4.01 ± 0.6 cm. The average QRS width before implantation was 116.5 ± 27.7 ms. In 6 (33%) patients, a special delivery system (С304-L69, Medtronic in 1 patient [5%], C315HIS in 5 [27%] patients) and 4.1F active ϐixation lead Medtronic 3830 Select Secure (69 or 74 cm) were used; in other cases (66%) standard 6F leads with active ϐixation and a lumen for a stylet without a delivery system were used. Results. The average follow-up period after implantation of pacemaker was 36.35 ± 29.65 months. During the observation period, LVEF was 57.07 ± 5.38 %, end diastolic volume111.5 ± 18.09 ml, end systolic volume 49.5 ± 13.4 ml, diameter of the left ventricle 3.9 ± 0.5 cm. The mean duration of paced QRS was 119.1 ± 10.09 ms. In 6 patients (33%), it was possible to demonstrate a change in the QRS width when the amplitude of ventricular stimulation was reduced, with 2 variants of transitions: 1) 4 (22%) patients with a transition from non-selective His bundle pacing (NSHBP) to selective His bundle pacing (SHBP), in 2 (11%) of these patients with a transition from SHBP with correction of right bundle branch block (RBBB) to SHBP without correction of RBBB, and then loss of capture of the myocardium of the ventricles; 2) 2 patients (11%) with a transition from NSHBP to myocardial septal ventricular pacing and further with a decrease in amplitude to the loss of capture of the myocardium of the ventricles. One (5%) patient with complete heart block had permanent non-selective left bundle branch area pacing. The other 11 (61%) patients met the criteria for parahisian pacing without visible transitions with a change in the amplitude of ventricular pacing. The average global longitudinal strain was -17.6 ± 2.7 %. The average interval from the stimulus to the peak of the R-wave in lead V6, which indicated the time of left ventricular activation, was 73.2 ± 8.7 ms. Pacing parameters were standardly set according to the primary indications, but with correction of the amplitude of ventricular stimulation relative to the thresholds of pacing of the conduction system. AV delay was corrected for the latency from the stimulus to the onset of the QRS in SHBP or for the duration of the “pseudodelta” wave in NSHBP which in both cases was the duration of the H-V interval. There were no complications in the acute or long-term postoperative period. Conclusions. Conduction system pacing is a challenge in the practice of cardiologist for treating life-threatening bradyarrhythmias and heart failure, but at the same time it is a safe method that provides physiological electrical and mechanical activation of the myocardium of the ventricles, that allows to effectively avoid the consequences of dyssynchrony due to permanent myocardial ventricular pacing.

Conduction System Pacing Today and Tomorrow

Conduction system pacing (CSP) encompassing His bundle (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is gaining increasing attention in the electrophysiology community. These relatively novel physiological pacing modalities have the potential to outperform conventional pacing approaches with respect to clinical endpoints, although data are currently still limited. While HBP represents the most physiological form of cardiac stimulation, success rates, bundle branch correction, and electrical lead performance over time remain a concern. LBBAP systems may overcome these limitations. In this review article, we provide a comprehensive overview of the current evidence, implantation technique, device programming, and follow-up considerations concerning CSP systems. Moreover, we discuss ongoing technical developments and future perspectives of CSP.

Conduction system pacing in everyday clinical practice: EHRA physician survey

With the increasing interest in conduction system pacing (CSP) over the last few years and the inclusion of this treatment modality in the current guidelines, our aim was to provide a snapshot of current practice across Europe. An online questionnaire was sent to physicians participating in the European Heart Rhythm Association research network as well as to national societies and over social media. Data on previous experience with CSP, current indications, preferred tools, unmet needs, and perceptions for the future are reported and discussed.

Acute echocardiographic and hemodynamic response to his-bundle pacing in patients with first-degree atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

Atrial pacing and right ventricular (RV) pacing are both associated with adverse outcomes among patients with first-degree atrioventricular block (1°AVB). His-bundle pacing (HBP) provides physiological activation of the ventricle and may be able to improve both atrioventricular (AV) and inter-ventricular synchrony in 1°AVB patients. This study evaluates the acute echocardiographic and hemodynamic effects of atrial, atrial-His-bundle sequential (AH), and atrial-ventricular (AV) sequential pacing in 1°AVB patients.

METHODS

Patients with 1°AVB undergoing atrial fibrillation ablation were included. Following left atrial (LA) catheterization, patients underwent atrial, AH- and AV-sequential pacing. LA/left ventricular (LV) pressure and echocardiographic measurements during the pacing protocols were compared.

RESULTS

Thirteen patients with 1°AVB (mean PR 221 ± 26 ms) were included. The PR interval was prolonged with atrial pacing compared to baseline (275 ± 73 ms, p = .005). LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was highest during atrial pacing (62 ± 11%), intermediate with AH-sequential pacing (59 ± 7%), and lowest with AV-sequential pacing (57 ± 12%) though these differences were not statistically significant. No significant differences were found in LA or LV mean pressures or LV dP/dT. LA and LV volumes, isovolumetric times, electromechanical delays, and global longitudinal strains were similar across pacing protocols.

CONCLUSION

Despite pronounced PR prolongation, the acute effects of atrial pacing were not significantly different than AH- or AV-sequential pacing. Normalizing atrioventricular and/or inter-ventricular dyssynchrony did not result in acute improvements in cardiac output or loading conditions.

Physiologic Differentiation Between Selective His Bundle, Nonselective His Bundle and Septal Pacing

His bundle (HB) pacing is an increasingly popular method of physiologic ventricular pacing. The electrocardiographic hallmark of physiologic pacing is the preservation or restoration of physiologic activation times in the left ventricle-a principle of paramount diagnostic importance. The current review focuses on the differentiation between 3 possible capture types when the pacing lead is placed in the HB region: selective HB capture when only HB is activated, nonselective HB capture when there is simultaneous activation of the adjacent right ventricular septal (RVS) myocardium, and selective RVS capture when HB is not activated at all but only septal myocardium.

Sincronia Ventricular na Estimulação Cardíaca Parahissiana: Alternativa por Ativação Cardíaca Fisiológica (Estimulação Indireta do Feixe de His)?

Fundamento

A estimulação cardíaca artificial (ECA) por captura direta ou indireta do feixe de His resulta em contração ventricular sincrônica (ECA fisiológica).

Objetivos

Comparar sincronia cardíaca, características técnicas e resultados de parâmetros eletrônicos entre duas técnicas de ECA indireta do feixe de His: a não seletiva e a parahissiana.

Métodos

Intervenção experimental (novembro de 2019 a abril de 2020) com implante de marca-passo definitivo (MPd) DDD em pacientes com fração de ejeção ventricular esquerda > 35%. Foram comparadas a sincronia cardíaca resultante mediante algoritmo de análise eletrocardiográfica da variância espacial do QRS e as características técnicas associadas a cada método entre ECA hissiana não seletiva (DDD-His) e parahissiana (DDD-Var).

Resultados

De 51 pacientes (28 homens), 34 (66,7%) foram alocados no grupo DDD-Var e 17 (33,3%), no grupo DDD-His, com idade média de 74 e 79 anos, respectivamente. No grupo DDD-Var, a análise da variância espacial do QRS (índice de sincronia ventricular) mostrou melhora após o implante de MPd (p < 0,001). Ao ECG pós-implante, 91,2% dos pacientes do grupo DDD-Var mostraram padrão fisiológico de ECA, comprovando ativação similar à do DDD-His (88,2%; p = 0,999). O eixo do QRS estimulado também foi similar (fisiológico) para ambos os grupos. A mediana do tempo de fluoroscopia do implante foi de 7 minutos no grupo DDD-Var e de 21 minutos no DDD-His (p < 0,001), favorecendo a técnica parahissiana. A duração média do QRS aumentou nos pacientes do DDD-Var (114,7 ms pré-MPd e 128,2 ms pós-implante, p = 0,044). A detecção da onda R foi de 11,2 mV no grupo DDD-Var e de 6,0 mV no DDD-His (p = 0,001).

Conclusão

A ECA parahissiana comprova recrutamento indireto do feixe de His, mostrando-se uma estratégia eficaz e comparável à ECA fisiológica ao resultar em contração ventricular sincrônica similar à obtida por captura hissiana não seletiva.

ECG and Pacing Criteria for Differentiating Conduction System Pacing from Myocardial Pacing

During His-Purkinje conduction system (HPS) pacing, it is crucial to confirm capture of the His bundle or left bundle branch versus myocardialonly capture. For this, several methods and criteria for differentiation between non-selective (ns) capture - capture of the HPS and the adjacent myocardium - and myocardial-only capture were developed. HPS capture results in faster and more homogenous depolarisation of the left ventricle than right ventricular septal (RVS) myocardial-only capture. Specifically, the depolarisation of the left ventricle (LV) does not require slow cell-to-cell spread of activation from the right side to the left side of the interventricular septum but begins simultaneously with QRS onset as in native depolarisation. These phenomena greatly influence QRS complex morphology and form the basis of electrocardiographic differentiation between HPS and myocardial paced QRS. Moreover, the HPS and the working myocardium are different tissues within the heart muscle that vary not only in conduction velocities but also in refractoriness and capture thresholds. These last two differences can be exploited for the diagnosis of HPS capture using dynamic pacing manoeuvres, namely differential output pacing, programmed stimulation and burst pacing. This review summarises current knowledge of this subject.

Troubleshooting Programming of Conduction System Pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) comprises His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing and is rapidly gaining widespread adoption. Effective CSP not only depends on successful system implantation but also on proper device programming. Current implantable impulse generators are not specifically designed for CSP. Either single chamber, dual chamber or CRT devices can be used for CSP depending on the underlying heart rhythm (sinus rhythm or permanent atrial arrhythmia) and the aim of pacing. Different programming issues may arise depending on the device configuration. This article aims to provide an update on practical considerations for His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing programming and follow-up.

Cryoablation vs. radiofrequency ablation of the atrioventricular node in patients with His-bundle pacing

AIMS

Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the atrioventricular node (AVN) with His-bundle pacing (HBP) can cause rise in capture thresholds. Cryoablation (CRYO) may offer reversibility in case of threshold rise but has never been tested for AVN ablation in this setting. Our aim was to compare procedural characteristics and outcome of CRYO compared with RFA for AVN ablation in patients with HBP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Forty-four patients with HBP underwent AVN ablation for an 'ablate and pace' indication. Cryoablation was performed in the first 22 patients and RFA in the following 22 patients. Procedural characteristics, success rates, and change in His capture thresholds were compared between groups. Distance from the ablation site to the His lead was measured using biplane fluoroscopy. Acute success was 100% with both strategies. Median procedural duration was significantly longer for CRYO {50 [interquartile range (IQR) 38-63] min} compared with RFA [36 (IQR, 30-41) min; P = 0.027]. An acute threshold rise of ≥1 V was observed in four CRYO (one complete loss of capture) and three RFA patients (P = 0.38), with all of the applications being within 6 mm of the His lead tip. During follow-up, nine patients had AVN re-conduction (six CRYO vs. three RFA; P = 0.58), but only four patients required a redo procedure (all CRYO; P = 0.09).

CONCLUSION

Cryoablation does not offer any advantage over RFA for AVN ablation in patients with HBP and tended to require more redo procedures. If possible, a distance of ≥6 mm should be maintained from the His lead tip to avoid a rise in capture thresholds.

The V6-V1 interpeak interval: a novel criterion for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture

AIMS

We hypothesized that during left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, the various possible combinations of direct capture/non-capture of the septal myocardium and the LBB result in distinct patterns of right and left ventricular activation. This could translate into different combinations of R-wave peak time (RWPT) in V1 and V6. Consequently, the V6-V1 interpeak interval could differentiate the three types of LBB area capture: non-selective (ns-)LBB, selective (s-)LBB, and left ventricular septal (LVS).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients with unquestionable evidence of LBB capture were included. The V6-V1 interpeak interval, V6RWPT, and V1RWPT were compared between different types of LBB area capture. A total of 468 patients from two centres were screened, with 124 patients (239 electrocardiograms) included in the analysis. Loss of LVS capture resulted in an increase in V1RWPT by ≥15 ms but did not impact V6RWPT. Loss of LBB capture resulted in an increase in V6RWPT by ≥15 ms but only minimally influenced V1RWPT. Consequently, the V6-V1 interval was longest during s-LBB capture (62.3 ± 21.4 ms), intermediate during ns-LBB capture (41.3 ± 14.0 ms), and shortest during LVS capture (26.5 ± 8.6 ms). The optimal value of the V6-V1 interval value for the differentiation between ns-LBB and LVS capture was 33 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 84.7%). A specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of LBB capture was obtained with a cut-off value of >44 ms.

CONCLUSION

The V6-V1 interpeak interval is a promising novel criterion for the diagnosis of LBB area capture.

The Year in Electrophysiology: Selected Highlights From 2020

This article is the third in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Kaplan, the Associate Editor-in-Chief Dr. Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series; namely, the highlights of the year that pertain to electrophysiology in relation to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. This third article focuses on the convergent procedure, His-bundle pacing, a comparison of subcutaneous and transvenous defibrillator therapies, the 2020 practice advisory update for the perioperative management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, and a technology update regarding the Micra AV (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), the EMPOWER leadless pacemaker (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA), WiSE-CRT (EBR Systems, Sunnyvale, CA), the Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), and the BAROSTIM NEO (CVRx Inc, Minneapolis, MN).

Cardiac Stimulation in the Third Millennium: Where Do We Head from Here?

Over the years, pacemakers have evolved from a life-saving tool to prevent asystole to a device to treat heart rhythm disorders and heart failure, aiming at improving both cardiac function and clinical outcomes. Cardiac stimulation nowadays aims to correct the electrophysiologic roots of mechanical inefficiency in different structural heart diseases. This has led to awareness of the concealed risks of customary cardiac pacing that can inadvertently cause atrioventricular and inter-/intra-ventricular dyssynchrony, and has promoted the development of new pacing modalities and the use of stimulation sites different from the right atrial appendage and the right ventricular apex. The perspective of truly physiologic pacing is the leading concept of the continued research in the past 30 years, which has made cardiac stimulation procedure more sophisticated and challenging. In this article, we analyze the emerging evidence in favor of the available strategies to achieve an individualized physiologic setting in bradycardia pacing.

Pacing devices to treat bradycardia: current status and future perspectives

Introduction: Cardiac stimulation evolved from life-saving devices to prevent asystole to the treatment of heart rhythm disorders and heart failure, capable of remote patient and disease-progression monitoring. Cardiac stimulation nowadays aims to correct the electrophysiologic roots of mechanical inefficiency in different structural heart diseases.Areas covered: Clinical experience, as per available literature, has led to awareness of the concealed risks of customary cardiac pacing, that can inadvertently cause atrio-ventricular and inter/intra-ventricular dyssynchrony. New pacing modalities have emerged, leading to a new concept of what truly represents 'physiologic pacing' beyond maintenance of atrio-ventricular coupling. In this article we will analyze the emerging evidence in favor of the available strategies to achieve an individualized physiologic setting in bradycardia pacing, and the hints of future developments.Expert opinion: 'physiologic stimulation' technologies should evolve to enable an effective and widespread adoption. In one way new guiding catheters and the adoption of electrophysiologic guidance and non-fluoroscopic lead implantation are needed to make His-Purkinje pacing successful and effective at long term in a shorter procedure time; in the other way leadless stimulation needs to upgrade to a superior physiologic setting to mimic customary DDD pacing and possibly His-Purkinje pacing.

The Footprints of Pacing Lead Position Using the 12-Lead Electrocardiograph

The 12-lead resting electrocardiograph (ECG) of a patient with an implanted cardiac pacemaker is a snapshot of cardiac electrical activity at the time of recording and may provide valuable information on both pacemaker function and malfunction, as well as identifying the position of pacing leads in the heart. The traditional site for atrial pacing is within or adjacent to the right atrial appendage and paced P waves on the ECG have a normal frontal plane axis, whereas the traditional site for ventricular pacing is at the right ventricular apex with the ECG demonstrating a left bundle branch block configuration and a left axis. More recently, ventricular leads and to a lesser extent, atrial leads have been positioned in alternate non-traditional sites resulting in 12-lead ECG appearances which have characteristic features, that are generally poorly recognised. Left ventricular pacing results in a right bundle branch block configuration and an axis dependent on the position of the lead in the ventricle. This review will describe the ECG patterns of pacing lead positions in the right atrium and ventricle as well as positions in the left ventricle, whether intentional or unintentional.

Programming and follow-up of patients with His bundle pacing

His bundle pacing (HBP) is being increasingly adopted worldwide, with the aim of providing more physiological stimulation of the heart as opposed to right ventricular pacing or as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Current devices are not specifically designed for HBP, which gives rise to programming challenges. This article aims to provide practical recommendations for HBP programming and follow-up.