Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients With Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy Using Left Bundle Branch Pacing

The association between paced left ventricular activation time and cardiac reverse remodeling in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block

INTRODUCTION

The association between paced LVAT and cardiac structure and function at baseline, as well as whether longer LVAT is associated with worse cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) has not been well investigated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the association between paced LVAT and baseline echocardiographic parameters and cardiac reverse remodeling at follow-up.

METHODS

Patients with HF and LBBB receiving successful left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) from June 2018 to April 2023 were enrolled and grouped based on paced LVAT. NT-proBNP and echocardiographic parameters were recorded during routine follow-up. The relationships between paced LVAT and echocardiographic parameters at baseline and follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

Eighty-three patients were enrolled (48 males, aged 65 ± 9.8, mean LVEF 32.1 ± 7.5%, mean LVEDD 63.0 ± 8.5 mm, median NT-proBNP 1057[513-3158] pg/mL). The paced QRSd was significantly decreased (177 ± 17.9 vs. 134 ± 18.5, p < .001) and median paced LVAT was 80[72-88] ms. After a median follow-up of 12[9-29] months, LVEF increased to 52.1 ± 11.2%, LVEDD decreased to 52.6 ± 8.8 mm, and NT-proBNP decreased to 215[73-532]pg/mL. Patients were grouped based on paced LVAT: LVAT < 80 ms (n = 39); 80 ≤ LVAT < 90 ms (n = 24); LVAT ≥ 90 ms (n = 20). Patients with longer LVAT had larger LVEDD and lower LVEF (LVEDDbaseline: p < .001; LVEFbaseline: p = .001). The difference in LVEF6M was statistically significant among groups (p < .001) and patients with longer LVAT had lower LVEF6M, while the difference in LVEF1Y was not seen (p = .090). There was no significant correlation between ΔLVEF6M-baseline, ΔLVEF1Y-6M and LVAT respectively (ΔLVEF6M-baseline: p = .261, r = -.126; ΔLVEF1Y-6M: p = .085, r = .218).

CONCLUSION

Long paced LVAT was associated with worse echocardiographic parameters at baseline, but did not affect the cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with HF and LBBB. Those with longer LVAT required longer time to recover.

Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing is an alternative to biventricular pacing. In this study, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP).

OBJECTIVES

The study summarizes the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP).

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and concomitant LBBB. Recently LBBAP has been studied as a more physiological alternative to achieve CRT.

METHOD

A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify studies examining the role of LBBAP for CRT in heart failure. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 4 was used for meta-regression to examine variables that contribute to data heterogeneity.

RESULT

Eighteen studies, 17 observational and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were examined. A total of 3906 HF patients who underwent CRT (2036 LBBAP vs. 1870 biventricular pacing [BVP]) were included. LBBAP was performed successfully in 90.4% of patients. Compared to baseline, LBBAP was associated with a reduction in QRS duration (MD: -47.23  ms 95% confidence interval [CI]: -53.45, -41.01), an increase in LVEF (MD: 15.22%, 95% CI: 13.5, 16.94), and a reduction in NYHA class (MD: -1.23, 95% CI: -1.41, -1.05). Compared to BVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in QRS duration (MD: -20.69 ms, 95% CI: -25.49, -15.88) and improvement in LVEF (MD: 4.78%, 95% CI: 3.30, 6.10). Furthermore, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.56) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.86) compared to BVP.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with improved ventricular electrical synchrony compared to BVP, as well as better echocardiographic and clinical outcomes.

Comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes with left bundle branch pacing, left ventricular septal pacing, and biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are referred to as left bundle branch area pacing.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether long-term clinical outcomes differ in patients undergoing LBBP, LVSP, and biventricular pacing (BiVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <50%) undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled if they underwent successful LBBP, LVSP, or BiVP. The primary composite end point was all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and echocardiographic measures of reverse remodeling.

RESULTS

A total of 259 patients (68 LBBP, 38 LVSP, and 153 BiVP) were observed for a mean duration of 28.8 ± 15.8 months. LBBP was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point by 78% compared with both BiVP (7.4% vs 41.2%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.22 [0.08-0.57]; P = .002) and LVSP (7.4% vs 47.4%; aHR, 0.22 [0.08-0.63]; P = .004]. The adjusted risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in LVSP than in BiVP (31.6% vs 7.2%; aHR, 3.19 [1.38-7.39]; P = .007) but comparable between LBBP and BiVP (2.9% vs 7.2%; aHR, 0.33 [0.07-1.52], P = .155). Propensity score adjustment also obtained similar results. LBBP showed a higher rate of echocardiographic response (ΔLVEF ≥10%: 60.0% vs 36.2% vs 16.1%; P < .001) than BiVP or LVSP.

CONCLUSION

LBBP yielded long-term clinical outcomes superior to those of BiVP and LVSP. The role of LVSP for CRT needs to be reevaluated because of its high mortality risk.

Case Report: Leadless and left bundle branch area pacemakers, complementary advantages require a personalized approach

Traditional transvenous pacemakers consist of a pacemaker generator usually positioned surgically in the upper left chest on the pectoral muscle fascia and one or more leads positioned through the veins to the right atrium and across the tricuspid valve to the right ventricular apex. While these devices reduce symptoms and improve survival among patients with symptomatic bradycardia, they are associated with an increased risk of infection, venous occlusion, heart failure, and tricuspid valve regurgitation. Although new pacemaker designs minimize these risks, none of the current-generation pacemaker designs effectively eliminate all of them. A personalized approach to selecting the appropriate pacemaker for each patient is needed to optimize outcomes.

A Comparison of the Association of Septal Scar Burden on Responses to LBBAP-CRT and BVP-CRT

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, despite the presence of left bundle branch block, whether cardiac substrate may influence the effect between the 2 strategies is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the association of septal scar on reverse remodeling and clinical outcomes of LBBAP compared with BVP.

METHODS

We analyzed patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy who had CRT indications undergoing preprocedure cardiac magnetic resonance examination. Changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and echocardiographic response (ER) (≥5% absolute LVEF increase) were assessed at 6 months. The clinical outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or major ventricular arrhythmia.

RESULTS

There were 147 patients included (51 LBBAP and 96 BVP). Among patients with low septal scar burden (below median 5.7%, range: 0% to 5.3%), LVEF improvement was higher in the LBBAP than the BVP group (17.5% ± 10.9% vs 12.3% ± 11.8%; P = 0.037), with more than 3-fold increased odds of ER (OR: 4.35; P = 0.033). In high sepal scar subgroups (≥5.7%, range: 5.7%-65.9%), BVP trended towards higher LVEF improvement (9.2% ± 9.4% vs 6.4% ± 12.4%; P = 0.085). Interaction between septal scar burden and pacing strategy was significant for ER (P = 0.002) and LVEF improvement (P = 0.011) after propensity score adjustment. During median follow-up of 33.7 (Q1-Q3: 19.8-42.1) months, the composite clinical outcome occurred in 34.7% (n = 51) of patients. The high-burden subgroups had worse clinical outcomes independent of CRT method.

CONCLUSIONS

Remodeling response to LBBAP and BVP among nonischemic cardiomyopathy patients is modified by septal scar burden. High septal scar burden was associated with poor clinical prognosis independent of CRT methods.

A case report of right ventricular defibrillator and left bundle branch area leads placement and atrioventricular node ablation with chronic right ventricular thrombus

Despite lack of concrete evidence, right ventricular thrombus is generally considered to be a contraindication for intracardiac lead placement. We present a case of successful placement of a right ventricular defibrillator lead and left bundle branch pacing lead and atrioventricular node ablation in a patient with chronic right ventricle thrombus.

Outcomes of combined left bundle branch area pacing with atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and pulmonary disease

INTRODUCTION

Concomitant left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) with atrioventricular (AV) nodal ablation is emerging as a viable management option in atrial fibrillation refractory to medical management. Its viability in patients with pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a retrospective, observational cohort study in consecutive patients who underwent concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation with advanced pulmonary disease at the Cleveland Clinic Fairview Hospital between January 2019 and January 2023. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use were extracted via chart review. Rates of hospitalizations, medication use, and structural disease seen on echocardiography were compared before and after the procedure. There were 27 patients with group 3 pulmonary hypertension who underwent the procedure. In the 24 months preprocedure, there were 114 admissions for heart failure or atrial fibrillation compared to 9 admissions postprocedure (p < .001). Mean follow up was 17.3 ± 12.1 months. There were no significant complications or lead dislodgements. Echocardiographic characteristics were similar prior to and after pacemaker implantation. Use of medications for rate and rhythm control was common preprocedure, and was reduced dramatically postprocedure.

CONCLUSION

This small, retrospective cohort study suggests concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation may be safe and efficacious for management of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced pulmonary disease.

Heart failure in China: epidemiology and current management

The Annual Report on Cardiovascular Health and Diseases in China (2022) intricate landscape of cardiovascular health in China. In connection with the previous section, this sixth section of the report offers a comprehensive analysis of heart failure (HF) in China. HF is one of the most important cardiovascular disease in the 21st century. Its mortality is equivalent to that of cancer. It is an important public health problem that seriously affects the health of Chinese residents. In recent years, with the deepening of understanding, the change of treatment principles, the innovation of treatment methods and the update of treatment guidelines, the in-hospital mortality of HF patients has declined, and the long-term prognosis is also improving. However, there are still differences in the management level of HF among different hospitals in China. How to improve the standardized diagnosis and treatment level of HF in China remains an important challenge.

Single-center experience of efficacy and safety of atrioventricular node ablation after left bundle branch area pacing for the management of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) with permanent pacing is an effective treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) prevents cardiac dyssynchrony associated with right ventricular pacing and could prevent worsening of heart failure (HF).

METHODS

In this retrospective monocentric study, all patients who received AVNA procedure with LBBAP were consecutively included. AVNA procedure data, electrical and echocardiographic parameters at 6 months, and clinical outcomes at 1 year were studied and compared to a matched cohort of patients who received AVNA procedure with conventional pacing between 2010 and 2023.

RESULTS

Seventy-five AVNA procedures associated with LBBAP were studied. AVNA in this context was feasible, with a success rate of 98.7% at first ablation, and safe without any complications. There was no threshold rise at follow-up. At 1 year, 6 (8%) patients were hospitalized for HF and 2 (2.7%) were deceased. Patients had a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (P ≤ 0.0001). When compared to a matched cohort of patients with AVNA and conventional pacing, AVNA data and pacing complications rates were similar. Patients with LBBAP had a better improvement of LVEF (+5.27 ± 9.62% vs. -0.48 ± 14%, P = 0.01), and a lower 1-year rate of composite outcome of hospitalization for HF or death (HR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.16-0.95, P = 0.037), significant on survival analysis (log-rank P-value = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

AVNA with LBBAP in patients with symptomatic AF is feasible, safe, and efficient. Hospitalization for HF or death rate was significantly lower and LVEF improvement was greater.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Morbidity and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the morbidity and mortality associated with LBBAP versus BVP in patients undergoing CRT implantation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who received CRT from two high-volume implantation centers were retrospectively recruited. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization, and the secondary endpoint was all-cause death.

RESULTS

A total of 491 patients receiving CRT (154 via LBBAP and 337 via BVP) were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. The primary endpoint was reached by 21 (13.6%) patients in the LBBAP group, as compared with 74 (22.0%) patients in the BVP group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.14, P = 0.15]. There were 10 (6.5%) deaths in the LBBAP group, as compared with 31 (9.2%) in the BVP group (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.86, P = 0.79). No significant difference was observed in the risk of either the primary or secondary endpoint between LBBAP and BVP after multivariate Cox regression (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.23, P = 0.24, and HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.67, P = 0.51, respectively) or propensity score matching (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.29, P = 0.28, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.29-1.65, P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a comparable effect on morbidity and mortality relative to BVP in patients with indications for CRT.

Left bundle branch area pacing using a stylet-driven, retractable-helix lead: Short-term results from a prospective multicenter IDE trial (the BIO-CONDUCT study)

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has swiftly emerged as a safe and effective alternative to right ventricular pacing. Limited data exist on the use of retractable-helix, stylet-driven leads for LBBAP.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the performance and safety of a stylet-driven pacing lead in a rigorously controlled multicenter trial to support US market application.

METHODS

A multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized trial enrolled patients with standard pacing indications. Implant procedure and lead data, including threshold, sensing, impedance, and capture type, were collected through 3 months. Primary end points were freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious complications through 3 months and LBBAP implant success according to prespecified criteria. A blinded clinical events committee adjudicated all potential end point complications.

RESULTS

A total of 186 patients were included from 14 US sites. LBBAP implants were successful in 95.7% (178 of 186; 95% confidence interval 91.7%-98.1%; P < .0001 for comparison to the performance goal of 88%). Through the 3-month follow-up visit, 3 patients (1.7%) experienced a serious LBBAP complication (all lead dislodgments), resulting in a LBBAP lead-related complication-free rate of 98.3%. A total of 13 patients (7.8%) experienced any system- or procedure-related complication. The mean threshold was 0.89 V at 0.4 ms, the sensing value was 10.8 mV, and impedance was 608 Ω.

CONCLUSION

The short-term results from this prospective trial demonstrate both high implant success and freedom from LBBAP lead-related complications using this stylet-driven retractable helix lead. This trial supports the safety, use, and effectiveness of stylet-driven leads for performing contemporary physiologic pacing.

Effect of left bundle branch pacing on right ventricular function: A 3-dimensional echocardiography study

BACKGROUND

The effect of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) on right ventricular (RV) function is not well known, and there is conflicting evidence regarding whether cardiac resynchronization therapy improves RV function.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to investigate the effect of LBBP on RV function and to evaluate the response of RV dysfunction (RVD) to LBBP.

METHODS

Sixty-five LBBP candidates were prospectively included in the study and underwent echocardiography at baseline and 6-month follow-up. LBBP response was left ventricular (LV) reverse remodeling, defined as a reduction in LV end-systolic volume of ≥15% at follow-up.

RESULTS

Patients were assigned to 2 subgroups on the basis of 3-dimensional echocardiography-derived RV ejection fraction (EF) before LBBP implantation: 30 patients (46%) in the no RVD group and 35 patients (54%) in the RVD group. The RVD group was characterized by higher N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide levels, New York Heart Association functional class, and larger LV/RV size. LBBP induced a significant reduction in QRS duration, LV size, and improvement in LVEF and mechanical dyssynchrony in both the no RVD and RVD groups, and a significant improvement in RV volumes and RVEF in the RVD group (all P<.01). LBBP resulted in a similar percentage reduction in QRS duration, LV dimensions, LV volumes, and percentage improvement in LVEF in RVD and no RVD groups (all P＞.05). LV reverse remodeling (29 of 35 patients vs 27 of 30 patients; P = .323) in the RVD group was similar to that in the no RVD group after LBBP.

CONCLUSION

LBBP induces excellent electrical and mechanical resynchronization, with a significant improvement in RV volumes and function. RVD did not diminish the beneficial effects on LV reverse remodeling after LBBP.

Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing

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

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.

Beyond biventricular pacing: Exploring the advantages of his-bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing in heart failure-A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This meta-analysis compares His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP), a novel cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) technique that targets the intrinsic conduction system of the heart, with conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP) in heart failure (HF) patients with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction and dyssynchrony.

METHODS

We searched multiple databases up to May 2023 and identified 18 studies (five randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies) involving 1291 patients. The outcome measures were QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improvement, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) change, HF hospitalization, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class improvement. We used a random-effects model to calculate odds ratios (OR), and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We also assessed the methodological quality of the studies.

RESULTS

The mean LVEF was 30.7% and the mean follow-up duration was 8.1 months. Among LBBP, HBP, and BiVP, HBP provided the shortest QRS duration [MD: -18.84 ms, 95% CI: -28.74 to -8.94; p = 0.0002], while LBBP showed the greatest improvement in LVEF [MD: 5.74, 95% CI: 2.74 to 7.46; p < 0.0001], LVEDD [MD: -5.55 mm, 95% CI: -7.51 to -3.59; p < 0.00001], and NYHA functional class [MD: -0.58, 95% CI: -0.80 to --0.35; p < 0.00001]. However, there was no significant difference in HF hospitalization between HPSP and BiVP.

CONCLUSION

LBBP as modality of HPSP demonstrated superior outcomes in achieving electrical ventricular synchrony and systolic function, as well as alleviating HF symptoms, compared to other pacing techniques.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing: Prognosis and specific applications

Cardiac pacing has become a widely accepted treatment strategy for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure. However, conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with electrical dyssynchrony, which may result in atrial fibrillation and heart failure. To achieve physiological pacing, Deshmukh et al. reported the first case of His bundle pacing (HBP) in 2000. This strategy was reported to have preserved ventricular synchronization by activating the conventional conduction system. Nonetheless, due to the anatomical location of the His bundle (HB), several issues such as high pacing thresholds, lead fixation, and early battery depletion may pose a challenge. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy to achieve conduction system pacing by capturing the left bundle branch through the deep septum. Additionally, several studies have investigated the clinical outcomes of LBBAP. In this paper, we describe the pacing parameters, QRS duration (QRSd), cardiac function, complications, and specific applications of LBBAP in recent years.

Conduction system pacing for ventricular pacing requirement is feasible and effective on patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy and cardiac dysfunction

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and safety of his-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) and heart failure (HF).

Methods

Patients with HF and interventricular septal thickness (IVST) ≥ 13 mm resulted from HCM, who accepted conduction system pacing (CSP) with a percentage of ventricular pacing > 40% from May 2018 to April 2022 were consecutively enrolled in our center. LBBP was preferred and HBP was the alternative therapy unless IVST ≥ 16 mm or LBBP failed, whereas LBBP would be the alternative therapy if HBP failed in patients with IVST ≥ 16 mm. All patients were followed up for at least one year. Data including clinical, echocardiographic parameters and electrocardiogram measurements, were collected and evaluated in patients with and without left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%.

Results

A total of 27 patients (65.93 ± 9.09 years old) were enrolled and only 3 patients failed in CSP (11.11%) via LBBP (6/13) and HBP (18/21) procedures. LVEF (P = 0.521), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (P = 0.816), and QRS duration (P = 0.928) did not worsen after CSP, and left atrial diameter (LAD) (49.58 ± 8.99 mm vs.47.04 ± 9.82 mm, P = 0.045) tended to improve slightly after 19.19 ± 7.71 months follow-up. Of note, LVEF (39.22%±7.51% vs. 45.22%±9.59%, P = 0.015), LVEDD (52.11 ± 10.10 mm vs. 48.33 ± 9.07 mm, P = 0.037), LAD (50.33 ± 8.93 mm vs. 46.11 ± 5.97 mm, P = 0.013) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) grade (2.67 ± 0.5 vs. 1.38 ± 1.02, P = 0.029) improved in 9 patients with LVEF < 50%, whereas LVEF (P = 0.372), LVEDD (P = 0.665), LAD (P = 0.093) and NYHA grade (P = 0.452) did not deteriorate in patients with preserved ejection fraction.

Conclusion

CSP was safe and feasible in patients with HCM and cardiac dysfunction, and did not worsen cardiac performance especially in patients with LVEF < 50%. HBP might be an effective alternative to LBBP in patients with significantly thickened interventricular septum.

Cardiac magnetic resonance-derived myocardial scar is associated with echocardiographic response and clinical prognosis of left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel approach for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but the impact of myocardial substrate on its effect is poorly understood. This study aims to assess the association of cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR)-derived scar burden and the response of CRT via LBBAP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with CRT indications who underwent CMR examination and successful LBBAP-CRT were retrospectively analysed. Cardiac magnetic resonance late gadolinium enhancement was used for scar assessment. Echocardiographic reverse remodelling and composite outcomes (defined as all-cause death or heart failure hospitalization) were evaluated. The echocardiographic response was defined as a ≥15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume. Among the 54 patients included, LBBAP-CRT resulted in a 74.1% response rate. The non-responders had higher global, septal, and lateral scar burden (all P < 0.001). Global, septal, and lateral scar percentage all predicted echocardiographic response [area under the curve (AUC): 0.857, 0.864, and 0.822; positive likelihood ratio (+LR): 9.859, 5.594, and 3.059; and negative likelihood ratio (-LR): 0.323, 0.233, and 0.175 respectively], which was superior to QRS morphology criteria (Strauss left bundle branch abnormality: AUC: 0.696, +LR 2.101, and -LR 0.389). After a median follow-up time of 20.3 (11.5-38.7) months, higher global, lateral and septal scar burdens were all predictive of the composite outcome (hazard ratios: 4.996, 7.019, and 4.741, respectively; P's < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Lower scar burden was associated with higher response rate of LBBAP-CRT. The pre-procedure CMR scar evaluation provides further useful information to identify potential responders and clinical outcomes.

Effectiveness of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) is ineffective in approximately one-third of patients. CRT with Conduction system pacing (CSP-CRT) may achieve greater synchronization. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of CRT with His pacing (His-CRT) or left bundle branch pacing (LBB-CRT) in lieu of biventricular CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were systematically searched until August 19, 2023, for original studies including patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) who received His- or LBB-CRT, that reported either CSP-CRT success, LVEF, QRS duration (QRSd), or New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification. Effect measures were compared with frequentist network meta-analysis. Thirty-seven publications, including 20 comparative studies, were included. Success rates were 73.5% (95% CI: 61.2-83.0) for His-CRT and 91.5% (95% CI: 88.0-94.1) for LBB-CRT. Compared to BiV-CRT, greater improvements were observed for LVEF (mean difference [MD] for His-CRT +3.4%; 95% CI [1.0; 5.7], and LBB-CRT: +4.4%; [2.5; 6.2]), LV end-systolic volume (His-CRT:17.2mL [29.7; 4.8]; LBB-CRT:15.3mL [28.3; 2.2]), QRSd (His-CRT: -17.1ms [-25.0; -9.2]; LBB-CRT: -17.4ms [-23.2; -11.6]), and NYHA (Standardized MD [SMD]: His-CRT:0.4 [0.8; 0.1]; LBB-CRT:0.4 [-0.7; -0.2]). Pacing thresholds at baseline and follow-up were significantly lower with LBB-CRT versus both His-CRT and BiV-CRT. CSP-CRT was associated with reduced mortality (R = 0.75 [0.61-0.91]) and hospitalizations risk (RR = 0.63 [0.42-0.96]).

CONCLUSION

This study found that CSP-CRT is associated with greater improvements in QRSd, echocardiographic, and clinical response. LBB-CRT was associated with lower pacing thresholds. Future randomized trials are needed to determine CSP-CRT efficacy.

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.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Heart Failure and Left Bundle Branch Block Patients With Mildly Reduced and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) may induce or aggravate heart failure (HF). Few data are available on patients with HF and LBBB with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] 40%-50%) and those with preserved EF (HFpEF. LVEF ≥ 50%). We aimed to assess the long-term outcomes of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) on cardiac function and remodelling in patients with LBBB and symptomatic HFmrEF and HFpEF.

METHODS

Nonischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) patients with HFmrEF and HFpEF (LVEF from 40% to 60% as defined with the use of echocardiography) with LBBB who successfully underwent LBBP (n = 50) were prospectively included from 4 centres. Patient characteristics and echocardiographic and lead parameters were recorded at implantation and during follow-ups of 1, 3, 6, and 12 months.

RESULTS

All patients completed 1-year follow up. The LVEF was significantly improved from 46.5 ± 5.2% at baseline to 60.0 ± 6.1% (n = 50; P < 0.001) after 1-year follow up. Higher ΔLVEF and super-response rate were observed in the HFmrEF group (n = 30) than in the HFpEF group (n = 20).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP improved symptoms and reversed remodelling in patients with LBBB and symptomatic HF at 1-year follow-up. Improvement occurred even in HFpEF patients, and the resynchronisation effect was better in HFmrEF group.

Progress in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy and Optimisation

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) has become the cornerstone of heart failure (HF) treatment. Despite the obvious benefit from this therapy, an estimated 30% of CRT patients do not respond ("non-responders"). The cause of "non-response" is multi-factorial and includes suboptimal device settings. To optimise CRT settings, echocardiography has been considered the gold standard but has limitations: it is user dependent and consumes time and resources. CRT proprietary algorithms have been developed to perform device optimisation efficiently and with limited resources. In this review, we discuss CRT optimisation including the various adopted proprietary algorithms and conduction system pacing.

Use of acoustic cardiography to assess left ventricular electromechanical synchronization during left bundle branch pacing

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing that captures the main left bundle or its proximal branch. Electromechanical activation time (EMAT) is an acoustic cardiographic metric that provides a simple method for evaluating left ventricular (LV) synchrony. Prolonged EMAT reflects impaired LV electromechanical coupling.

Objective

The purpose of this study was to explore whether EMAT can confirm that LBBP produces more satisfactory LV electromechanical synchronization than conventional right ventricular pacing modalities.

Methods

Patients with standard pacing indications and narrow QRS duration were recruited for this study. Unipolar pacing under 3 different modalities-right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP), right ventricular high septal pacing (RVHSP), and LBBP-were successively performed in each patient. Pacing parameters, echocardiographic characteristics, and acoustic cardiographic parameters at different pacing modalities and during normal rhythm were collected.

Results

A total of 55 patients were enrolled, and all had successful LBBP. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was significantly associated with EMAT, with LVAT vs EMAT correlation coefficient of 0.665 (P <.001). LVAT during LBBP was shorter than that during RVHSP (51.93 ± 2.732 ms vs 85.59 ± 2.240 ms; P <.001). EMAT of LBBP was significantly lower than either RVAP or RVHSP (95.44 ± 1.794 ms vs 143.32 ± 2.376 ms, and 132.22 ± 1.872 ms; both P <.001) but was similar to that of intrinsic rhythm (95.37 ± 2.271 ms; P = .862).

Conclusion

We found EMAT significantly prolonged in RVHSP and RVAP but not in the LBBP mode. This finding indicates superior electromechanical synchronization in patients having LBBP. EMAT measurement could be an additional method for identifying the ideal pacing position.

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads

BACKGROUND

Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes.

METHODS

We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately.

RESULTS

The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

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.

Electrical Synchrony Optimization for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients With Bradycardia and Heart Failure

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising physiological pacing modality. This study was designed to investigate the acute impact of the atrioventricular delay (AVD) on cardiac electrical characteristics and identify an optimal range of AVDs for LBBAP to achieve electrical atrioventricular and interventricular synchrony. Patients indicated for ventricular or biventricular pacing were studied during routine follow-ups at least 3 months after LBBAP implantation. Patients were excluded if they had a complete AV block or persistent atrial fibrillation. AVD was programed from 40 to 240 ms or until intrinsic conduction occurred. Optimal AVD was determined by the electrocardiography criteria, including QRS duration, reduced R-wave in lead V1, reduced notching or slurring in lateral leads, and more desirable precordial QRS transition. A total of 38 patients (age 68.7 ± 10.3 years; 16 male (42%); 18 dual-chamber pacemakers and 20 cardiac resynchronization therapy devices; average follow-up period 15.1 ± 10.2 months) were included. The fusion of LBBAP and intrinsic right ventricular conduction occurred in 21 patients with corresponding optimal AVD determined. A great proportion (∼85%) of the optimal AVDs ranged from 50% to 80% of the observed atrium-to-left bundle branch-sensing (A-LBBS) intervals. The linear correlation between the optimal AVD and corresponding A-LBBS interval (optimal AVD = 0.84 × [A-LBSs interval] - 36 ms) produced R = 0.86 and p <0.0001. In conclusion, AVD selection during LBBAP greatly impacted the ventricular electrical characteristics and the optimal AVD was linearly correlated with the corresponding A-LBBS interval.

Echocardiographic Evaluation of the Effect on Left Ventricular Function Between Left Bundle Branch Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the left ventricular function effects of permanent left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) versus traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP).

Patients and Methods

Consecutive patients receiving pacemaker implantation were included and divided into left bundle branch block (LBBB) group and right ventricular pacing (RVP) group. Baseline characteristics were collected, and they received 1-year follow-up. Electrocardiogram (ECG) characteristics and pacing parameters were assessed before and after implantation. Cardiac function parameters such as left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and tricuspid regurgitation (TR) were recorded and compared.

Results

Of 78 patients included, 45 patients received LBBP (mean age, 72.7 ± 12.2 years; male, 55.6%) and 33 patients underwent RVP (mean age 72.9 ± 11.8 years; male, 63.6%). The pacing parameters were satisfactory during the implantation and remained stable during mid-term follow-up. During the follow-up period, LBBP patients had a greater decrease in LVEDD and LVESD. The TR in the LBBP group was significantly improved as compared to the RVP group (P=0.016).

Conclusion

Permanent LBBP achieves favorable cardiac hemodynamic effects with good stability and safety. LBBP may reduce severe TR at 1-year follow-up, and LBBP may be an option for patients with severe TR.

The long-term safety and effectiveness of the loop technique in left ventricular lead dislocation

Objectives

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a well-established method that improves the clinical symptoms and long-term prognosis of specific heart failure (HF) patients by restoring systolic synchronicity and enhancing myocardial function. However, the high rate of intraoperative and postoperative left ventricular (LV) lead dislocation limits its application to a great extent. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the long-term safety and effectiveness of a new approach named the loop technique for patients who experience repeated intraoperative transvenous LV lead dislocations during CRT.

Methods

The current study was a single-centre, prospective, nonrandomized controlled trial. Forty-four HF patients who underwent CRT were included. All patients were followed to death or 3 years.

Results

Among 44 HF patients, 36 underwent the traditional operation, and 8 underwent the loop technique due to repeated intraoperative LV lead dislocations. Intergroup comparison revealed no significant differences between the two groups with respect to most preoperative indices, intraoperative pacing and sensing parameters. At the end of the 3-year follow-up, 4 (11.1%) patients in the traditional operation group and 2 (25.0%) patients in the loop technique group had died. There was no significant difference in the mortality rate (P = 0.30). No complications related to this new technique were observed, such as intracoronary thrombosis, infection or dislocation. Intergroup comparison showed no significant difference in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, echocardiography indices, N-terminal pro brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) level or pacemaker programming parameters.

Conclusions

The loop technique is a safe and effective alternative method for patients who experience repeated intraoperative transvenous LV lead dislocations during CRT.

Does targeted positioning of the left ventricular pacing lead towards the latest local electrical activation in cardiac resynchronization therapy reduce the incidence of death or hospitalization for heart failure?

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves symptoms, health-related quality of life and long-term survival in patients with systolic heart failure (HF) and shortens QRS duration. However, up to one third of patients attain no measurable clinical benefit from CRT. An important determinant of clinical response is optimal choice in left ventricular (LV) pacing site. Observational data have shown that achieving an LV lead position at a site of late electrical activation is associated with better clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared to standard placement, but mapping-guided LV lead placement towards the site of latest electrical activation has never been investigated in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of targeted positioning of the LV lead towards the latest electrically activated area. We hypothesize that this strategy is superior to standard LV lead placement.

METHODS

The DANISH-CRT trial is a national, double-blinded RCT (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03280862). A total of 1,000 patients referred for a de novo CRT implantation or an upgrade to CRT from right ventricular pacing will be randomized 1:1 to receive conventional LV lead positioning preferably in a nonapical posterolateral branch of the coronary sinus (CS) (control group) or targeted positioning of the LV lead to the CS branch with the latest local electrical LV activation (intervention group). In the intervention group, late activation will be determined using electrical mapping of the CS. The primary endpoint is a composite of death and nonplanned HF hospitalization. Patients are followed for a minimum of 2 years and until 264 primary endpoints occurred. Analyses will be conducted according to the intention-to-treat principle. Enrollment for this trial began in March 2018, and per April 2023, a total of 823 patients have been included. Enrollment is expected to be complete by mid-2024.

CONCLUSIONS

The DANISH-CRT trial will clarify whether mapping-guided positioning of the LV lead according to the latest local electrical activation in the CS is beneficial for patients in terms of reducing the composite endpoint of death or nonplanned hospitalization for heart failure. Results from this trial are expected to impact future guidelines on CRT.

CLINICALTRIALS

GOV IDENTIFIER

NCT03280862.

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.

The evolving state of cardiac resynchronization therapy and conduction system pacing: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) was proposed in the 1990s as a new therapy for patients with heart failure and wide QRS with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction despite optimal medical treatment. This review is aimed first to describe the rationale and the physiologic effects of CRT. The journey of the landmark randomized trials leading to the adoption of CRT in the guidelines since 2005 is also reported showing the high level of evidence for CRT. Different alternative pacing modalities of CRT to conventional left ventricular pacing through the coronary sinus have been proposed to increase the response rate to CRT such as multisite pacing and endocardial pacing. A new emerging alternative technique to conventional biventricular pacing, conduction system pacing (CSP), is a promising therapy. The different modalities of CSP are described (Hirs pacing and left bundle branch area pacing). This new technique has to be evaluated in clinical randomized trials before implementation in the guidelines with a high level of evidence.

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.

Managing arrhythmia in cardiac resynchronisation therapy

Arrhythmia is an extremely common finding in patients receiving cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). Despite this, in the majority of randomised trials testing CRT efficacy, patients with a recent history of arrhythmia were excluded. Most of our knowledge into the management of arrhythmia in CRT is therefore based on arrhythmia trials in the heart failure (HF) population, rather than from trials dedicated to the CRT population. However, unique to CRT patients is the aim to reach as close to 100% biventricular pacing (BVP) as possible, with HF outcomes greatly influenced by relatively small changes in pacing percentage. Thus, in comparison to the average HF patient, there is an even greater incentive for controlling arrhythmia, to achieve minimal interference with the effective delivery of BVP. In this review, we examine both atrial and ventricular arrhythmias, addressing their impact on CRT, and discuss the available evidence regarding optimal arrhythmia management in this patient group. We review pharmacological and procedural-based approaches, and lastly explore novel ways of harnessing device data to guide treatment of arrhythmia in CRT.

Pacing of Specialized Conduction System

Right ventricular pacing for bradycardia remains the mainstay of pacing therapy. Chronic right ventricular pacing may lead to pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. We focus on the anatomy of the conduction system and the clinical feasibility of pacing the His bundle and/or left bundle conduction system. We review the hemodynamics of conduction system pacing, the techniques to capture the conduction system and the electrocardiogram and pacing definitions of conduction system capture. Clinical studies of conduction system pacing in the setting of atrioventricular block and after AV junction ablation are reviewed and the evolving role of conduction system pacing is compared with biventricular pacing.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is observed to produce greater improvements in echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, whether these surrogate endpoints directly translate to improvements in hard clinical outcomes such as death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) with CSP remains uncertain as studies reporting these outcomes are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the existing data to compare the clinical outcomes of CSP versus BiVP.

METHODS

A systematic search of the Embase and PubMed database was performed for studies comparing CSP and BiVP for patients indicated to receive a CRT device. The coprimary endpoints were all-cause mortality and HFH. Other secondary outcomes included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), change in NYHA class, and increase in NYHA class ≥1. A random-effects model was chosen a priori to analyze the composite effects given the anticipated heterogeneity of included trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies (4 randomized and 17 observational) were identified reporting either primary outcome and were included in the meta-analysis. In total 1960 patients were assigned to CSP and 2367 to BiVP. Median follow-up time was 10.1 months (ranging 2-33 months). CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.83) and HFH (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.63). Mean improvement in LVEF was also greater with CSP (mean difference 4.26, 95% CI: 3.19-5.33). Reduction in NYHA class was significantly greater with CSP (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.22) and the number of patients with an increase in NYHA class ≥1 was significantly greater with CSP (OR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.70-2.40).

CONCLUSIONS

CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and HFH when compared to conventional BiVP for CRT. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to verify these observations.

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.

Consecutive Experience with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in a High-Volume Australian Centre

INTRODUCTION

Left-bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a relatively new technique for conduction system pacing. Australian safety and efficacy data is currently lacking. We aim to evaluate the learning curve, medium-term safety, and lead performance in a high-volume Australian setting.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of 200 consecutive LBBAP procedures performed by a single operator at two centres between January 2019 and May 2020. Left bundle branch area pacing was performed predominantly via left subclavian access using a 69 cm Medtronic SelectSecure 3830 pacing lead and a preformed non-steerable C315-His sheath. Procedural success was defined as evidence of left septal or left bundle branch area capture as evidenced by a right bundle branch block-like paced morphology. Procedural characteristics, and follow-up (including lead performance) data were collected. Procedural efficiency over time, as well as safety data, were collected.

RESULTS

Median age was 78.26 years (interquartile range [IQR] 71-85), 37% were female. Atrial fibrillation was present in 22%. The left ventricular ejection fraction <50% in 24%, atrioventricular (AV) block was present in 43.5%, left bundle branch block in 22.5% and right bundle branch block in 24.5%. Acute procedural success was 91.5%. Implant threshold was 0.6V @ 0.5 ms, and 0.75V @ 0.5 ms at 11.9 months of follow-up. The QRS was significant reduced (baseline 134 ms vs implant 114 ms, p<0.001) There was a reduction in procedural time and X-ray dose over the course of the study. There were no complications specific to LBBAP.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP appears to be a safe and effective pacing strategy. The QRS duration was significantly reduced compared to baseline. There appears to be an early learning curve with LBBAP.

Conduction System Pacing Upgrade in Chronic Heart Failure with Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Chronic Atrial Fibrillation

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a standard treatment for patients with severe congestive heart failure. However, one-third of patients receiving CRT are non-responders. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has become an alternative to CRT therapy. Furthermore, CRT therapy with CSP has shown to be more effective than CRT alone. When an implantable cardiac defibrillator or CRT-defibrillator is implanted with CSP, the problem of which port the HBP lead and LBBAP lead should be connected to arises. We report 2 cases of upgrading to CRT with CSP by utilizing the atrial ports for HBP and LBBAP leads. The procedure is a simple, reasonable, and effective therapy for end-stage heart failure.

Atrial standstill associated with lamin A/C mutation: A case report

The case report shares evidence for a better understanding of atrial standstill. This being a rare arrhythmogenic condition. This is a 46-year-old woman presented with multiple sites of arterial embolism, including lower extremity arteries, coronary artery, and cerebral artery. Unexpectedly, multiple arterial embolization in the patient was due to atrial standstill by transthoracic echocardiography and cardiac electrophysiological study. An additional family investigation revealed that the patient's brother and sister also suffered from this disease. In search of further understanding the case, we carried out the genetic testing of the family and a frame shift double-G insertion mutation at c.1567 in the LMNA gene was found in all the three individuals. The patient recovered well after anticoagulation therapy and left bundle branch area pacing. This report remarks on the importance of multiple sites of arterial embolism which should be wary of family atrial standstill.

Stepwise application of ECG and electrogram-based criteria to ensure electrical resynchronization with left bundle branch pacing

AIMS

To define a stepwise application of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) criteria that will simplify implantation and guarantee electrical resynchronization. Left bundle branch pacing has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing. However, a systematic stepwise criterion to ensure electrical resynchronization is lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cohort of 24 patients from the LEVEL-AT trial (NCT04054895) who received LBBP and had electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) at 45 days post-implant were included. The usefulness of ECG- and electrogram-based criteria to predict accurate electrical resynchronization with LBBP were analyzed. A two-step approach was developed. The gold standard used to confirm resynchronization was the change in ventricular activation pattern and shortening in left ventricular activation time, assessed by ECGI. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients showed electrical resynchronization on ECGI. All patients fulfilled pre-screwing requisites: lead in septal position in left-oblique projection and W paced morphology in V1. In the first step, presence of either right bundle branch conduction delay pattern (qR or rSR in V1) or left bundle branch capture Plus (QRS ≤120 ms) resulted in 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity to predict LBBP resynchronization, with an accuracy of 95.8%. In the second step, the presence of selective capture (100% specificity, only 41% sensitivity) or a spike-R <80 ms in non-selective capture (100% specificity, sensitivity 46%) ensured 100% accuracy to predict resynchronization with LBBP.

CONCLUSION

Stepwise application of ECG and electrogram criteria may provide an accurate assessment of electrical resynchronization with LBBP (Graphical abstract).

Reverse of left ventricular remodeling in heart failure patients with left bundle branch area pacing: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently become a promising option for the near-natural restoration of electrical activation. However, the clinical relevance of therapeutic effects in individuals with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and dyssynchrony remains unknown.

METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were searched from inception until June 2022. Data from each study was combined using a random-effects model, the generic inverse variance method of DerSimonian and Laird, to calculate standard mean differences and pooled incidence ratio, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

A total of 772 HFrEF patients were analyzed from 15 observational studies per protocol. The success rate of LBBAP implantation was 94.8% (95% CI 89.9-99.6, I2 = 79.4%), which was strongly correlated with shortening QRS duration after LBBAP implantation, with a mean difference of -48.10 ms (95% CI -60.16 to -36.05, I2 = 96.7%). Over a period of 6-12 months of follow-up, pacing parameters were stable over time. There were significant improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV) with mean difference of 16.38% (95% CI 13.13-19.63, I2 = 90.2%), -46.23 ml (95% CI -63.17 to -29.29, I2 = 86.82%), -7.21 mm (95% CI -9.71 to -4.71, I2 = 84.6%), and -44.52 ml (95% CI -64.40 to -24.64, I2 = 85.9%), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP was associated with improvements in both cardiac function and electrical synchrony. The benefits of LBBAP in individuals with HFrEF and dyssynchrony should be further validated by randomized studies.

Outcomes of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure: A multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

Whether conduction system pacing (CSP) is an alternative option for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure remains an area of active investigation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of CSP compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included patients who fulfilled CRT indications and received CSP. Patients with CSP were matched using propensity score matching and compared in a 1:1 ratio to patients who received BiVP. Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Response to CRT was defined as an absolute increase of ≥5% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months post-CRT.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients were included. Mean age was 69.8 ± 12.5 years, and 66 (27.7%) were female. Sixty-nine patients (29%) had His-bundle pacing, 50 (21%) had left bundle branch area pacing, and 119 (50%) had BiVP. Mean follow-up duration in the CSP and BiVP groups was 269 ± 202 days and 304 ± 262 days, respectively (P = .293). The proportion of CRT responders was greater in the CSP group than in the BiVP group (74% vs 60%, respectively; P = .042). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the time to first heart failure hospitalization (log-rank P = .78) and overall survival (log-rank P = .68) between the CSP and BiVP groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, CSP resulted in greater improvement in LVEF compared to BiVP. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these outcomes and further investigate the different options available for CSP.

Cardiovascular imaging in conduction system pacing: What does the clinician need?

Permanent pacemakers are used for symptomatic bradycardia and biventricular pacing (BVP)-cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP-CRT) is established for heart failure (HF) patients traditionally. According to guidelines, patients' selection for CRT is based on QRS duration (QRSd) and morphology by surface electrocardiogram (ECG). Cardiovascular imaging techniques evaluate cardiac structure and function as well as identify pathophysiological substrate changes including the presence of scar. Cardiovascular imaging helps by improving the selection of candidates, guiding left ventricular (LV) lead placement, and optimization devices during the follow-up. Conduction system pacing (CSP) includes His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) which is screwed into the interventricular septum. CSP maintains and restores ventricular synchrony in patients with native narrow QRSd and left bundle branch block (LBBB), respectively. LBBP is more feasible than HBP due to a wider target area. This review highlights the role of multimodality cardiovascular imaging including fluoroscopy, echocardiography, cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), myocardial scintigraphy, and computed tomography (CT) in the pre-procedure assessment for CSP, better selection for CSP candidates, the guidance of CSP lead implantation, and the optimization of devices programming after the procedure. We also compare the different characteristics of multimodality imaging and discuss their potential roles in future CSP implantation.

The role of conduction system pacing in patients with atrial fibrillation

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising novel delivery method for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT), providing an alternative to conventional biventricular epicardial (BiV) pacing in indicated patients. Despite increasing popularity and widespread uptake, CSP has rarely been specifically examined in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), a cohort which forms a significant proportion of the heart failure (HF) population. In this review, we first examine the mechanistic evidence for the importance of sinus rhythm (SR) in CSP by allowing adjustment of atrioventricular delays (AVD) to achieve the optimal electrical response, and thus, whether the efficacy of CSP may be significantly attenuated compared to conventional BiV pacing in the presence of AF. We next evaluate the largest clinical body of evidence in this field, related to patients receiving CSP following atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) for AF. Finally, we discuss how future research may be designed to address the vital question of how effective CSP in AF patients is, and the potential hurdles we may face in delivering such studies.

MAgnetic resonance imaging based DUal lead cardiac Resynchronization therapy: A prospectIve Left Bundle Branch Pacing Study (MADURAI LBBP study)

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy(CRT) is a class-I indication for LVEF≤35%, and heart failure(HF). LBBB associated nonischemic-cardiomyopathy (LB-NICM) with minimal or no scar by cardiac-magnetic-resonance(CMR) imaging may be associated with excellent prognosis following CRT. Left-bundle-branch-pacing(LBBP) can achieve excellent resynchronization in LBBB patients.

OBJECTIVES

Aim of our study was to prospectively assess feasibility and efficacy of LBBP with or without a defibrillator in patients with LB-NICM and LVEF ≤35%, risk stratified by CMR.

METHODS

Pts with LB-NICM, LVEF≤35% and HF were prospectively enrolled from 2019 to 2022. If the scar burden<10% by CMR, LBBP only (Group-I) and if ≥10%, LBBP+ICD(Group-II) was performed. Primary endpoints-1.Echocardiographic-response(ER)- ΔLVEF ≥15% at 6 months; 2.Composite of time to death, HFH or sustained VT/VF. Secondary endpoints-1.Echocardiographic-hyper-response(EHR-LVEF≥50%orΔLVEF ≥20%) at 6 and 12 months; 2.Indication for ICD-upgradation(persistent LVEF<35% at 12 months or sustained VT/VF) RESULTS: 120 patients were enrolled. CMR showed <10% scar-burden in 109 patients(90.8%). 4 patients opted for LBBP+ICD and withdrew. LBBP optimized-dual-chamber-pacemaker(LOT-DDD-P) was done in 101 patients and LOT-CRT-P in 4 patients(Group-I,n=105). Scar-burden ≥10% in 11 pts who underwent LBBP+ICD(Group-II). During mean-follow-up 21±12 months, primary endpoint of ER observed in 80%(68/85 pts) in Group-I vs 27%(3/11 pts) in Group-II(p-0.0001). Primary composite-endpoint of death,HFH or VT/VF occurred in 3.8% in group-I vs 33.3% in Group-II(p<0.0001). Secondary endpoint of EHR(LVEF≥50%) observed in 39.5%vs0%, 61.2%vs9.1% and 80%vs33.3% at 3, 6 and 12 months in group-I and group-II respectively.

CONCLUSION

CMR guided CRT using LOT-DDD-P appears to be a safe and feasible approach in LB-NICM and has the potential to reduce healthcare cost.

Left bundle branch area pacing prevents pacing induced cardiomyopathy in long-term observation

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is one of the methods to deliver conduction system pacing which potentially avoids the negative impact of conventional right ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

To assess echocardiographic outcomes in a long-term observation in patients with LBBAP implemented for bradyarrhythmia indications.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 151 patients with symptomatic bradycardia and LBBAP pacemaker implanted, were prospectively included in the study. Subjects with left bundle branch block and CRT indications (n = 29), ventricular pacing burden <40% (n = 11), and loss of LBBAP (n = 10) were excluded from further analysis. At baseline and the last follow-up visit, echocardiography with global longitudinal strain (GLS) assessment, 12-lead ECG, pacemaker interrogation, and blood level of NT-proBNP were performed. The median follow-up period was 23 months (15.5-28). None of the analyzed patients fulfilled the criteria for pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and GLS was observed in patients with LVEF <50% at baseline (n = 39): 41.4 ± 9.2% versus 45.6 ± 9.9%, and 12.9 ± 3.6% versus 15.5 ± 3.7%, respectively. In the subgroup with preserved EF (n = 62), LVEF and GLS remained stable at follow-up: 59.3 ± 5.5% versus 60 ± 5.5%, and 19 ± 3.9% versus 19.4 ± 3.8%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP prevents PICM in patients with preserved LVEF and improves left ventricle function in subjects with depressed LVEF. LBBAP might be the preferred pacing modality for bradyarrhythmia indications.

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.