Incidence and predictors of pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy: A single-center experience

Correlation of ventricular pacing burden and left ventricular function in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction

BACKGROUND

Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy is a well described phenomenon in patients with preserved ejection fraction at the time of permanent pacemaker implant. One of the identified risk factors for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy is the degree of ventricular pacing burden. However, it is unclear how a high right ventricular pacing burden affects patients with depressed left ventricular function at the time of pacemaker implantation. We sought to assess the relationship between right ventricular pacing and change in left ventricular function over time.

METHODS

We conducted an analysis of all patients who had received either a single or dual lead cardiac implantable electronic devices, excluding biventricular devices, and had a prior transthoracic echocardiogram demonstrating an ejection fraction of less than 50%. The primary end-point was the correlation between the percentage of ventricular pacing and the change in LV ejection fraction.

RESULTS

Fifty eight patients with preceding heart failure had pacemakers implanted and had follow up echocardiograms. There was no correlation between the degree of ventricular pacing and the absolute change in LV function (r = .04, p = .979). None of the previously identified risk factors for pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy were predictive of a significant fall in ejection fraction.

CONCLUSION

The degree of RV pacing and other established risk factors for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with normal left ventricular function at the time of implantation do not appear to carry the same risk in patients with pre-existing heart failure who receive either single or dual lead pacemakers.

Pacemaker-induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with Coronary Artery Disease: A Report of Three Cases

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is defined as a drop in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in the setting of chronic, high-burden right ventricular pacing. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP) have been proposed to manage PICM. Although acute myocardial infarction has been described as a predictor of PICM, there are no guideline recommendations for CRT or CSP in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and preserved LVEF. In this report, we present and discuss three cases of PICM in patients with CAD and preserved LVEF.

Revisiting predictors of worse atrioventricular valve and left ventricular systolic function following pacemaker therapy

BACKGROUND

Predictors of worsening atrioventricular valve regurgitation and left ventricular (LV) systolic function after implantation of a leadless pacemaker (LPM) remain unclear compared with those of a transvenous pacemaker (TPM).

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 205 patients who were newly implanted with a permanent pacemaker (119 LPMs and 86 TPMs) and underwent transthoracic echocardiography before and 8 ± 5 months after implantation. We evaluated the worsening of tricuspid and mitral regurgitation (TR and MR), defined as at least one-grade aggravation in severity, and changes in LV ejection fraction (LVEF).

RESULTS

Worsening TR occurred more frequently in the LPM group compared to the TPM group (33% vs. 20%, p = .04); however, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding worsening MR (26% vs. 18%, p = .18) and LVEF change (-2 ± 10% vs. -3 ± 8%, p = .40). In multivariable analysis, independent predictors for worsening TR, MR, and LVEF after implantation were found to be (1) the change from sinus rhythm at baseline to atrioventricular asynchronous right ventricular (RV) pacing (odds ratio [OR]: 5.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.94-16.70, p < .01); (2) the change from non-pacing ventricular contraction at baseline to RV pacing (OR: 2.42, 95% CI: 1.12-5.24, p = .02); and (3) a higher RV pacing burden (β: -0.05, 95% CI: -0.08--0.02, p < .01), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Worsening TR, MR, and LVEF after pacemaker implantation were not associated with the type of pacing device but loss of atrioventricular synchrony or dependency on RV pacing.

Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing as a primary pacing strategy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Novel pacing technologies, such as His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP), have emerged to maintain physiological ventricular activation. We investigated the outcomes of LBBP with HBP for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing LBBaP with HBP until March 01, 2023 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included pacing metrics, QRS duration, lead revision, procedure parameters, all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Overall, 10 studies with 1596 patients were included. Implant success rate was higher in LBBaP compared with HBP (RR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.42, p = .002). LBBaP was associated with lower capture threshold at implantation (mean difference (MD) -0.62 V, 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.51 V, p < .0001) and at follow-up (MD -0.74 V, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.53, p < .0001), shorter procedure duration (MD -14.66 min, 95% CI: -23.54 to -5.78, p = .001) and shorter fluoroscopy time (MD -4.2 min, 95% CI: -8.4 to -0.0, p = .05). Compared with HBP, LBBaP was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.77, p = .002) and HFH (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.00, p = .05). No statistical differences were found in lead revisions and QRS duration before and after pacing.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found that LBBaP was superior to HBP regarding pacing metrics and implant success rate as an initial pacing strategy, although absence of head-to-head randomized comparison warrants caution in interpretation of the results.

Pacing induced cardiomyopathy: recognition and management

Right ventricle (RV) apex continues to remain as the standard pacing site in the ventricle due to ease of implantation, procedural safety and lack of convincing evidence of better clinical outcomes from non-apical pacing sites. Electrical dyssynchrony resulting in abnormal ventricular activation and mechanical dyssynchrony resulting in abnormal ventricular contraction during RV pacing can result in adverse LV remodelling predisposing some patients for recurrent heart failure (HF) hospitalisation, atrial arrhythmias and increased mortality. While there are significant variations in the definition of pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PIC), combining both echocardiographic and clinical features, the most acceptable definition for PIC would be left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of <50%, absolute decline of LVEF by ≥10% and/or new-onset HF symptoms or atrial fibrillation (AF) after pacemaker implantation. Based on the definitions used, the prevalence of PIC varies between 6% and 25% with overall pooled prevalence of 12%. While most patients undergoing RV pacing do not develop PIC, male sex, chronic kidney disease, previous myocardial infarction, pre-existing AF, baseline LVEF, native QRS duration, RV pacing burden, and paced QRS duration are the factors associated with increased risk for PIC. While conduction system pacing (CSP) using His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing appear to reduce the risk for PIC compared with RV pacing, both biventricular pacing and CSP may be used to effectively reverse PIC.

Feasibility and Efficacy of Transcatheter Tricuspid Valve Repair in Patients with Cardiac Implanted Electrical Devices and Trans-Tricuspid Leads

BACKGROUND

Transcatheter tricuspid valve repair using the edge-to-edge-technique (TEER) has emerged as an alternative therapy in patients with severe tricuspid regurgitation (TR) and high surgical risk. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of tricuspid valve TEER in patients with cardiac implanted electric devices (CIEDs).

METHODS

All patients who underwent tricuspid valve TEER at our center were retrospectively included. Patients were classified according to the presence of CIEDs. Procedure success was defined as implantation of at least one clip and the reduction of TR of at least one grade. Procedure success and intrahospital outcome were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

One-hundred and six consecutive patients underwent tricuspid TEER (age 80.1 ± 6.4 years, male = 42; 39.6%). Among them, 25 patients (23.6%, age 80.6 ± 7.3 years, male = 14; 56%) had CIEDs. Patients with CIEDs had a significantly lower left ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) compared to those without CIEDs (47.2 ± 15% vs. 56.2 ± 8.2%, p = 0.004, respectively). Moreover, arterial hypertension was more common in patients with CIEDs (96% vs. 79%, p = 0.048). The success of the procedure did not differ between the non-CIED vs. CIED group (93.8% vs. 92%, p = 0.748). Furthermore, the number and position of implanted clips, the duration of the procedure, the post-procedural pressure gradient across the tricuspid valve, and post-procedural TR severity were comparable between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Tricuspid valve TEER is feasible and efficient in patients with CIEDs. The success of the procedure, as well as the intrahospital outcome were comparable between patients with and without CIEDs.

Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Leadless and Traditional Pacemakers: A Single-Center Retrospective Analysis

BACKGROUND

 Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is a clinical syndrome that is characterized by a drop in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) due to chronic high-burden right ventricular (RV) pacing. It has been postulated that leadless pacemakers (LPs) cause decreased risk of PICM compared to transvenous pacemakers (TVPs), but the exact risk reduction is unknown.

METHODS

We performed a single-center retrospective analysis of adults who received an LP or TVP between January 1, 2014, and April 1, 2022, and had echocardiograms before and after the pacemaker implant. This study's outcomes were the RV pacing percentage, change in EF, the need for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade, and follow-up duration. A Wilcoxon rank-sum test calculated the change in EF. RV time, defined as the duration from pacemaker placement to the follow-up echocardiogram in months multiplied by the RV pacing percentage, served as a surrogate for how long the RV was paced.

RESULTS

A total of 614 patients were screened, and 198 patients were included in the study, where 72 received LP and 126 received TVP. The median follow-up was 480 days. The average of the reported RV percentage pacing was 63.43% for LP and 71.30% for TVP (p=0.14). The incidence of PICM and CRT upgrade was 44% and 9.7% in the LP group and 37% and 9.5% in the TVP group (p=0.3 and p>0.9), respectively. After accounting for age, sex, LP versus TVP, atrioventricular nodal ablation, RV pacing percentage, and follow-up duration, univariate analysis showed that RV time was significantly different between the two types of pacemakers (13.54 ± 14.21 months (LP) versus 9.26 ± 13.95 months (TVP), p=0.009). The difference in RV time between patients who underwent CRT upgrade and those who did not was statistically insignificant (12.11 ± 14.47 months (no CRT) versus 9.19 ± 12.00 months (CRT), p=0.5).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrated that the incidence of PICM was high in both groups (44% (LP) versus 37% (TVP)), despite significantly more RV time in patients with LP. There was no difference in CRT upgrade between LP and TVP.

The soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 as a biomarker of early cardiac remodeling in bradycardia patients receiving permanent pacemaker therapy

Aim: This study aims to evaluate: the difference of soluble suppression of tumorigenicity 2 (sST2) level, a biomarker for cardiac remodeling and echocardiography parameters value prior to and 1 month after implantation; and the association between pacemaker parameters and pacemaker mode along with delta sST2 levels. Materials & methods: This prospective cohort study enrolled all symptomatic bradycardia patients aged >18 years with preserved ejection fraction who underwent permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. Results: A total of 49 patients were included in this study. The sST2 level (ng/ml) were significantly different between prior and 1 month following PPM implantation (23.4 ± 28.4 vs 39.9 ± 63.7; p = 0.001). Conclusion: The early cardiac remodeling has occurred within 1 month after PPM implantation as indicated by increasing delta sST2 level.

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of definition, prevalence, risk factors, and management

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy is a potential complication of right ventricular pacing. Definition varies between studies and the optimal management approach is uncertain. We aimed to characterize definition, prevalence, risk factors, and treatment strategies of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated PiCM after pacemaker implantation identified through a literature search of PubMed and EMBASE up to March 2022. We collected data on the study definition of PiCM and calculated pooled prevalence across studies. Meta-analysis with random effects modeling was used to assess the association between potential risk factors and PiCM, reported as odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Twenty-six studies (6 prospective studies) with a total of 57,993 patients (mean/median age range was 51-78 years; female 45%) were included in the final analysis. Fifteen unique definitions of PiCM were reported. The pooled prevalence of PiCM was 12% (95% confidence interval 11%-14%). In meta-analysis, risk factors included male sex, history of myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, native QRS duration, right ventricular pacing percentage, and paced QRS duration. Treatment strategies identified included biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (6 studies) and His-bundle pacing (3 studies). Definition of PiCM varied significantly between studies. More than 1 in 10 patients with chronic right ventricular pacing developed PiCM. Key risk factors included baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, native QRS duration, RV pacing percentage, and paced QRS duration. The optimal management strategy has yet to be defined. Further research is needed to define and treat this understated complication.

Risk of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with High-Degree Atrioventricular Block-Impact of Right Ventricular Lead Position Confirmed by Computed Tomography

Prospective studies applying fluoroscopy for assessment of right ventricular (RV) lead position have failed to show clear benefits from RV septal pacing. We investigated the impact of different RV lead positions verified by computed tomography (CT) on the risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). We retrospectively included 153 patients who underwent routine fluoroscopy-guided pacemaker implantation between March 2012 and May 2020. All patients had normal pre-implant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Patients attended a follow-up visit including contrast-enhanced cardiac CT and transthoracic echocardiography. Patients were classified as septal or non-septal based on CT analysis. The primary endpoint was PICM (LVEF < 50% with ≥10% decrease after implantation). Based on CT, 48 (31.4%) leads were septal and 105 (68.6%) were non-septal. Over a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 16 patients (33.3%) in the septal group developed PICM compared to 31 (29.5%) in the non-septal group (p = 0.6). Overall, 13.1% deteriorated to LVEF ≤ 40%, 5.9% were upgraded to cardiac resynchronization therapy device, and 14.4% developed new-onset atrial fibrillation, with no significant differences between the groups. This study demonstrated a high risk of PICM despite normal pre-implant left ventricular systolic function with no significant difference between CT-verified RV septal or non-septal lead position.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing left bundle branch pacing, his bundle branch pacing, and right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

Although right ventricular pacing (RVP) is recommended by most of the guidelines for atrioventricular block, it can cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony, impair left ventricular function, and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Recently, the His-Purkinje system pacing, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), has emerged as a physiological pacing modality. However, few studies have compared their efficacy and safety in atrioventricular block (AVB).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for observational studies and randomized trials of patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing, from database inception until 10 January 2022. The primary outcomes were complications and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing parameters, procedure duration, and success rate. After extracting the data at baseline and the longest follow-up duration available, a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, whereas mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs or 95% CrIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Seven studies and 1,069 patients were included. Overall, 43.4% underwent LBBP, 33.5% HBP, and 23.1% RVP. Compared with RVP, LBBP and HBP were associated with a shorter paced QRS duration and a more preserved LVEF. HBP significantly increased the pacing threshold and reduced the R-wave amplitude. There was no difference in the risk of complications or the implant success rate. The pacing threshold remained stable during follow-up for the three pacing modalities. The pacing impedance was significantly reduced in HBP, while a numerical but non-significant pacing impedance decrease was observed in both LBBP and RVP. LBBP was associated with an increased R-wave amplitude during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in paced QRS duration and preservation of LVEF for patients with atrioventricular block. LBBP was associated with a lower pacing threshold and a greater R-wave amplitude than HBP. However, the stability of the pacing output of LBBP may be a concern. Further investigation of the long-term efficacy in left ventricular function and the risk of heart failure hospitalization is needed.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315046], identifier [CRD42022315046].

Incidence and predictors of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy with right ventricular pacing: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

This systematic review aims to evaluate the incidence and predictors of PICM in patients undergoing right ventricular pacing.

AREAS COVERED

A literature review was conducted using Mesh terms (Right ventricular pacing, Pacemaker-related cardiomyopathy, Pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy) in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of science CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library until October 2021. All data reporting the incidence of PICM after implantation of right-sided pacemakers or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) were retrieved from the eligible studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Out of 3,625 articles, 20 studies met the inclusion criteria that included 5,381 patients with PICM. The mean age of the patients ranged between 55.8 ± 13.5 and 77.4 ± 10.8 years. The mean incidence of PICM was 25.7%. Mean EF at baseline ranged from 48 ± 1% and 62.1 ± 11.2%, while mean EF at follow up ranged between 33.7± 7.4% and 53.2 ± 8.2%. Three studies reported a decline of >20% EF at follow-up. RV pacing was associated with a considerable risk of PICM, with biological factors such as male gender, old age, increased QRS duration, and chronic RV pacing burden playing an important role in the development of disease.

Understanding Pacemaker-Induced Cardiomyopathy Incidence and Predictors in Patients with Right Ventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review

This study aimed to figure out the incidence and predictors of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with right ventricular (RV) pacing. We systematically searched in PubMed on March 18, 2020, for English language abstract and full-article journals, using the following criteria: pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy AND right ventricular AND pacemaker AND patients AND human NOT implantable cardioverter defibrillator NOT ICD NOT animal. Four studies were included in this review after filtering 35 studies through year of publication and abstract selection. The average PICM incidence from 1,365 patients included from the four studies was 10.7 to 13.7%. One study stated that preimplantation left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was the predictor for the development of PICM. Three studies mentioned that RV pacing burden was the predictor for the development of PICM. However, the percentage differ in three studies: ≥20, >40, and 60%. In addition, one of the studies also included interventricular dyssynchrony as another predictor. The incidence of PICM in patients with RV pacing ranged from 10.7 to 13.7%. Preimplantation LVEF, interventricular dyssynchrony, and burden of RV pacing are reported as the predictors for the development of PICM in patients with RV pacing.

Pacemaker Induced Cardiomyopathy: An Overview of Current Literature

Pacemaker induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is commonly defined as a reduction in left ventricular (LV) function in the setting of right ventricular (RV) pacing. This condition may be associated with the onset of clinical heart failure in those affected. Recent studies have focused on potential methods of identifying patients at risk of this condition, in addition to hypothesizing the most efficacious ways to manage these patients. Newer pacing options, such as His bundle pacing, may avoid the onset of PICM entirely.