The feasibility and safety of left bundle branch pacing vs. right ventricular pacing after mid-long-term follow-up: a single-centre experience

Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing in older patients

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is safe and effective, but studies in older patients are lacking. This study compared the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients aged ≥75 years.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included older patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBAP or RVP between 2019 and 2022. Clinical data, including pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and device-related complications were collected. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

RESULTS

Of 267 included patients, 110 underwent LBBAP and 157 underwent RVP. LBBAP was successful in 109 patients (success rate: 99.1%), with one patient eventually undergoing RVP. The pacing parameters of LBBAP were similar to those of RVP, except for a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (112.8 ± 11.6 vs. 138.3 ± 23.9 ms, p < .001). Ventricular lead implanting procedural duration was longer for LBBAP than RVP (14.0 vs. 6.0 min, p < .001), as was the fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.0 min, p < .001). During a mean follow-up period of 31.0 ± 16.8 months, the primary outcome incidence was significantly lower following LBBAP than RVP (15.1% vs. 21.1%; hazard ratio, 0.471; 95% confidence interval, 0.215-1.032; p = .036) in 149 patients (55.8%) with ventricular pacing burden > 20%. RVP reduced LVEF from 62.7 ± 4.1% at baseline to 59.8 ± 7.8% at the final follow-up (p = .001), whereas LBBAP preserved LVEF (61.4 ± 6.3% vs. 60.1 ± 7.4%, p = .429).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared with RVP and maintained LVEF in older patients with high ventricular pacing burdens.

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

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

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

RECENT FINDINGS

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

Current Role of Conduction System Pacing in Patients Requiring Permanent Pacing

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) are novel methods of pacing directly pacing the cardiac conduction system. HBP while developed more than two decades ago, only recently moved into the clinical mainstream. In contrast to conventional cardiac pacing, conduction system pacing including HBP and LBBP utilizes the native electrical system of the heart to rapidly disseminate the electrical impulse and generate a more synchronous ventricular contraction. Widespread adoption of conduction system pacing has resulted in a wealth of observational data, registries, and some early randomized controlled clinical trials. While much remains to be learned about conduction system pacing and its role in electrophysiology, data available thus far is very promising. In this review of conduction system pacing, the authors review the emergence of conduction system pacing and its contemporary role in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Disorders of cardiac rhythm in China

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 seventh section of the report offers a comprehensive analysis of disorders of heart rhythm in China. In 2021, China has achieved significant development and gratifying results in many aspects of the field of arrhythmia. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), as an emerging pacing technique originating from China, has received widespread attention. New research results have emerged on its indications, surgical procedures, clinical evaluation, and comparison with other pacing techniques. Its feasibility, effectiveness, and safety have been basically verified, but its long-term prognosis still needs further confirmation from larger samples and longer follow-up time research results. Leadless pacemakers have begun to be used in a wider range of clinical applications, and related large sample cohort studies have been reported. In addition, there are also noteworthy new achievements in the fields of pacemaker remote programming, anticoagulation and radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) therapy for atrial fibrillation, and implantable cardioverter defibrillator prevention of sudden cardiac death. In terms of clinical practice, due to COVID-19 pandemic, the number of RFCA procedures and other device implantations in China has fluctuated, but it has gradually recovered since 2020.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography- and X-ray-guided left bundle branch pacing for bradycardia: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing modality. However, the long procedure and fluoroscopy time of LBBP is still a problem. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)- and X-ray-guided LBBP.

METHODS

This is a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study. Consecutive patients who underwent LBBP in our team from June 2022 to November 2022 were enrolled. Procedure and fluoroscopy time, pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, as well as complications were recorded at implantation and during follow-up.

RESULTS

In this study, 60 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups: 30 patients were allocated to the X-ray group and the remaining 30 to the TTE group. There was no significant difference in the success rate between the two groups (86.7% vs. 76.7%, p = .317). The procedure time of TTE group was comparable to that of the X-ray group (9.0 vs. 12.0 min, p = .063). However, the fluoroscopy time in the TTE group was significantly lower than that of the X-ray group (2.5 vs. 5.0 min, p = .002). There were no statistically significant differences in pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, or complications between the two groups at implantation and during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

TTE-guided LBBP is a feasible and safe method. Compared with X-ray, TTE showed a comparable success rate and procedure time, but it could significantly reduce the fluoroscopy time of LBBP.

Outcomes of Upgrading to LBBP in CRT Nonresponders: A Prospective, Multicenter, Nonrandomized, Case-Control Study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) nonresponders account for nearly 30% of CRT candidates. Left-bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an alternative to CRT.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility, clinical efficacy, and outcomes of upgrading to LBBP in CRT nonresponders, using propensity-score matching (PSM) analysis.

METHODS

CRT nonresponders were defined as those with an implantable CRT-pacemaker or CRT-defibrillator for more than 12 months who remained nonresponsive (a decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume of <15% or a left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] absolute increase of <5%) after optimal medical therapy and device optimization compared with baseline. In total, 145 CRT nonresponders were prospectively enrolled and randomly divided into 2 groups: upgraded to LBBP (n = 48), and continuing biventricular pacing (BVP) (control; n = 97). PSM was performed at a 1:1 ratio, and clinical evaluation and echocardiographic assessments were compared at baseline and follow-up in paired cohorts. The primary composite endpoint for clinical outcomes (heart failure-related rehospitalization events, all-cause death, or heart transplantation) was analyzed.

RESULTS

Successful upgrading to LBBP was achieved in 48/49 patients (97.96%), with a significant decrease in QRS duration (P < 0.001). In the paired LBBP group, LVEF significantly increased (baseline: 29.75% ± 7.79%; 6 months: 37.78% ± 9.25% [P < 0.001]; 12 months: 38.84% ± 12.13% [P < 0.001]) with 21/44 patients (47.73%) classified as echocardiographically responsive, whereas in the BVP control group, no significant improvement was observed (29.55% ± 6.74% vs 29.22% ± 8.10%; P = 0.840). In a multivariate logistic regression model, LV end-diastolic volume and baseline LBBB QRS morphology were independent predictors of echocardiographic response after upgrading to LBBP. At a median 24 months, the primary composite endpoint was significantly lower in the LBBP group (HR: 0.31; 95% CI: 0.14-0.72; log-rank P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading to LBBP is feasible and effective in achieving significant heart function improvement and better clinical outcomes in CRT nonresponders, making it a reasonable and promising pacing strategy. (LBBP in CRT Non-Response patients; ChiCTR1900028131).

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing for patients with stable coronary artery disease

Aims

Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is a prevalent comorbidity among patients requiring pacemaker implantation. This comorbidity may have an impact on the safety and prognosis of traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing modality. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and safety of LBBaP in patients with the stable CAD.

Methods

This study included 309 patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBaP from September 2017 to October 2021. We included 104 patients with stable CAD (CAD group) and 205 patients without CAD (non-CAD group). Additionally, 153 stable CAD patients underwent RVP, and 64 stable CAD patients underwent His-bundle pacing (HBP) were also enrolled in this study. The safety and prognosis of LBBaP was assessed by comparing pacing parameters, procedure-related complications, and clinical events.

Results

During a follow-up period of 17.4 ± 5.3 months, the safety assessment revealed that the overall rates of procedure-related complications were similar between the stable CAD group and the non-CAD group (7.7% vs. 3.9%). Likewise, similar rates of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (4.8% vs. 3.4%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD) and the primary composite outcome including death due to cardiovascular disease, HFH, or the necessity for upgrading to biventricular pacing (6.7% vs. 3.9%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD), were observed. In stable CAD patients, LBBaP demonstrated lower pacing thresholds and higher R wave amplitudes when compared to HBP. Additionally, LBBaP also had significantly lower occurrences of the primary composite outcome (6.7% vs. 19.6%, P = 0.003) and HFH (4.8% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.031) than RVP in stable CAD patients, particularly among patients with the higher ventricular pacing (VP) burden (>20% and >40%).

Conclusion

Compared with non-CAD patients, LBBaP was found to be attainable in stable CAD patients and exhibited comparable mid-term safety and prognosis. Furthermore, in the stable CAD population, LBBaP has demonstrated more stable pacing parameters than HBP, and better prognostic outcomes compared to RVP.

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.

Electrical Resynchronization and Clinical Outcomes During Long-Term Follow-Up in Intraventricular Conduction Delay Patients Applied Left Bundle Branch Pacing-Optimized Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT) has shown encouraging results for QRS duration reduction and heart function improvement. However, the feasibility and efficacy of LOT-CRT have not been well established in intraventricular conduction delay patients. This study aims to assess and compare the efficacy and clinical outcome of CRT based on left bundle branch pacing, combined with coronary sinus left ventricular pacing (LOT-CRT) with CRT via biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) in intraventricular conduction delay patients indicated for CRT.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with intraventricular conduction delay and CRT indications were assigned nonrandomized to LOT-CRT (n=30) or BiV-CRT (n=55). Addition of the left bundle branch pacing (or coronary venous) lead was at the discretion of the implanting physician guided by suboptimal paced QRS complex and on clinical grounds. Echocardiographic parameters and clinical characteristics were accessed at baseline and during 2-years' follow-up.

RESULTS

Success rate for LOT-CRT and BiV-CRT was 96.8% and 96.4%. LOT-CRT had greater reduction of QRS duration compared with BiV-CRT (42.7±17.4 ms versus 21.9±21.5 ms; P<0.001). Higher left ventricular ejection fraction was also achieved in LOT-CRT than BiV-CRT at 6-month (36.7±9.8% versus 30.5±6.4%; P<0.05), 12-month (34.8±7.6% versus 30.3±6.2%; P<0.05), 18-month (36.3±7.9% versus 28.1±6.6%; P<0.005), and 24-month follow-up (37±9.5% versus 30.5±7%; P<0.05). Adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure rehospitalization and mortality were lower in LOT-CRT group for 24 months follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.33; P=0.035).

CONCLUSIONS

LOT-CRT improves ventricular electrical synchrony and may provide greater clinical outcomes as compared with BiV-CRT in intraventricular conduction delay patients. These findings need further evaluation in future randomized controlled trials.

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.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with Atrioventricular Block: An Observational Cohort Study

Objective

We aim to conduct a comparison of the safety and effectiveness performance between left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) regimens for patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).

Methods

This observational cohort study included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for AVB indications from the 1st of January 2018 to the 18th of November 2021 at West China Hospital. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, lead failure, or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). The secondary outcome included periprocedure complication, cardiac death, or recurrent unexplained syncope. A 1 : 1 propensity score-matched cohort was conducted for left ventricular (LV) function analysis.

Results

A total of 903 patients met the inclusion criteria and completed clinical follow-up. After adjusting for the possible confounders, LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of the primary outcome (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.83, p = 0.009), including a lower risk of all-cause mortality and HFH. No significant difference in the secondary outcome was detected between the groups except that LBBAP was independently associated with a lower risk of recurrent unexplained syncope. In the propensity-score matching cohort of echocardiographic analysis, the LV systolic dyssynchrony index was lower in LBBAP compared with that in RVP (5.68 ± 1.92 vs. 6.50 ± 2.28%, p = 0.012).

Conclusions

Compared to conventional RVP, LBBAP is a feasible novel pacing model associated with a significant reduction in the primary composite outcome. Moreover, LBBAP significantly reduces the risk of recurrent unexplained syncope and improves LV systolic synchrony. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05722379.

Learning Curve Analyses for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing with Conventional Stylet-Driven Pacing Leads

Background

Physiological conduction system pacing has attracted attention to overcome the dyssynchrony problems of conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), which complements short combing of His bundle pacing (HBP), has emerged and has proven its efficiency and safety. In addition, initial experiences of LBBAP were mainly using lumen-less pacing lead, and the feasibility of stylet-driven pacing lead (SDL) was also established. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the learning curve for LBBAP using SDL.

Methods

The study enrolled 265 patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP performed by operators without previous LBBAP experience at Yonsei University Severance Hospital in Korea between December 2020 and October 2021. LBBAP was performed using SDL with an extendable helix. The learning curve was evaluated by analyzing fluoroscopy and procedure times. And, before and after reaching the learning curve, we evaluated how much the time required for the LBBAP differed from the time required for the RVP.

Results

LBBAP was successful in 50 of 50 (100.0%) patients left bundle branch pacing was successful in 49 of 50 (98.0%). In 50 patients who underwent LBBAP, mean fluoroscopy and procedural times were 15.1 ± 13.5 minutes and 59.9 ± 24.8 minutes, respectively. The plateau of fluoroscopy time reached in the 25th case and the plateau of procedure time reached in the 24th case.

Conclusion

During the initial experience with LBBAP, fluoroscopy and procedural times improved with increasing operator experience. For operators who were experienced in cardiac pacemaker implantation, the steepest part of the learning curve was over the first 24-25 cases. It is shorter than the previously reported learning curves of HBP.

Left bundle branch area pacing in mildly reduced heart failure: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) strategy for heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is controversial. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is an emerging pacing modality and an alternative option to CRT. This analysis aimed to perform a systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis on the impact of the LBBAP strategy in HFmrEF, with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) between 35% and 50%. PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP from inception to July 17, 2022. The outcomes of interest were QRS duration and LVEF at baseline and follow-up in mid-range heart failure. Data were extracted and summarized. A random-effect model incorporating the potential heterogeneity was used to synthesize the results. Out of 1065 articles, 8 met the inclusion criteria for 211 mid-range heart failure patients with an implant LBBAP across the 16 centers. The average implant success rate with lumenless pacing lead use was 91.3%, and 19 complications were reported among all 211 enrolled patients. During the average follow-up of 9.1 months, the average LVEF was 39.8% at baseline and 50.5% at follow-up (MD: 10.90%, 95% CI: 6.56-15.23, p < .01). Average QRS duration was 152.6 ms at baseline and 119.3 ms at follow-up (MD: -34.51 ms, 95% CI: -60.00 to -9.02, p < .01). LBBAP could significantly reduce QRS duration and improve systolic function in a patient with LVEF between 35% and 50%. Application of LBBAP as a CRT strategy for HFmrEF may be a viable option.

Left bundle branch pacing on mechanical synchrony and myocardial work in bradycardia patients

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing method to produce narrower QRS duration, but whether it could restore mechanical synchrony and improve myocardial work still lacks sufficient evidence. Therefore, the goal of this study was to evaluate mechanical synchrony and myocardial work in LBBP. We collected 20 patients with LBBP due to symptomatic bradycardia and another 29 age-matched patients with right ventricular pacing (RVP). For LBBP patients, cardiac electro-mechanical synchrony and myocardial work were measured at baseline and 7 days after implantation and compared with the RVP patients. In the LBBP group, paced QRS duration and mechanical synchrony were not significantly different from baseline(all P > 0.05), but significantly smaller than that in the RVP group (all P<0.05). Meanwhile, global longitudinal strain (GLS) in LBBP was greater than that in the RVP group (17.7 ± 3.5% vs. 14.8 ± 3.1%, P < 0.05). Global myocardial work index and global constructive work were also better than that in the RVP group(all P<0.05). Global work efficiency was 91.9 ± 3.1%, which was greater when compared with RVP (P < 0.05). LBBP provides better cardiac electro-mechanical synchrony and more effective myocardial work than that in RVP, thus improving global heart function.

Success rates, challenges and troubleshooting of left bundle branch area pacing as a cardiac resynchronization therapy for treating patients with heart failure

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an important treatment of heart failure patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and asynchrony of cardiac electromechanical activity. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a novel physiological pacing modality that appears to be an effective method for CRT. LBBaP has several advantages over the traditional biventricular-CRT (BiV-CRT), including a low and stable pacing capture threshold, a high success rate of implantation, a short learning curve, and high economic feasibility. However, LBBaP is not suitable for all heart failure patients needing a CRT and the success rates of LBBaP in heart failure patients is lower because of myocardial fibrosis, non-specific intraventricular conduction disturbance (IVCD), enlargement of the right atrium or right ventricle, etc. In this literature review, we summarize the success rates, challenges, and troubleshooting of LBBaP in heart failure patients needing a CRT.

Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study

AIMS

Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.

Comparisons of electrophysiological characteristics, pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects in right ventricular septal pacing, right ventricular apical pacing and left bundle branch area pacing

Background

As a near-physiological pacing innovation, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has drawn much attention recently. This study was aimed to investigate the electrophysiological characteristics, unipolar/bipolar pacing parameters and mid- to long-term effects and safety of three different pacing methods and identify possible predictors of adverse left ventricular remodeling.

Methods

Ninety-two patients were divided into the LBBAP group, right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) group and right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) group. Baseline information, electrophysiological, pacing and echocardiographic parameters were collected.

Results

The three pacing methods were performed with a similar high success rate. The paced QRSd was significantly different among the LBBAP, RVSP and RVAP groups (105.93 ± 15.85 ms vs. 143.63 ± 14.71 ms vs. 155.39 ± 14.17 ms, p < 0.01). The stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) was the shortest in the LBBAP group, followed by the RVSP and RVAP groups (72.80 ± 12.07 ms vs. 86.29 ± 8.71 ms vs. 94.14 ± 10.14 ms, p < 0.001). LBBAP had a significantly lower tip impedance during the procedure and 3-month follow up as compared to RVSP and RVAP (p < 0.001). Higher bipolar captured thresholds were observed in LBBAP during the procedure (p < 0.001). Compared to the baseline values, there was a greater reduction in left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) in the LBBAP group (p = 0.046) and a significant enlargement in LVEDD in the RVAP group (p = 0.008). Multiple regression analysis revealed that the Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of LVEDD at 12 months post-procedure. At the 24-h post-procedure, significant elevations were observed in the cTnI levels in LBBAP (p < 0.001) and RVSP (p < 0.05). More transient RBB injury was observed in LBBAP. But no significant difference was found in cardiac composite endpoints among three groups (p > 0.05).

Conclusions

LBBAP demonstrated a stable captured threshold, a low tip impedance and a high R-wave amplitude during the 12-month follow-up. Left ventricular remodeling was improved at 12 months post-procedure through LBBAP. The Sti-LVAT was a significant predictor of left ventricular remodeling. LBBAP demonstrated its feasibility, effectiveness, safety and some beneficial electrophysiological characteristics during this mid- to long-term follow-up, which should be confirmed by further studies.

Long-term follow-up results of patients with left bundle branch pacing and exploration for potential factors affecting cardiac function

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an alternative strategy for His bundle pacing (HBP). This study aimed to analyze the long-term performance of LBBP and the potential factors affecting long-term cardiac function.

Methods: Patients with LBBP were continuously enrolled from January 2018 to August 2020. Pacing parameters, electrocardiogram (ECG), and echocardiography were collected. The anatomic position of LBBP leads was described by echocardiographic and fluoroscopic parameters.

Results: A total of 91 patients with a median follow-up of 18 months were enrolled. Most patients maintained stable pacing parameters during follow-up. The intra-septal position of the 3830 lead also remained stable as the distance from the lead tip to the left surface of the ventricular septum was 0.4 (0, 1.4) mm. The overall level of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) slightly increased. 59 patients had improved LVEF (∆LVEF &gt; 0), while 28 patients had unchanged or reduced LVEF (∆LVEF ≤ 0). The declines of baseline LVEF, ∆ Paced QRSd, and corrected longitudinal distance (longit-dist) of lead-implanted site correlated with LVEF improvement, and these three factors had negative linear correlations with ∆LVEF. Patients with tricuspid valve regurgitation (TVR) deterioration had longer follow-up duration (20.5 vs. 15.0 months, p = 0.01) and shorter Lead-TVA-dist (18.6 vs. 21.6 mm, p = 0.04) than those without TVR deterioration.

Conclusion: Patients with LBBP generally remained stable in pacing performance, anatomic lead positions, and cardiac function in long-term follow-up. Baseline LVEF, ∆ Paced QRSd, and corrected longit-dist might be associated with potential LVEF decrease, which required further confirmation.

Left bundle branch potential predicts better electrical synchrony in bradycardia patients receiving left bundle branch pacing

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technology. We aim to explore the relation between LBB potential (LBB Po) and left ventricular (LV) electrical/mechanical synchrony in bradycardia patients without heart failure (HF) receiving LBBP.

Methods

A total of 62 patients undergoing LBBP were categorized by LBB Po: the LBB Po positive (+) group and the LBB Po negative (−) group. The perioperative electrocardiographic and echocardiography parameters related to cardiac synchrony were analyzed.

Results

There were 42 (67.74%) patients in the LBB Po (+) group and 20 patients in the LBB Po (−) group. Paced QRS duration (113.50 ± 17.65 ms vs. 123.40 ± 13.18 ms, P = 0.031) and stimulus left ventricular activation time (71.76 ± 3.53 ms vs. 74.45 ± 3.12 ms, P = 0.005) were shorter in the LBB Po (+) group than in the LBB Po (−) group. No significant differences in the LV mechanical synchrony (Ts-SD-12, 36.55 ± 19.76 vs. 39.95 ± 16.04, P = 0.505; PSD, 51.14 ± 17.69 vs. 45.65 ± 10.55, P = 0.205) between the two groups. There was not statistically difference in ventricular lead parameters measured intraoperative between the two groups. Compared with the LBB Po (−) group, the LBB Po (+) group showed a dramatically higher total procedure duration time (93.52 ± 9.18 min vs. 86.25 ± 10.54 min, p = 0.007) and fluoroscopy time for ventricle lead implantation (18.95 ± 3.43 min vs. 14.00 ± 3.16 min, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

The appearance of LBB Po may suggest better electrical synchrony during LBBP, but similar in LV mechanical synchrony. However, the total operation duration and fluoroscopy time of ventricular lead implantation in the LBB Po (+) group were longer. Therefore, it may be unnecessary to deliberately recognize the LBB Po when it is difficult to detect LBB Po and meet the LBBP criterion.

The Initial Experience of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Patients with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy

PURPOSE

Whether Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) could be achieved in patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) requiring ventricular pacing remains unknown. The present study aimed to investigate the feasibility and effect of LBBAP in HCM.

METHODS

Patients with HCM who underwent LBBAP were recruited from November 2018 to September 2021. Clinical characteristics, echocardiographic, and pacing parameters were prospectively collected at baseline and during follow-up.

RESULTS

Eleven consecutive HCM patients who attempted LBBAP were included (mean age 64.0±8.7 years, female 45.5%, mean interventricular septum 16.7mm). The success rate of LBBAP was 36.4% (4/11) and the reason for failed LBBAP in other 7 HCM patients was the inability to screw the lead into the deep septum or capture the left bundle branch. Patients with successful LBBAP had significantly narrower QRS duration than those with failed (118.0 ± 3.7 ms vs. 140.9 ± 9.4 ms, p = 0.01) while the capture thresholds, sensing amplitudes, and pacing impedances were similar. Successful cases presented with less positive late gadolinium enhancement (25.0% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.02) and thinner interventricular thickness (14.5 ± 1.0 mm vs. 18.0 ± 2.5 mm, p = 0.02) when compared with failed cases. Pacing parameters remained stable and no procedure-related complications occurred during a mean follow-up of 8.9 ± 7.3 months.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP may be successfully achieved in less than half of HCM patients due to thick interventricular septum and heavy burden of myocardial fibrosis. Pacing strategies should be cautiously considered in patients with HCM. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Left bundle branch pacing in a ventricular pacing dependent patient with heart failure: A case report

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing method that has emerged in recent years. It is an ideal choice for patients with complete left bundle branch block who are in need of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Moreover, LBBP is superior in maintaining physiological ventricular activation and can effectively improve heart function and quality of life in patients with pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy. However, LBBP in pacing-dependent patients who already have cardiac dysfunction has not been well assessed.

CASE SUMMARY

A 69-year-old male patient presented with symptoms of chest tightness, palpitation and systolic heart failure with New York Heart Association class III for 1 mo. The 12-lead electrocardiogram showed atrial fibrillation with third-degree atrioventricular block and ventricular premature beat. Holter revealed a right bundle branch block, atrial fibrillation with third-degree atrioventricular block, frequent multifocal ventricular premature beats, Ron-T and ventricular tachycardia. The echocardiogram documented an enlarged left atrium and left ventricle and a low left ventricular ejection fraction. Coronary angiography indicated a stenosis of 30% in the middle left anterior descending artery. Apparently, a CRT-D pacemaker was the best choice for this patient according to previous findings. However, the patient was worried about the financial burden. A single-chamber pacemaker with LBBP was selected, with the plan to take amiodarone and upgrade with dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator or CRT-D at an appropriate time. During the follow-up at 3 mo after LBBP, the patient showed an improvement in cardiac function with slight improvement in echocardiography parameters, and the New York Heart Association functional class was maintained at I. Moreover, the patient no longer suffered from chest tightness and palpitation. Holter showed decreased ventricular arrhythmia of less than 5%.

CONCLUSION

LBBP might be used in patients with heart failure and a high-degree atrioventricular block as an alternative to conventional CRT.

Physiologic Pacing Targeting the His Bundle and Left Bundle Branch: a Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a means to preserve or restore physiological ventricular activation via pacing at the His bundle or at more distal targets in the conduction system, including the left bundle branch area. This review examines strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of CSP performed via these approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

His bundle pacing (HBP) has been successfully utilized for standard bradyarrhythmia indications and for QRS correction among patients receiving devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Limitations of HBP pacing have included implant complexity and rising pacing thresholds over time. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) appears to deliver similar physiological benefits with shorter implant times and more stable thresholds. More recently, hybrid systems utilizing HBP or LBBAP in combination with left ventricular leads have been used to treat heart failure (HF) patients, and may be useful in multilevel or mixed conduction blocks. There is growing interest in CSP for bradycardia and HF indications, although high quality data with randomized controlled trials are needed to help guide future treatment paradigms.

Use of extendable helix leads for conduction system pacing: differences in lead handling and performance: Conclusion

INTRODUCTION

Pacing leads with extendable-retractable helix (EHL) are alternatives to fixed-helix leads (FHL) for conduction system pacing (CSP), but data on handling characteristics are limited. This study evaluated a dual-center experience of lead handling and performance during CSP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Consecutive patients with His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) were evaluated for the primary outcome of lead failure, defined as structural damage to the lead necessitating lead replacement. Differences in pacing characteristics were compared. Among 280 patients (mean age 74±11 years, 44% male, 50% LBBP), 246 (88%) received FHL and 34 (12%) received EHL. Of 299 leads used, lead failure occurred more frequently among patients with EHL than FHL (29% vs 2%, p<0.001), regardless of CSP modality. Majority of damaged leads (89%) in the form of helix deformation were successfully removed, with failure occurring in only 2 patients, both EHL, leading to helix fracture and retention within the septal myocardium. EHL, compared to FHL, was associated with 25-fold increased odds of lead failure (odds ratio 25.21, 95% confidence interval 7.35-86.51), and persisted after adjustment in turn for age, pacing modality and indication. CSP implant success rates did not differ by lead design (FHL 80% vs EHL 71%, p=0.18), with similar pacing thresholds at implant and follow-up. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony: An intrapatient-controlled study during His-Purkinje conduction system pacing versus right ventricular pacing

Objectives to Background

To compare electromechanical ventricular synchrony when pacing from different sites, including right ventricular apex pacing (RVAP), right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP), His bundle pacing (HBP), left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and RVSP during unipolar pacing from the ring electrode of LBBP lead (RVSP_ring) in each patient and evaluate the correlations between electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony.

Methods

Twenty patients with complete atrioventricular block indicated for dual‐chamber pacemaker implantation were included in the study. Unipolar pacing at different sites, including RVAP, RVSP, HBP, LBBP, and RVSP_ring, was successively performed in each patient. The pacing characteristics and echocardiogram parameters were collected and compared among intrinsic rhythm and pacing at different sites.

Results

Similar to HBP (114.84 ± 18.67 ms), narrower paced QRSd was found in LBBP (116.15 ± 11.60 ms) as compared to RVSP_ring (135.11 ± 13.68 ms), RVSP (141.65 ± 14.26 ms), and RVAP (160.15 ± 19.35 ms) (p < .001). LBBP showed comparable pacing parameters to RVAP or RVSP and was significantly better than HBP, with maintained cardiac function. TS‐12‐SD was significantly improved in LBBP (41.80 ± 20.97 ms) than RVAP (69.70 ± 32.42 ms, p = .003) and RVSP (63.30.56 ± 32.53 ms, p = .018) but similar to HBP (51.50 ± 25.67 ms, p = .283) or RVSP_ring (57.80 ± 25.65 ms, p = .198). Among these pacing strategies, negative values of interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were only identified in LBBP (−19.25 ± 18.43 ms), significantly different from RVAP (35.00 ± 30.72 ms), RVSP (22.85 ± 22.05 ms), HBP (5.20 ± 18.64 ms), and RVSP_ring (16.00 ± 26.76 ms (all p < .05). Using Pearson's analysis, Sti‐LVAT was positively correlated with QRS duration, IVMD, TS‐12‐SD, LVEDV, and LVESV, while a negative relationship could be observed for left ventricular ejection fraction.

Conclusions

His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) achieved better electrical and mechanical synchrony than conventional RV pacing. For interventricular synchrony, only LBBP initiated earlier LV activation than RV, in accordance with the right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern of paced QRS during LBBP. Sti‐LVAT might be a good parameter correlating with LV systolic function and mechanical synchrony.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing vs. optimized biventricular pacing with adaptive algorithm in heart failure with left bundle branch block: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study

AIMS

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB).

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P < 0.001). Higher absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and △LVEF was also achieved in LBBP-CRT than BVP-aCRT at 6-month (47.58 ± 12.02% vs. 41.24 ± 10.56%, P = 0.008; 18.52 ± 13.19% vs. 12.89 ± 9.73%, P = 0.020) and 1-year follow-up (49.10 ± 10.43% vs. 43.62 ± 11.33%, P = 0.021; 20.90 ± 11.80% vs. 15.20 ± 9.98%, P = 0.015, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in response rate between two groups while higher super-response rate was observed in LBBP-CRT as compared to BVP-aCRT at 6 months (53.06% vs. 36.59%, P = 0.016) and 12 months (61.22% vs. 39.22%, P = 0.028) during follow-up. The pacing threshold was lower in LBBP-CRT at implant and during 1-year follow-up (both P < 0.001). Procedure-related complications and adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different in two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.

Influence of Capture Selectivity and Left Intrahisian Block on QRS Characteristics During Left Bundle Branch Pacing

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to examine QRS and intracardiac characteristics during selective (S) and nonselective (NS) left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) from direct left septal recordings.

BACKGROUND

Criteria for S-LBBP and NS-LBBP have not been validated with intracardiac mapping.

METHODS

Pacing was performed from multielectrode Purkinje recordings below the left-sided His. S-LBBP and NS-LBBP were performed in patients with narrow QRS (n = 9), right bundle branch block (n = 3), intraventricular conduction delay (n = 5), and left bundle branch block (n = 10). QRS duration was measured from stimulus onset (QRS_st) and from the intrinsicoid deflection of the R-wave in V₁-V₂ (QRS_id) to QRS end. Retrograde left bundle branch conduction was assessed by stimulus-to-retrograde His intervals.

RESULTS

Among 27 patients analyzed, 20 demonstrated both NS- and S-LBBP and were studied in paired comparisons. NS-LBBP resulted in narrower QRS compared to S-LBBP (QRS_st: 163 ms [interquartile range (IQR): 144-179 ms] vs 181 ms [IQR: 173-203 ms]; P < 0.001; QRS_id: 125 ms [IQR: 117-142 ms] vs 150 ms [IQR: 135-157 ms]; P < 0.001). Left ventricular activation time was also significantly shorter for NS-LBBP compared to S-LBBP (88 ms [IQR: 75-111 ms] vs 97 ms [IQR: 82-123 ms]; P = 0.019). Left intrahisian block was bidirectional in 10 patients with long retrograde stimulus-to-His intervals. QRS_st duration was significantly longer in patients with complete conduction block compared to those with intact Purkinje activation during NS-LBBP (181 ms [IQR: 162-195 ms] vs 157 ms [IQR: 139-168 ms]; P = 0.022).

CONCLUSIONS

In contrast to His-bundle pacing, S-LBBP predominantly yields a wide QRS as a result of delayed RBB synchronization, whereas NS-LBBP results in shorter QRS duration because of recruitment of the basal right ventricular septum. A wider-paced morphology of LBBP was noted in patients with complete conduction block caused by bidirectional left intrahisian block. Achievement of narrow QRS during LBBP is predicated upon capture nonselectivity or programmed atrioventricular fusion, rather than intrinsic physiologic synchrony from left bundle branch stimulation.

Preliminary experience of permanent left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-directed pacing lead without delivery sheath

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) aims to capture the cardiac conduction system in area of the left bundle branch. Currently, LBBAP is mainly performed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with pre-shaped sheath. However, the data on LBBAP with stylet-driven leads (SDLs) without sheath is limited.

OBJECTIVE

This study presents the feasibility, safety, and pacing characteristics of LBBAP using stylet-driven leads (SDLs) without the support of sheath.

METHODS

A total of 25 patients with bradycardia indications who received LBBAP implantation with an attempt of SDL (FINELINE II 4471 lead, Boston Scientific, MA, US) between August 2020 and April 2021 at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital were included in this retrospective cohort study. Twenty of them finally were paced with SDL in priority (SDL-LBBAP group). Twenty propensity score matching patients who underwent LBBAP with LLL (Select Secure 3830 lead, Medtronic, MN, US) and 20 right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) with regular active fixation lead respectively in the same period (the LLL-LBBAP group and RVSP group) were compared using ECG characteristics, pacing parameters and complications during 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successful with SDL in 23 of 25 patients (92%) and 20 of them were paced with SDL first. In the SDL-LBBAP group, the average age was 70.4 ± 8.2 years, and 55% of patients were male. Paced QRS duration and the stimulus to peak left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) in SDL-LBBAP group were similar with those in LLL-LBBAP group and significantly shorter than those in RVSP group (126.1±14.1ms vs 124.8±10.9ms, P = 1.00; 77.7±11.2ms vs 73.5±9.3ms, P = 0.75; 126.1±14.1ms vs 147.7±22.5ms, P<0.001; 77.7±11.2ms vs 97.0±13.2ms, P<0.001). The pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude of SDL-LBBAP group were 0.53±0.18V and 11.53±3.63mV at baseline respectively, which were comparable with the other two groups. During the 6-month follow-up, the pacing parameters remained stable and no lead-related complication was recorded.

CONCLUSION

It is feasible and safe to use stylet-directed pacing lead for permanent LBBAP without a delivery sheath. Similar to LLL, LBBAP using SDL showed stable parameters and narrower paced QRS duration compared with RVSP, which could be an alternative to LLL in LBBAP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Comparison with Right Ventricular Septal Pacing in Patients with High Ventricular Pacing Ratio ≥40%

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in a Giant Atrium With Atrial Standstill: A Case Report and Literature Review

Atrial standstill (AS) is a rare condition defined by the lack of atrial electrical and mechanical activities. It is usually clinically manifested as symptomatic bradycardia, which requires permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. Traditional right ventricular apical pacing causes electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony resulting in left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, and arrhythmias. As a novel physiological pacing strategy, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has demonstrated effectiveness and safety in recent years, but its application in exceptional conditions is rarely reported. We report the case of a 47-year-old female, who was diagnosed with AS complicated with a giant atrium, and successfully received a single-chamber PPM with LBBaP.

Is the pacing site closer to the left ventricular septal endocardium in left bundle branch pacing or in left ventricular septal pacing?

PURPOSE

Distinguishing between left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) is challenging. This study aimed to compare the echocardiographic distance from the pacing lead tip to the left ventricular (LV) septal endocardium between patients who underwent LBBP and those who underwent LVSP successfully.

METHODS

Fifty-nine consecutive patients (age 71.9 ± 12.0 years, 35.6% male) with traditional indications for permanent cardiac pacing were included (LBBP group, n = 46; LVSP group, n = 13). Unipolar pacing from the final pacing sites generated narrow QRS complexes with a right bundle branch block pattern in all patients. After the procedure, a physician blinded to the group allocation performed echocardiographic measurements of the distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium.

RESULTS

The mean paced QRS duration was comparable between the LBBP group and the LVSP group (105.3 ± 15.6 ms vs. 109.2 ± 9.6 ms, P = 0.287). In the LBBP group, the interval from the left bundle branch potential to QRS onset was 28.7 ± 9.0 ms. During diastole, the mean distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium was 0.6 ± 0.9 mm in the LBBP group and 3.0 ± 1.6 mm in the LVSP group (P < 0.001). During systole, the distance was 1.5 ± 1.4 mm in the LBBP group and 4.3 ± 2.6 mm in the LVSP group (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The landing zone of the lead tip was closer to the LV septal endocardium in the patients who underwent LBBP. There is a need for real-time intraprocedural monitoring of the distance between the lead tip and the LV septal endocardium when performing LBBP.

Medium- and Long-Term Lead Stability and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing

The long-term lead stability and echocardiographic outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are not fully understood. This study aimed to observe the mid-long-term clinical impact of LBBAP compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Consecutive bradycardia patients undergoing LBBAP or RVP were enrolled. Pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and procedural complications were prospectively recorded at baseline and follow-up. LBBAP was successful in 376 of 406 patients (92.6%), while 313 patients received RVP. During a mean follow-up of 13.6 ± 7.8 months, LBBAP presented with similar pacing parameters and complications to RVP, except a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (115.7 ± 12.3 ms vs. 148.0 ± 18.0 ms, p < 0.001). In 228 patients with ventricular pacing burden >40%, LBBAP at last follow-up resulted in decreased left atrial diameter (LAD) (40.1 ± 8.5 mm vs. 38.5 ± 8.0 mm, p < 0.001) while RVP produced decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (62.7 ± 4.8% vs. 60.5 ± 6.9%, p < 0.001) when compared to baseline. After adjusting for age, the presence of atrial fibrillation, and other clinical factors, LBBAP was still associated with a decrease in LAD (-1.601, 95% CI -3.094--0.109, p = 0.036). We conclude that LBBAP might result in more preserved echocardiographic outcomes than RVP.

A single-center experience with early adoption of physiologic pacing approaches

BACKGROUND

Increasing interest in physiological pacing has been countered with challenges such as accurate lead deployment and increasing pacing thresholds with His-bundle pacing (HBP). More recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative approach to physiologic pacing.

OBJECTIVE

To compare procedural outcomes and pacing parameters at follow-up during initial adoption of HBP and LBBAP at a single center.

METHODS

Retrospective review, from September 2016 to January 2020, identified the first 50 patients each who underwent successful HBP or LBBAP. Pacing parameters were then assessed at first follow-up after implantation and after approximately 1 year, evaluating for acceptable pacing parameters defined as sensing R-wave amplitude >5 mV, threshold <2.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and impedance between 400 and 1200 Ω.

RESULTS

The HBP group was younger with lower ejection fraction compared to LBBAP (73.2 ± 15.3 vs. 78.2 ± 9.2 years, p = .047; 51.0 ± 15.9% vs. 57.0 ± 13.1%, p = .044). Post-procedural QRS widths were similarly narrow (119.8 ± 21.2 vs. 116.7 ± 15.2 ms; p = .443) in both groups. Significantly fewer patients with HBP met the outcome for acceptable pacing parameters at initial follow-up (56.0% vs. 96.4%, p = .001) and most recent follow-up (60.7% vs. 94.9%, p ≤ .001; at 399 ± 259 vs. 228 ± 124 days, p ≤ .001). More HBP patients required lead revision due to early battery depletion or concern for pacing failure (0% vs. 13.3%, at a mean of 664 days).

CONCLUSION

During initial adoption, HBP is associated with a significantly higher frequency of unacceptable pacing parameters, energy consumption, and lead revisions compared with LBBAP.

Left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation requiring ventricular pacing

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) can result in favorable clinical and echocardiographic outcomes among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with PeAF if they required ventricular pacing and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 35%. During the same period, two experienced operators performed LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP). All-cause death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) were routinely followed after procedure. The primary outcome was the composite endpoints of all-cause death or HFH.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successful in 49 of 52 patients (94.2%), whereas 44 patients received RVP. During a mean follow-up of 13.9 ± 7.0 months, LBBAP group presented with higher ventricular pacing percentage (80% vs. 50.9%, p = .04) and narrower paced QRS duration (117.2 ± 18.8 ms vs. 151.8 ± 13.7 ms, p < .001) than RVP group. The primary endpoint was slightly reduced in LBBAP group than RVP without reaching statistical significance (7.7% vs. 11.4%, p = .48). Compared with baseline, we observed significant changes in LVEF (+0.7% vs. -2.2%, p = .007) and left atrial diameter (-1.63 mm vs. +1.23 mm, p = .011) between LBBAP and RVP.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate possible effect of LBBAP on reverse remodeling of left atrium and a trend towards favorable clinical outcomes in patients with PeAF requiring high burden of ventricular pacing when compared with RVP.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing: A systematic review and network meta-analysis in bradycardia and conduction disorders

BACKGROUND

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) has emerged as an effective alternative to overcome the limitations of right ventricular pacing (RVP) via physiological left ventricular activation, but there remains a paucity of comparative information for His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP).

METHODS

A Bayesian random-effects network analysis was conducted to compare the relative effects of HBP, LBBP, and RVP in patients with bradycardia and conduction disorders. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched from database inception until September 21, 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 4160 patients were included in this meta-analysis. LBBP significantly improved success rate, pacing threshold, pacing impedance, and R-wave amplitude compared with HBP. LBBP also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend towards superior outcomes of lead complications, heart failure hospitalization, atrial fibrillation, and all-cause death. However, HBP was associated with significantly shorter paced QRS duration relative to LBBP. Despite higher success rates, shorter procedure/fluoroscopy duration, and fewer lead complications, patients receiving RVP were more likely to experience reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, longer paced QRS duration, and higher rates of heart failure hospitalization than those receiving HPCSP. No statistical differences were observed in the remaining outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis demonstrates the efficacy and safety of HPCSP for the treatment of bradycardia and conduction disorders, with differences in pacing parameters, electrophysiology characteristics, and clinical outcomes between HBP and LBBP. Larger-scale, long-term comparative studies are warranted for further verification.

Comparison of Procedure and Fluoroscopy Time Between Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing for Bradycardia: The Learning Curve for the Novel Pacing Strategy

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing approach.

Objective: To assess learning curve for LBBAP and compare the procedure and fluoroscopy time between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP).

Methods: Consecutive bradycardia patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP were prospectively recruited from June 2018 to June 2020. The procedure and fluoroscopy time for ventricular lead placement, pacing parameters, and periprocedural complications were recorded. Restricted cubic splines were used to fit learning curves for LBBAP.

Results: Left bundle branch area pacing was successful in 376 of 406 (92.6%) patients while 313 patients received RVP. Learning curve for LBBAP illustrated initial (1–50 cases), improved (51–150 cases), and stable stages (151–406 cases) with gradually increased success rates (88.0 vs. 90.0 vs. 94.5%, P = 0.106), steeply decreased median procedure (26.5 vs. 14.0 vs. 9.0min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (16.0 vs. 6.0 vs. 4.0min, P < 0.001), and shortened stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT; 78.7 vs. 78.1 vs. 71.2 ms, P < 0.001). LBBAP at the stable stage showed longer but close median procedure (9.0 vs. 6.9min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.8min, P < 0.001) compared with RVP.

Conclusion: The procedure and fluoroscopy time of LBBAP could be reduced significantly with increasing procedure volume and close to that of RVP for an experienced operator.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Implant Technique, Definitions, Outcomes, and Complications

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged during the last few years as the cornerstone of physiological pacing. Two different CSP modalities have been described so far: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). This review will be focused on the description of LBBAP technique, definitions, outcomes, and complications.

RECENT FINDINGS

Large observational studies have demonstrated the safety and feasibility of LBBAP in different scenarios. LBBAP has been associated with excellent pacing electrical parameters (pacing threshold and R wave sensing) and low complication rates including lead revision < 1%. In patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indication, LBBAP has shown significant improvement of functional class and left ventricular ejection fraction during short-term follow-up. LBBAP is a relatively new CSP modality showing excellent results for patients with conventional bradycardia pacing indications and promising expectations about its potential role for CRT.

Safety and feasibility of conduction system pacing in patients with congenital heart disease

INTRODUCTION

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an ideal physiologic pacing strategy for patients with permanent pacing indications. We sought to evaluate the safety and feasibility of CSP in a consecutive series of unselected patients with congenital heart disease (CHD).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with CHD in which CSP was attempted were included. Safety and feasibility, implant tools and electrical parameters at implant and at follow-up were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients were included (10 with a previous device). A total of 10 patients had complex forms of CHD, 9 moderate defects and 1 a simple defect. CSP was achieved in 75% of cases (10 His bundle pacing, 5 left bundle branch pacing) with left ventricular septal pacing in the remaining 5 patients. Procedure times and fluoroscopy times were prolongued (126 ± 82 min and 27 ± 30 min, respectively). Ventricular lead implant times widely varied ranging from 4 to 115 min, (mean 31 ± 28 min) and the use of multiple delivery sheaths was frequent (50%). The QRS width was reduced from 145 ± 36 ms at baseline to 116 ± 18 ms with CSP. Implant electrical parameters included: CSP pacing threshold 0.95 ± 0.65 V; R wave amplitude 9.2 ± 8.8 mV and pacing impedance 632 ± 183 Ohms, and remained stable at a median follow-up of 478 days (interquartile range: 225-567). Systemic ventricle systolic function and NYHA class (1.50 ± 0.51 vs. 1.10 ± 0.31; p = .008) significantly improved at follow-up. Lead revision was required in one patient at Day 4.

CONCLUSIONS

Permanent CSP is safe and feasible in patients with CHD although implant technique is complex.

Comparison of synchronization between left bundle branch and his bundle pacing in atrial fibrillation patients: An intra-patient-controlled study

Background

His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological pacing strategy to preserve the electrical synchrony of ventricular conduction and left ventricular (LV) function. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative physiological pacing technique.

Objective

To evaluate cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony comparing LBBP and HBP in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF).

Methods

Consecutive patients with symptomatic bradycardia and AF were enrolled from January to June of 2019. The cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony in different pacing mode were evaluated at baseline and after implantation.

Results

Both HBP and LBBP were performed in 20 patients. LBBP significantly widened the QRS duration compared with the intrinsic conduction (113.2 ± 14.5  vs. 96.5 ± 16.2 ms; p = .01), while HBP did not (104.5 ± 22.3  vs. 96.5 ± 16.2 ms; p = .12). Both LBBP and HBP patients had similar LV myocardial strain measurements for the mechanical synchrony evaluation without significant change compared with baseline. There was no significant difference in right ventricular synchrony measurement between LBBP and HBP. Compared to HBP, LBBP had less interventricular synchrony (IMVD, 14.7 ± 9.2  vs. 3.1 ± 12.7 ms, p < .01; Ts‐LV‐RV, 37.9 ± 10.7  vs. 18.5 ± 10.8 ms, p < .001).

Conclusions

Although LBBP's a physiological pacing mode can achieve a similar cardiac electrical and mechanical synchronization when compared to HBP, LBBP results in modest delay in RV activation, and the clinical implication remains to be studied.

Feasibility and Safety of Left Bundle Branch Pacing for Advance Aged Patients: A Multicenter Comparative Study

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been shown to be a safe and effective means to achieve physiological pacing. However, elderly patients have increased risks from invasive procedures and the risk of LBBP in elderly patients is not known. We aimed to investigate the safety and efficacy of LBBP in elderly patients >80 years of age.

Methods: From December 2017 to June 2019, 346 consecutive patients with symptomatic bradycardia, 184 patients under 80 years of age and 162 over 80 years, were included and underwent LBBP. The safety and prognosis of LBBP were comparatively evaluated by measured pacing parameters, periprocedural complications, and follow-up clinical events.

Results: Compared with the younger, the elderly group had worse baseline cardiac and renal function. LBBP was achieved successfully in both groups with comparable fluoroscopic time and paced QRS duration (110.0 [102.0, 118.0] ms for the young vs. 110.0 [100.0, 120.0] ms for the elderly, P = 0.874). Through a follow-up of 20.0 ± 6.1 months, pacing parameters were stable while higher threshold and impedance were observed in the elderly group. In the evaluation of safety, overall procedure-related complication rates were comparable (4.4 vs. 3.8%, young vs. elderly). For prognosis, similar rates of major adverse cardiocerebrovascular events (7.1 vs. 11.9%, young vs. elderly) were observed.

Conclusions: Compared to younger patients, LBBP could achieve physiological pacing in patients over 80 with comparable midterm safety and prognosis. Long-term safety and benefits of LBBP, however, necessitate further evaluation.

Procedure-Related Complications of Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Single-Center Experience

Background: Although left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy with a low and stable threshold, its safety has not been well-documented. In the present study, we included all the patients with procedure-related complications at our centre to estimate these LBBP cases with unique complications. Methods: We enrolled 612 consecutive patients who received the procedure in Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, between January 2018 and July 2020. Regular follow-ups were conducted (at 1, 3, and 6 months in the first year and every 6-12 months from the second year), and the clinical data of the patients with complications were collected and analyzed. Results: With a mean follow-up period of 12.32 ± 5.21 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 10 patients (1.63%) that included two postoperative septum perforations (2/612, 0.33%), two postoperative lead dislodgements (2/612, 0.33%), four intraoperative septum injuries (4/612, 0.65%), and two intraoperative lead fractures (2/612, 0.33%). Pacing parameters were stable during follow-up, and no major complications were observed after lead repositioning in the cases of septum perforation and lead dislodgement. Conclusion: The incidence of procedure-related complications for LBBP, namely postoperative septum perforation, postoperative lead dislodgement, intraoperative septum injury, and intraoperative lead fracture, were low. No adverse clinical outcomes were demonstrated after successful repositioning of the lead and appropriate treatment.