Permanent His-bundle pacing maintains long-term ventricular synchrony and left ventricular performance, unlike conventional right ventricular apical pacing

Personalized computational electro-mechanics simulations to optimize cardiac resynchronization therapy

In this study, we present a computational framework designed to evaluate virtual scenarios of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and compare their effectiveness based on relevant clinical biomarkers. Our approach involves electro-mechanical numerical simulations personalized, for patients with left bundle branch block, by means of a calibration obtained using data from Electro-Anatomical Mapping System (EAMS) measures acquired by cardiologists during the CRT procedure, as well as ventricular pressures and volumes, both obtained pre-implantation. We validate the calibration by using EAMS data coming from right pacing conditions. Three patients with fibrosis and three without are considered to explore various conditions. Our virtual scenarios consist of personalized numerical experiments, incorporating different positions of the left electrode along reconstructed epicardial veins; different locations of the right electrode; different ventriculo-ventricular delays. The aim is to offer a comprehensive tool capable of optimizing CRT efficiency for individual patients. We provide preliminary answers on optimal electrode placement and delay, by computing some relevant biomarkers such as d P / d t max , ejection fraction, stroke work. From our numerical experiments, we found that the latest activated segment during sinus rhythm is an effective choice for the non-fibrotic cases for the location of the left electrode. Also, our results showed that the activation of the right electrode before the left one seems to improve the CRT performance for the non-fibrotic cases. Last, we found that the CRT performance seems to improve by positioning the right electrode halfway between the base and the apex. This work is on the line of computational works for the study of CRT and introduces new features in the field, such as the presence of the epicardial veins and the movement of the right electrode. All these studies from the different research groups can in future synergistically flow together in the development of a tool which clinicians could use during the procedure to have quantitative information about the patient's propagation in different scenarios.

Feasibility, safety and outcomes of conduction system pacing for bradycardia amongst the very elderly

The impact of age (≥ 85 vs < 85 years) on clinical outcomes and pacemaker performance of conduction system pacing (CSP) compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP) were examined. Consecutive patients from a prospective, observational, multicenter study with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia were studied. The primary endpoint was a composite of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations, pacing-induced cardiomyopathy requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy or all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were acutely successful CSP, absence of pacing-complications, optimal pacemaker performance defined as pacing thresholds < 2.5 V, R-wave amplitude ≥ 5 V and absence of complications, threshold stability (no increases of > 1 V) and persistence of His-Purkinje capture on follow-up. Among 984 patients (age 74.1 ± 11.2 years, 41% CSP, 16% ≥ 85 years), CSP was independently associated with reduced hazard of the primary endpoint compared to RVP, regardless of age-group (< 85 years: adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.63, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.40-0.98; ≥ 85 years: AHR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.94). Among patients with CSP, age did not significantly impact the secondary endpoints of acute CSP success (86% vs 88%), pacing complications (19% vs 11%), optimal pacemaker performance (64% vs 69%), threshold stability (96% vs 96%) and persistent His-Purkinje capture (86% vs 91%) on follow-up (all p > 0.05). CSP improves clinical outcomes in all age-groups, without compromising procedural safety or pacemaker performance in the very elderly.

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.

A Comparative Assessment of Myocardial Work Performance during Spontaneous Rhythm, His Bundle Pacing, and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Insights from the EMPATHY Study

BACKGROUND

Physiological pacing has gained significant interest due to its potential to achieve optimal hemodynamic response. This study aimed to assess left ventricular performance in terms of electrical parameters, specifically QRS duration and mechanical performance, evaluated as myocardial work. We compared His Bundle Pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) to evaluate their effects.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with class I or IIa indications for pacing were enrolled in this study, with twelve patients undergoing HBP implantation and another twelve undergoing LBBAP implantation. A comprehensive analysis of myocardial work was conducted.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that there were no major differences in terms of spontaneous and HBP activation in myocardial work, except for global wasted work (217 mmHg% vs. 283 mmHg%; p 0.016) and global work efficiency (87 mmHg% vs. 82 mmHg%; p 0.049). No significant differences were observed in myocardial work between spontaneous activation and LBBAP. Similarly, no significant differences in myocardial work were found between HBP and LBBAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Both pacing modalities provide physiological ventricular activation without significant differences when compared to each other. Moreover, there were no significant differences in QRS duration between HBP and LBBAP. However, LBBAP demonstrated advantages in terms of feasibility, as it achieved better lead electrical parameters compared to HBP (threshold@0.4 ms 0.6 V vs. 1 V; p = 0.045-sensing 9.4 mV vs. 2.4 mV; p < 0.001). Additionally, LBBAP required less fluoroscopy time (6 min vs. 13 min; p = 0.010) and procedural time (81 min vs. 125 min; p = 0.004) compared to HBP.

Adverse effects of right ventricular pacing on cardiac function: prevalence, prevention and treatment with physiologic pacing

Right ventricular (RV) pacing is the main treatment modality for patients with advanced atrioventricular (AV) block. Chronic RV pacing can cause cardiac systolic dysfunction and heart failure (HF). In this review, we discuss studies that have shown deleterious effects of chronic RV pacing on systolic cardiac function causing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCM), heart failure (HF), HF hospitalization, atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiac mortality. RV apical pacing is the most widely used and studied. Adverse effects of RV pacing appear to be directly related to pacing burden and are worse in patients with pre-existing left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Chronic RV pacing is also associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Mechanisms, risk factors, clinical and echocardiographic features, and strategies to minimize RV pacing-induced cardiac dysfunction are discussed in light of the latest data. Studies on biventricular (Bi-V) pacing upgrade in patients who develop RV PiCM, use of alternate RV pacing sites, de novo Bi-V pacing, and physiologic pacing using HIS bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle area (LBBA) pacing in patients with an anticipated high RV pacing burden are discussed.

Three-Dimensional Electro-Anatomical Mapping and Myocardial Work Performance during Spontaneous Rhythm, His Bundle Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing: The EMPATHY Study

Background. His bundle pacing (HBP) has emerged as an alternative site to right ventricular pacing (RVP) with encouraging outcomes. To date, no study has investigated the systematic approach of three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (3D-EAM) to guide HBP implantation and to evaluate myocardial activation timing. Furthermore, studies reporting a comprehensive assessment of the ventricular function, using myocardial work (MW) evaluation are lacking. Objectives. (1) To evaluate the systematic use of the 3D-EAM as a guide to HBP; (2) to assess the electrical and mechanical activations with high-density mapping, comparing spontaneous ventricular activation (SVA), HBP and RVP; (3) to assess the myocardial function through speckle-tracking echocardiography (STE) and MW analysis in SVA, HBP and RVP. Methods. 3D-EAM was performed in consecutive patients undergoing HBP implantation with a low use of fluoroscopy. All patients were systematically evaluated with high-density mapping, MW and STE. Results. Fifteen patients were enrolled, of whom three had an implant failure (20%). RV activation time was not statistically different between SVA and HBP (103 vs. 104 ms, p = 0.969) but was significantly higher in RVP (133 ms, p = 0.011 vs. SVA and p = 0.001 vs HBP). Global constructive work was significantly lower during RVP (1191 mmHg%) than during SVA and HBP (1648 and 1505 mmHg%, p = 0.011 and p = 0.008, respectively) and did not differ between SVA and HBP (p = 0.075). Conclusions. 3D-EAM and MW evaluation showed that HBP was comparable to the physiological SVA in terms of activation time and cardiac performance. Compared to both SVA and HBP, RVP was associated with a worse activation timing and ventricular efficiency.

Clinical Outcomes in Conduction System Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing in Bradycardia

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) provides more physiological ventricular activation than right ventricular pacing (RVP).

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes in patients receiving CSP and RVP.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia from 2016 to 2021 in 2 centers were prospectively followed for the primary composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, upgrade to biventricular pacing, or all-cause mortality, stratified by ventricular pacing burden (Vp) .

RESULTS

Among 860 patients (mean age 74 ± 11 years, 48% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 628 received RVP and 231 received CSP (95 His-bundle pacing, 136 left bundle branch pacing). The primary outcome occurred in 217 (25%) patients, more commonly in patients with RVP than CSP (30% vs 13%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, CSP was independently associated with 47% reduction of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.29-0.97; P = 0.04) and HF hospitalization alone (AHR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.95; P = 0.04), among only patients with Vp >20%. The incidence of the primary outcome was highest among RVP with Vp >20% and lowest in CSP with Vp >20% (35% vs 10%, P < 0.001). Compared with RVP with Vp >20%, both CSP with Vp >20% (AHR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91; P = 0.02) and all patients with Vp ≤20% (AHR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.54-0.99; P = 0.04) were independently associated with reduced primary outcome, driven primarily by reductions in HF hospitalizations (P < 0.05). Event-free survival was similar between CSP with Vp >20% and those needing ≤20% Vp.

CONCLUSIONS

CSP significantly reduced adverse clinical outcomes for bradycardic patients requiring ventricular pacing and should be the preferred pacing modality of choice.

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.

Does Pacemaker Implantation After Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement Impact Long-Term Morbidity and Mortality? A Focused Review

Permanent pacing remains a serious complication that can occur in the postoperative period of surgical aortic valve replacement. The reported incidence is variable, and there are many perioperative factors that have been linked with a greater need for permanent pacing. Permanent pacing can also be associated with late lead-related and cardiac complications that can affect late outcome. However, the degree of late dependence on pacemakers is varied, and some studies have shown that a substantial proportion of patients do not need long-term pacing. Some groups have found that permanent pacing was associated with a negative impact on long-term survival in these patients. A common finding among these studies is that the groups of patients with pacemakers had higher preoperative surgical risk and comorbidity status. This makes it difficult to establish whether permanent pacing on its own represents a risk factor for late mortality or whether it is simply a marker that reflects the higher complexity and comorbidities in this group of patients.

Hemodynamic Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of permanent His bundle and biventricular pacing after AV nodal ablation

placing after atrioventricular (AV) nodal ablation for permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) may include cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with either His bundle pacing (HBP) or biventricular pacing (BVP), or conventional single site right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP). To determine the relationship between pacing method and hemodynamic outcome, we used Doppler echocardiographic methods to evaluate left ventricular (LV) hemodynamics after AV nodal ablation and either HBP, BVP, or RVAP.

Method

20 patients were evaluated > 6 months after AV nodal ablation, 10 each with chronic HBP or BVP, and all with RVAP lead. Doppler echocardiography was used to measure 3 parameters indicative of CRT: 1) LV dP/dt, 2) the LV pre-ejection interval, and 3) myocardial performance index, relative to intra-patient RVAP.

Results

Primary endpoint of LV dP/dt on average improved by > 17% with both HBP and BVP, compared to RVAP. HBP but not BVP, had improvement across all three parameters.

Conclusion

HBP provides LV electromechanical synchrony across multiple echo Doppler parameters. Both HBP and BVP were hemodynamically superior to RVAP following AV nodal ablation.

Risk factors of pacing dependence and cardiac dysfunction in patients with permanent pacemaker implantation

AIMS

Right ventricular pacing (RVP) dependence could impair left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This study aimed to illuminate the relationship between RVP proportion and LVEF, as well as disclosing independent predictors of RVP dependence.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients indicated for permanent pacemaker implantation were included (2016-2020). The ventricular pacing lead was placed in right ventricular apex or septum. Pacing mode programming followed universal standard. Electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and serological parameters were collected. RVP dependence was defined according to its influence on LVEF. This study was of case-control design. Included patients were matched by potentially confounding factors through propensity score matching. A total of 1183 patients were included, and the mean duration of follow-up was 24 months. Percentage of RVP < 80% hardly influenced LVEF; however, LVEF tended to decrease with higher RVP proportion. High degree/complete atrioventricular block (AVB) [odds ratio (OR) = 5.71, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.66-8.85], atrial fibrillation (AF) (OR = 2.04, 95% CI: 1.47-2.82), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) (OR = 2.89, 95% CI: 1.24-6.76), maximum heart rate (HR_max ) < 110 b.p.m. (OR = 2.74, 95% CI: 1.58-4.76), QRS duration > 120 ms (OR = 2.46, 95% CI: 1.42-4.27), QTc interval > 470 ms (OR = 2.01, 95% CI: 1.33-3.05), and pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) > 40 mmHg (OR = 1.93, 95% CI: 1.46-2.56) were proved to predict RVP dependence.

CONCLUSIONS

High RVP percentage (>80%) indicating RVP dependence significantly correlates with poor prognosis of cardiac function. High degree/complete AVB, AF, ischaemic aetiology, PCI history, HR_max  < 110 b.p.m., QRS duration > 120 ms, QTc interval > 470 ms, and PASP > 40 mmHg were verified as independent risk factors of RVP dependence.

His Bundle Pacing: A promising alternative strategy for Antibradycardic-pacing. Report of a single center-experience

His Bundle Pacing (HBP) is proven to be a safe and effective alternative pacing modality that, in addition, avoids Pacemaker-induced Cardiomyopathy (PICM) by achieving a ''physiological'' ventricular stimulation, via the native conduction system. Indications include various causes of bradycardia requiring antibradycardic pacing, inadequately controlled Atrial Fibrillation requiring AV node ablation and established PICM. In addition, HBP may also be used as an alternative therapy for patients with Heart Failure (HF) and an indication for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy. Available data show a benefit from HBP with regard to preservation or restoration of intra- and inter-ventricular synchronization, improvement in Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction, functional status and Quality of Life, decrease in atrial fibrillation incidence and improvement in HF hospitalization rates, compared to conventional pacing. Nevertheless, superiority in terms of mortality rates has not been consistently demonstrated and long-term efficacy and safety remains to be proven. In the present manuscript, we review the status of HBP and we present our current experience with this novel pacing modality.

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.

Retrograde penetration pacing into the conduction system as an alternative approach of his-bundle pacing: Retrograde penetration pacing into the conduction system

BACKGROUND

The optimal right ventricular (RV) pacing site during pacemaker implantation is still unclear due to left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony by traditional RV pacing. His-bundle (HIS) pacing has achieved narrow QRS and maintained LV synchrony but high failure rate. RV septal pacing occasionally has QRS waveform with wide and narrow component in the early and late phase, respectively, and maintains LV synchrony, reflecting the normal conduction system. We aimed to define this QRS waveform as retrograde penetration pacing into the conduction system (RPP-CS) and compared its effect on LV synchrony as an alternative approach of HIS pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We enrolled 42 patients with atrio ventricular block (AVB) or bradycardia atrial fibrillation (AF) requiring pacemaker implantation (RPP-CS, n = 27; no RPP-CS, n = 15). Baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. RPP-CS was observed in 96% and 26% of the RV septum and apex area, respectively. RPP-CS had a significantly shorter QRS width (p < 0.001). The frequency of maintaining LV synchrony was significantly higher in RPP-CS (67% vs. 20%, p = 0.003). The QRS interval's optimal cut-off value during RPP-CS was 132 ms for prediction of LV synchrony (sensitivity 83%, specificity 89%, positive predictive value 94%, and negative predictive value 73%). During RPP-CS, shorter QRS intervals (QRS ≤ 132 ms) had better postoperative LV ejection fraction than longer intervals (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RPP-CS, especially with short QRS intervals (≤132 ms), had a high frequency of LV synchrony, maintained postoperative cardiac function, and may be an adequate first-line RV pacing site strategy for AVB or bradycardia AF as an alternative approach of HIS pacing.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Right Ventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing modality with stable pacing parameters and a narrow-paced QRS duration. We compared heart failure (HF) hospitalization events and echocardiographic measures between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).

Methods and Results: This multicenter observational study prospectively recruited consecutive AVB patients requiring ventricular pacing in five centers if they received LBBAP or RVP and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%. Data on electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, echocardiographic measurements, device complications, and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary outcome was first episode hospitalization for HF or upgrade to biventricular pacing. LBBAP was successful in 235 of 246 patients (95.5%), while 120 patients received RVP. During a mean of 11.4 ± 2.7 months of follow-up, the ventricular pacing burden was comparable (83.9 ± 35.1 vs. 85.7 ± 30.0%), while the mean LVEF differed significantly (62.6 ± 4.6 vs. 57.8 ± 11.4%) between the LBBAP and RVP groups. Patients with LBBAP had significantly lower occurrences of HF hospitalization and upgrading to biventricular pacing than patients with RVP (2.6 vs. 10.8%, P <0.001), and differences in primary outcome between LBBAP and RVP were mainly observed in patients with ventricular pacing >40% or with baseline LVEF <60%. The primary outcome was independently associated with LBBAP (adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04–0.55), previous myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 6.82, 95% CI: 1.23–37.5), and baseline LVEF (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86–0.96).

Conclusion: Permanent LBBAP might reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or upgrade to biventricular pacing compared with RVP in AVB patients requiring a high burden of ventricular pacing.

Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03851315; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique Identifier: ChiCTR2100043296.

Safety and efficacy of His-bundle pacing/left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have demonstrated that right ventricular pacing (RVP) has deleterious effects on non-synchronized ventricular contraction, while His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) contribute to improvements in patients' mid- and long-term outcomes. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the safety and efficacy of physiologic pacing (HBP/LBBaP) versus those of RVP.

METHODS

A systematic search of PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase was conducted for studies that compared the effects of physiologic pacing and RVP. All eligible studies were published before January 1, 2021 and were conducted in humans. STATA software version 15.0 was used for all the data analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty articles (n = 2787 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Compared to RVP, physiologic pacing was associated with a significantly shorter QRS duration and better cardiac function. Physiologic pacing was also correlated with lower rates of mitral regurgitation, pacing-induced cardiomyopathy, death, heart failure hospitalization, and atrial fibrillation, although the above results were not statistically significant. In addition, RVP led to the achievement of higher success rates than physiologic pacing, a shorter fluoroscopic time and mean procedure duration, a lower pacing threshold: the results were statistically significant. Compared with HBP, LBBaP appeared to have some advantages in R wave amplitudes, pacing threshold, fluoroscopic time, procedure time, and success rate, with statistically significant differences. Whereas HBP was associated with fewer surgical complications and shorter QRS duration, the results were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

Physiologic pacing (HBP/LBBaP) might be a better strategy than RVP and improve long-term clinical outcomes like cardiac function. Although LBBaP appears to have some advantages over HBP, the long-term benefits are still controversial. More large-scale randomized clinical trials are needed for further verification.

Innovations in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are essential for the management of a variety of cardiac conditions, including tachyarrhythmias, bradyarrhythmias, and medically refractory heart failure (HF). Recent advancements in CIED technology have led to innovative solutions that overcome shortcomings associated with traditional devices or address unmet needs. Leadless pacemakers, subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs), and extravascular ICDs eliminate lead-related complications common with conventional pacemakers or ICDs. Conduction system pacing (His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing) is a more physiologic method of pacing and avoids the deleterious consequences associated with long-term right ventricular pacing. For HF-related devices, cardiac contractility modulation is an emerging therapy that bridges a gap for many patients ineligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy and has been shown to improve HF symptoms and decrease hospitalizations and mortality in select patients. Implantable pulmonary artery pressure monitors help guide HF management and reduce hospitalizations. Lastly, new phrenic nerve stimulating devices are being utilized to treat central sleep apnea, a common comorbidity associated with HF. While further long-term studies are still underway for many of these new technologies, it is anticipated that these devices will become indispensable therapeutics in the expanding cardiovascular armamentarium.

His bundle pacing shows similar ventricular electrical activation as sinus: selective and nonselective His pacing indistinguishable

His bundle pacing utilizes the His-Purkinje system to produce more physiological activation compared with traditional pacing therapies, but differences in electrical activation between pacing techniques are not yet quantified in terms of activation pattern. Furthermore, clinicians distinguish between selective and nonselective His pacing, but measurable differences in electrical activation remain to be seen. Hearts isolated from seven dogs were perfused using the Langendorff method. Electrograms were recorded using two 64-electrode basket catheters in the ventricles and a 128-electrode sock situated around the ventricles during sinus rhythm (right atrial pacing), right ventricular (RV) pacing, biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (biV-CRT), selective His pacing (selective capture of the His bundle), and nonselective His pacing (capture of nearby myocardium and His bundle). Activation maps were generated from these electrograms. Total activation time (TAT) was measured from the activation maps, and QRS duration was measured from a one-lead pseudo-ECG. Results showed that TAT, QRS duration, and activation sequence were most similar between sinus, selective, and nonselective His pacing. Bland-Altman analyses showed highest levels of similarity between all combinations of sinus, selective, and nonselective His pacing. RV and biV-CRT activation patterns were distinct from sinus and had significantly longer TAT and QRS duration. Cumulative activation graphs were most similar between sinus, selective, and nonselective His pacing. In conclusion, selective pacing and nonselective His bundle pacing are more similar to sinus compared with RV and biV-CRT pacing. Furthermore, selective pacing and nonselective His bundle pacing are not significantly different electrically.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Our high-density epicardial and endocardial electrical mapping study demonstrated that selective pacing and nonselective His bundle pacing are more electrically similar to sinus rhythm compared with right ventricular and biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing. Furthermore, small differences between selective and nonselective His bundle pacing, specifically a wider QRS in nonselective His pacing, do not translate into significant differences in the global activation pattern.

Comparison between his-bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing in patients with atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

Pacing the cardiac conduction system has been explored in patients with conduction system disease, but comprehensive comparisons between different pacing modalities are not well investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare pacing characteristics and ventricular synchrony between His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).

METHODS

Fifty pacemaker-indicated patients with AVB were enrolled. Twenty-five patients underwent HBP, and another 25 patients underwent LBBP. Success rate, procedural and fluoroscopy duration, pacing parameters, and echocardiographic data were perioperatively assessed and at 3-month follow-up.

RESULTS

HBP was successful in 19 of 25 (76.0%) patients, whereas LBBP was successful in 22 of 25 (88.0%) patients. Compared with HBP, LBBP capture threshold was significantly lower (0.76 ± 0.25 V/0.4 ms vs. 1.27 ± 0.61 V/1.0 ms, P = 0.003) and R-wave amplitude was significantly higher with LBBP (11.7 ± 6.6 vs. 4.9 ± 2.4 mV, P < 0.001) at implant. The mean procedural time (74.3 ± 17.8 vs. 63.2 ± 12.3 min, P = 0.029) and fluoroscopy duration (10.3 ± 4.5 vs. 6.8 ± 2.2 min, P = 0.005) were significantly longer in the HBP group compared to LBBP. At 3-month follow-up, pacing capture threshold remained more stable in LBBP than in HBP group while left ventricular synchrony was similar between both groups.

CONCLUSION

Despite similar impact on ventricular synchrony compared with HBP, LBBP featured a significantly lower pacing capture threshold, higher R-wave amplitude, and less time to achieve similar success rate in patients with AVB. These findings indicate LBBP as a physiological pacing strategy for AVB patients.

Clinical outcomes of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) in the form of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) allows normal left ventricular activation, thereby preventing the adverse consequences of right ventricular pacing. HBP has been established for several years with centers from China, Europe, and North America reporting their experience. There is international guidance as to how to implant such systems with the differing patterns of His bundle capture clearly described. LBBP is a more recent innovation with potential advantages including improved pacing parameters. HPCSP has been extensively studied in a variety of indications including cardiac resynchronization therapy, atrioventricular node ablation, and bradycardia pacing. This review will focus on the clinical outcomes of HPCSP including mortality and morbidity of heart failure hospitalization and symptoms.

Treatment of atrial fibrillation with third-degree atrioventricular block by pacing His bundle and left bundle branch: Case report

INTRODUCTION

Substantial advances in cardiac pacing technology have been developed in the past decades. However, efforts to improve pacing technology to achieve physiological electrical activity, such as with cardiac resynchronization therapy, are underway. Permanent His bundle pacing, which directly stimulates the His-Purkinje network and electrically activates both ventricles, simulates physiological electric activity in the heart, and has been considered an ideal pacing strategy to treat arrhythmias. For patients with atrial fibrillation complicated by third-degree atrioventricular block (AVB), permanent His bundle pacing is a better option than conventional right ventricular apical or septal pacing, the latter of which may be associated with risks, such as heart failure. However, His bundle pacing exhibits some shortcomings, including elevated pacing threshold, dislocation, and abnormal sensing.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old female patient who had atrial fibrillation (AF) complicated by third-degree AVB and who was treated with permanent His bundle pacing combined with left bundle branch pacing.

DIAGNOSIS

AF complicated by third-degree AVB.

INTERVENTIONS

We used the left bundle branch as a backup pacing site to overcome any shortcomings related to permanent His bundle pacing.

OUTCOMES

The patient recovered well without any events.

CONCLUSION

We selected His bundle pacing as the primary pacing, but also used left bundle branch pacing as a backup approach. If His bundle pacing results in an increased sensing threshold, pacing threshold changes, or dislocations, left bundle branch pacing can compensate for dysfunction of permanent deficiencies in His bundle pacing, preserving physiological pacing.

His bundle pacing insights from electroanatomical mapping: Topography and pacing targets

OBJECTIVES

To characterize 3D electroanatomical mapping (EAM) of the His bundle (HB) region.

BACKGROUND

Visualization of selective (S) and nonselective (NS) HB capture areas by EAM has not been described and may help guide HB pacing (HBP).

METHODS

EAM was performed via NavX system in 17 patients (pts) undergoing HBP. HB cloud, S-HB, NS-HB, and right bundle (RB) capture areas were mapped.

RESULTS

S-HBP areas were identified in 11, NS-HBP in 14, and RB in 11 pts. Two NS-HBP areas (upper and lower) either separated by S-HBP (8 pts) or almost contiguous (5 pts) were observed. S-HBP area measured: 1.1 ± 0.9 cm² , NS upper: -1.2 ± 0.9 cm² , NS lower: -1.2 ± 0.9 cm² , RB: -1.7 ± 1.3 cm² , total His cloud: -4.1 ± 2.7 cm² . Electrocardiogram (ECG) pacemaps were different between upper and lower NS-HBP areas in 13/14 pts (p = .006). ECG differences between NS clouds were present in inferior leads in 9 pts (more negative QRS complex from lower NS area) and in precordial leads in 5 pts. There was no correlation between HBP lead location and capture threshold. R-wave amplitude was higher at more distal locations on HB cloud (p = .02).

CONCLUSION

(1) Pacemapping identifies distinct regions that may correspond to HB anatomy. (2) A linear S-HBP area is typically surrounded by two separate NS areas. (3) Pace-map ECGs from upper and lower NS-HBP areas have different morphologies. (4) These EAM features and pace-mapping may be helpful to the implanter.

Antegrade Conduction Rescues Right Ventricular Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Complete Heart Block

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular (RV) pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) occurs in ∼30% of patients with RV leads. This study evaluated the long-term effects of restoring antegrade conduction with a biological pacemaker in a porcine model of RV PICM.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of this study was to determine if antegrade biological pacing can attenuate RV PICM.

METHODS

In pigs with complete atrioventricular (AV) block, transcription factor T-box 18 (TBX18) was injected into the His bundle region in either of 2 experimental protocols: protocol A sought to prevent PICM, and protocol B sought to reverse PICM. In protocol A, we injected adenoviral vectors expressing TBX18 (or the reporter construct green fluorescent protein) after AV node ablation, and observed the animals for 8 weeks. In protocol B, PICM was established by using AV node ablation and 4 weeks of electronic RV pacing, at which point TBX18 was injected into the His bundle region.

RESULTS

In protocol A, TBX18 biological pacing led to superior chronotropic support (62.4 ± 3 beats/min vs. 50.4 ± 0.4 beats/min; p = 0.01), lower backup pacemaker utilization (45 ± 2.6% vs. 94.6 ± 1.4%; p = 0.001), and greater ejection fraction (58.5 ± 1.3% vs. 46.7 ± 2%; p = 0.001). In protocol B, full-blown RV PICM was evident 4 weeks after complete AV block in both groups; subsequent intervention led to higher mean heart rate (56 ± 2 beats/min vs. 50.1 ± 0.4 beats/min; p = 0.05), less backup pacemaker utilization (53 ± 8.2% vs. 95 ± 1.6%; p = 0.003), and a greater ejection fraction (61.7 ± 1.3% vs. 49 ± 1.6%; p = 0.0003) in TBX18-injected animals versus control animals.

CONCLUSIONS

In a preclinical model, pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy can be prevented, and reversed, by restoring antegrade conduction with TBX18 biological pacing.

Recent approaches to His-Purkinje system pacing

OBJECTIVE

Physiologic cardiac pacing is a novel technique which has been largely popularized in recent decades. His bundle pacing (HBP) has been long considered the most physiologic pacing method; however, with the widespread implementation of this method, its disadvantages have become apparent. In this context, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP)-directly engaged in the His-Purkinje system-has been foreseen as the best pacing method to mimic physiologic activation patterns. This review aimed to summarize recent approaches to physiologic cardiac pacing.

DATA SOURCES

This review included fully peer reviewed publications up to July 2018, found in the PubMed database using the keywords "His bundle branch pacing," "right ventricular pacing," and "physiologic pacing."

STUDY SELECTION

All selected articles were in English, with no restriction on study design.

RESULTS

The HBP has been studied worldwide, and is currently considered the most physiologic pacing method. However, it has disadvantages, such as high pacing threshold, unsatisfactory sensing and long procedure times, among others. Although LBBP is theoretically superior to HBP, the clinical relevance of this difference remains under debate, as few large randomized clinical trials with LBBP have been published.

CONCLUSIONS

Although HBP indeed appears to be the most physiologic pacing method, it has certain shortcomings, such as high pacing threshold, difficult implantation due to specific anatomic features, and others. Further studies are required to clarify the clinical significance of LBBP.

Complications and prognosis of patients undergoing apical or septal right ventricular pacing

Objectives

Optimal right ventricular lead placement remains controversial. Large studies investigating the safety and long-term prognosis of apical and septal right ventricular lead placement have been lacking.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker insertion for high-degree atrioventricular block at Edinburgh Heart Centre were investigated. Periprocedural 30-day complications were defined (infection/bleeding/pneumothorax/tamponade/lead displacement). Long-term clinical outcomes were obtained from the General Register of Scotland and electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, new heart failure, hospitalisation for a major cardiovascular event, as per the CArdiac REsynchronization in Heart Failure trial. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, new heart failure and their composite.

Results

820 patients were included, 204 (25%) paced from the septum and 616 (75%) from the apex. All baseline variables were similar with the exception of age (septal: 73.2±1.1 vs apical: 76.9±0.5 years, p<0.001). Procedure duration (58±23 vs 55±25 min, p=0.3), complication rates (18 (8.8) vs 46 (7.5)%, p=0.5) and postimplant QRS duration (152 (23) vs 154 (27) ms, p=0.4) were similar. After 1041 days (IQR 564), 278 patients met the primary endpoint, with no difference between the septal and apical groups in unadjusted (HR 0.86 (95% CIs 0.64 to 1.15)) or multivariable analysis correcting for age, gender and comorbidity (HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.30)). Similarly, no differences were observed in the secondary endpoints.

Conclusions

This large real-world cohort of patients undergoing right ventricular lead placement in the septum or apex demonstrated no difference in procedural complications nor long-term clinical outcomes. Both pacing strategies appear reasonable in routine practice.

Non-selective His bundle pacing with a biphasic waveform: enhancing septal resynchronization

Aims

His bundle pacing has shown to prevent detrimental effects from right ventricular apical pacing (RVA) and proved to resynchronize many conduction disturbances cases. However, the extent of His bundle pacing resynchronization is limited. An optimized stimulation waveform could expand this limit when implemented in His bundle pacing sets. In this work, we temporarily implemented RVA and Non-selective His bundle pacing with a biphasic anodal-first waveform (AF-nHB) and compared their effects against sinus rhythm (SR).

Methods and results

Fifteen patients referred for electrophysiologic study with conduction disturbances, cardiomyopathy and ejection fraction below 35% were enrolled for the study. The following acute parameters were measured: QRS duration, left ventricular activation (RLVT), time of isovolumic contraction (IVCT), ejection fraction (EF), and dP/dtmax. QRS duration and RLVT decreased markedly under AF-nHB (SR: 169 ± 34 ms vs. nHB: 116 ± 31 ms, P < 0.0005) while RVA significantly increased QRS duration (SR: 169 ms vs. RVA: 198 ms, P < 0.05) and did not change RLVT (P = NS). Consistently, IVCT moderately decreased under AF-nHB (SR: 238 ms vs. RVA: 184 ms, P < 0.05 vs. SR) and dP/dtmax showed a 93.35 [mmHg] average increase under AF-nHB against SR. Also, T-wave inversions were observed during AF-nHB immediately after SR and RVA pacing suggesting the occurrence of cardiac memory.

Conclusions

AF-nHB corrected bundle branch blocks in patients with severe conduction disturbances, even in those with dilated cardiomiopathy, outstanding from RVA. Also, the occurrence of cardiac memory during AF-nHB turned up as an observational finding of this study.

Assessment of Permanent Selective His Bundle Pacing in Left Ventricular Synchronization Using 3-D Speckle Tracking Echocardiography

The study described here aimed to evaluate left ventricular (LV) systolic mechanical synchronization during permanent selective His bundle pacing (SHBP) using 3-D speckle-tracking echocardiography post-operatively and 6 mo after pacemaker implantation in 62 patients randomly assigned to SHBP (n = 32) or right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP, n = 30). A standard apex four-chamber view was exposed and was transformed into full-volume mode under 3-D echocardiography. Three-dimensional speckle-tracking echocardiography was analyzed offline. The primary endpoint was LV mechanical synchronization post-operatively and during the 6-mo follow-up. Significant LV dyssynchrony was detected while evaluating the maximum time difference and standard deviation of 16-segment systolic time to peak 3-D strain at 1 wk and 6 mo. The pacing thresholds were significantly higher in the SHBP than in the RVAP group throughout follow-up. The R-wave amplitude was significantly lower in the SHBP group than with RVAP. The pacing parameters during SHBP were as stable as during conventional RVAP during the mid-term follow-up. In conclusion, 3-D speckle-tracking echocardiography is feasible and provides a more convenient method for evaluating LV synchrony.

His Bundle (Conduction System) Pacing: A Contemporary Appraisal

The His bundle (conduction system) is an attractive target for physiologic pacing because it uses the native conduction system. Although the potential benefits of conduction system pacing were recognized in the 1970s, in the past 2 decades, it has grown in interest as a potentially preferred method of ventricular stimulation in appropriate patients. This review provides an appraisal of conduction system pacing, with focus on anatomy, physiology, tools, and techniques as well as an appraisal of current published data and thoughts on future directions.

His Bundle Pacing: Is It Ready for Prime Time?

Long-term right ventricular apical pacing has been associated with detrimental effects, including an increased risk for heart failure, atrial fibrillation, and death. Most of these adverse effects result from ventricular dyssynchrony related to perturbed ventricular depolarization. In addition, biventricular pacing has limited benefits in patients with non-left bundle branch block and severely reduced ejection fraction. Consequently, alternative pacing strategies that mimic natural physiology are desired. Recently, permanent His bundle pacing has emerged as a true physiologic form of ventricular pacing that has been shown to be safe and feasible in clinical practice.

Updates on His bundle pacing: The road more traveled lately

His bundle pacing (HBP) has continued to evolve over the past decade and has started to become a global phenomenon. Evidence is mounting of its clinical benefits as compared to both right ventricular and left ventricular pacing. In this paper, we review recent data in support of His bundle pacing and some of the challenges facing us as we advocate its increasing role in clinical practice.

Hemodynamics of His Bundle Pacing

In addition to the His bundle, numerous other sites have been evaluated as more physiologic alternatives to pacing at the right ventricular apex. Several hemodynamic studies have shown the benefit of His bundle pacing and septal pacing in comparison with right ventricular apical pacing. This article summarizes this literature and presents acute hemodynamic data in an intrapatient study examining His bundle pacing, right ventricular septal pacing, and right ventricular apical pacing.

Transvenous pacing in pediatric patients with bipolar lumenless lead: Ten-year clinical experience

INTRODUCTION

A number of challenges can affect long-term performance of endocardial implanted systems in pediatric patients. Select Secure™ lead offers potential advantages for this population. This analysis aims to evaluate long-term performance of this lead in children, with and without congenital heart disease.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of all patients younger than 16years, implanted with at least one Select Secure™ lead at our institution, was performed. Clinical patient characteristics, electrical lead parameters, implant related complications, occurrence of surgical revisions and other complications were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 2006 to 2016, 40 pediatric patients (26 males; age: 10.3±4.6years) underwent a cardiac device implantation with at least one Select Secure™ lead. Axillary vein access was chosen in 77.5% of the procedures. The intra-atrial loop of the leads was successfully created and the generator was placed in a sub-pectoral pocket in all patients. A total of 57 Select Secure™ leads were implanted: 23 in the right atrium and 34 in the right ventricle. PM/ICDs implantation was uneventful in all 40 patients. One lead, dislodged the day after implantation, was successfully extracted and replaced in the same day. Adequate pacing parameters were achieved during a follow-up of 6±2.9years (range 0.9-10.8years).

CONCLUSIONS

In a pediatric population, the Select Secure™ lead used in the axillary vein, the creation of an intra-atrial loop and the placement of the generator in a sub-pectoral pocket ensured a safe implantation of pacemaker or ICD and an effective stimulation at medium-term follow-up.

His Bundle Pacing: State of the Art

Traditional right ventricular pacing can be associated with adverse remodeling, leading to left ventricular dysfunction, functional mitral regurgitation, left atrial dilatation, as well as atrial and ventricular arrhythmias. His bundle pacing (HBP) has emerged as a viable and reliable alternative to right ventricular pacing. HBP has been around since the 1970s, but remained dormant even after the index clinical study in humans in 2000. However, with recently rejuvenated interest, it appears to be a promising strategy for achieving synchronous ventricular pacing. Multiple studies have now shown that HBP is feasible, safe, and offers better outcomes when compared with right ventricular pacing. It has also emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing for the provision of cardiac resynchronization therapy. This review gives a systematic appraisal of the history, feasibility, safety, techniques, efficacy, benefits, complications, and challenges, and offers a future perspective, of HBP.

His Bundle Pacing: A New Frontier in the Treatment of Heart Failure

Biventricular pacing has revolutionised the treatment of heart failure in patients with sinus rhythm and left bundle branch block; however, left ventricular-lead placement is not always technically possible. Furthermore, biventricular pacing does not fully normalise ventricular activation and, therefore, the ventricular resynchronisation is imperfect. Right ventricular pacing for bradycardia may cause or worsen heart failure in some patients by causing dyssynchronous ventricular activation. His bundle pacing activates the ventricles via the native His-Purkinje system, resulting in true physiological pacing, and, therefore, is a promising alternate site for pacing in bradycardia and traditional CRT indications in cases where it can overcome left bundle branch block. Furthermore, it may open up new indications for pacing therapy in heart failure, such as targeting patients with PR prolongation, but a narrow QRS duration. In this article we explore the physiology, technology and potential roles of His bundle pacing in the prevention and treatment of heart failure.

Integrative and quantitive evaluation of the efficacy of his bundle related pacing in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing: a meta-analysis

Background

Long-term RVP could bring adverse problems to cardiac electro-mechanics and result in inter- and intra-ventricular asynchrony, impaired labor force, and aggravation of cardiac function. HBRP including direct His bundle pacing and para-His bundle pacing was regarded as a novel physiological pacing pattern to avoid devastating cardiac function. This synthetic study was conducted to integratively and quantitatively evaluate the efficacy of His bundle related pacing (HBRP) in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP).

Methods

Published studies on comparison of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV), New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, inter-ventricular asynchrony, and QRS duration, etc. between HBRP and RVP were collected and for meta-analysis.

Results

HBRP showed higher LVEF (WMD = 3.9%, 95% CI: 1.6% – 6.1%), lower NYHA class (WMD = −0.5, 95% CI: -0.7 – -0.3), WMD of LVESV = −0.1 ml, 95% CI: -3.0 – 2.8 ml), less inter-ventricular asynchrony (WMD = −13.2 ms, 95% CI: -16.4 – -10.0 ms), and shorter QRS duration for long-term (WMD = −36.9 ms, 95% CI: -40.0 – -33.8 ms), however, no significant difference of ventricular volume (WMDLVEDV = −2.4 ml, 95% CI: -5.0 – 0.2 ml; WMDLVESV = −0.1 ml, 95% CI: -3.0 – 2.8 ml) compared to RVP.

Conclusions

The efficacy of HBRP was firstly verified by meta-analysis to date. Compared with RVP, HBRP markedly preserve LVEF, NYHA class, and QRS duration. However, it seemed to have less effect on ventricular volume.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0649-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.