Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with preserved ejection fraction undergoing permanent cardiac pacemaker placement

BACKGROUND

Chronic right-ventricular (RV) pacing can worsen heart failure in patients with a low ejection fraction (EF), but little is known about pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with preserved EF. We aimed to investigate risk factors of PICM in these patients during long-term follow-up.

METHODS

The prospective registry at Chosun University Hospital, South Korea, included de novo patients with preserved EF undergoing transvenous permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation for atrioventricular blockage from 2017 to 2021. Patients with EF ≥ 50% and expected ventricular pacing ≥ 40% were included. Composite outcomes were cardiac death (pump failure), hospitalization because of heart failure, PICM, and biventricular pacing (BVP) upgrade.

RESULTS

A total of 168 patients (69 men, 76.3 ± 10.4 years) were included. During three years of follow-up, one patient died, 14 were hospitalized, 16 suffered PICM, and two underwent BVP upgrade. PICM were associated with reduced global longitudinal strain (GLS), prolonged paced QRS duration (pQRSd) and diastolic variables (E/e', LAVI). Cox regression analysis identified pQRSd (hazard ratio [HR], 1.111; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.011-1.222; P = 0.03) and reduced GLS (HR, 1.569; 95% CI, 1.163-2.118; P = 0.003) as independent predictors of PICM. GLS showed high predictive accuracy for PICM, with an area under the curve of 0.84 (95% CI 0.779-0.894; P < 0.001) [GLS -12.0, 62.5% sensitivity, and 86.1% specificity].

CONCLUSION

RV pacing increased the risk of PICM in patients with preserved EF. Reduced GLS and prolonged pQRSd could help identify individuals at high risk of PICM even with preserved EF.

Conventional biventricular pacing is still preferred to conduction system pacing for atrioventricular block in patients with reduced ejection fraction and narrow QRS

It is well established that right ventricular pacing is detrimental in patients with reduced cardiac function who require ventricular pacing (VP), and alternatives nowadays are comprised of biventricular pacing (BiVP) and conduction system pacing (CSP). The latter modality is of particular interest in patients with a narrow baseline QRS as it completely avoids, or minimizes, ventricular desynchronization associated with VP. In this article, experts debate whether BiVP or CSP should be used to treat these patients.

Beneficial effects of upgrading to His-Purkinje system pacing in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) in the management of patients with pace-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched comprehensively to collect related studies published from the inception of databases to June 1, 2022. R 4.04 software, including the Metafor package, matrix package, and the Meta package, was utilized to conduct the singe-arm meta-analysis. The methodology index for non-randomized studies (MINORS) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies.

Results

A total of seven studies were included, involving 164 PICM patients. The meta-analysis showed that HPSP ameliorated the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by 13.41% (95% CI [11.21-15.61]), improved the New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification by 1.02 (95% CI [-1.41 to -0.63]), and shortened the QRS duration (QRSd) by 60.85 ms (95% CI [-63.94 to -57.75]), resulting in improved cardiac functions in PICM patients. Besides, HPSP reversed the ventricular remodeling, with a 32.46 ml (95% CI [-53.18 to -11.75]) decrease in left ventricular end systolic volume (LVESV) and a 5.93 mm (95% CI [-7.68 to -4.19]) decrease in left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD). HPSP also showed stable electrical parameters of pacemakers, with a 0.07 V (95% CI [0.01-0.13]) increase in pacing threshold, a 0.02 mV (95% CI [-0.85 to 0.90]) increase in sensed R-wave amplitude, and a 31.12 Ω reduction in impedance (95% CI [-69.62 to 7.39]). Compared with LBBP, HBP improved LVEF by 13.28% (95% CI [-11.64 to 14.92]) vs 14.43% (95% CI [-13.01 to 15.85]), ameliorated NHYA classification by 1.18 (95% CI [-1.97 to -0.39]) vs 0.95 (95% CI [-1.33 to -0.58]), shortened QRSd by 63.16 ms (95% CI [-67.00 to -59.32]) vs 57.98 ms (95% CI [-62.52 to -53.25]), and decreased LVEDD by 4.12 mm (95% CI [-5.79 to -2.45]) vs 6.26 mm (95% CI [-62.52 to -53.25]). The electrical parameters of the pacemaker were stable in both groups.

Conclusions

This meta-analysis showed that HPSP could significantly improve cardiac function, promote reverse remodeling, and provide stable electrical parameters of pacemakers for PICM patients.

Preferred left ventricular lead position for upgrade from right ventricular pacing to cardiac resynchronization therapy

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is well-established for treating symptomatic heart failure with electrical dyssynchrony. The left ventricular (LV) lead position is recommended at LV posterolateral to lateral sites in patients with left bundle branch block; however, its preferred region remains unclear in patients being upgraded from right ventricular (RV) apical pacing to CRT. This study aimed to identify the preferred LV lead position for upgrading conventional RV apical pacing to CRT.

METHODS

We used electrode catheters positioned at the RV apex and LV anterolateral and posterolateral sites via the coronary sinus (CS) branches to measure the ratio of activation time to QRS duration from the RV apex to the LV anterolateral and posterolateral sites during RV apical pacing. Simultaneous biventricular pacing was performed at the RV apex and each LV site, and the differences in QRS duration and LV dP/dtmax from those of RV apical pacing were measured.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven patients with anterolateral and posterolateral LV CS branches were included. During RV apical pacing, the average ratio of activation time to QRS duration was higher at the LV anterolateral site than at the LV posterolateral site (0.90 ± 0.06 vs. 0.71 ± 0.11, p < .001). The decreasing ratio of QRS duration and the increasing ratio of LV dP/dtmax were higher at the LV anterolateral site than at the posterolateral site (45.7 ± 18.0% vs. 32.0 ± 17.6%, p < .001; 12.7 ± 2.9% vs. 3.7 ± 8.2%, p < .001, respectively) during biventricular pacing compared with RV apical pacing.

CONCLUSION

The LV anterolateral site is the preferred LV lead position in patients being upgraded from conventional RV apical pacing to CRT.

Pacing induced cardiomyopathy: recognition and management

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

Impact of diastolic dysfunction in patients with preserved ejection fraction undergoing permanent cardiac pacemaker placement

Background

Chronic right-ventricular (RV) pacing can exacerbate heart failure in patients with a low ejection fraction (EF). There is little information on the effects of diastolic dysfunction (DD) in patients with preserved EF undergoing permanent pacemaker (PPM) placement. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcomes in these patients.

Methods

This multicenter, retrospective analysis of PPM use in Chonnam, South Korea, included all patients with preserved EF undergoing transvenous PPM implantation for atrioventricular blockage from 2017 to 2019. Patients were divided into two groups according to DD, which were assessed by including mitral flow velocities (E′ velocity, E/E′ ratio), peak velocity of the tricuspid regurgitant, and left atrial maximum volume index. Composite outcomes were defined as (1) cardiovascular death, and (2) hospitalization by heart failure during the follow-up period.

Results

One hundred sixty-seven patients (66 men; overall mean age, 75.3 ± 11.9 years) were divided into two groups: 125 normal versus 42 DD. Compared with normal subjects, the DD group included older patients (mean age, 79.1 ± 9.9 vs. 74.0 ± 12.3; p = 0.016), and had longer paced QTc interval (pQTc, 168.5 ± 20.1 vs. 159.1 ± 16.3 ms; p < 0.001). Fifteen patients were hospitalized and two died. In a Cox proportional regression analysis, DD (hazard ratio [HR], 7.343; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.035–26.494; p = 0.002) and pQRSd (HR, 1.046; 95% CI, 1.004–1.091; p = 0.033) were independent predictors of composite outcomes.

Conclusion

In patients with DD, RV pacing raised the risk of pacing-induced heart failure despite preserved left-ventricular function. Thus, patients with DD should be monitored intensively.

Ventricular Dyssynchrony and Pacing-induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with Pacemakers, the Utility of Ultra-high-frequency ECG and Other Dyssynchrony Assessment Tools

The majority of patients tolerate right ventricular pacing well; however, some patients manifest signs of heart failure after pacemaker implantation and develop pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This is a consequence of non-physiological ventricular activation bypassing the conduction system. Ventricular dyssynchrony was identified as one of the main factors responsible for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy development. Currently, methods that would allow rapid and reliable ventricular dyssynchrony assessment, ideally during the implant procedure, are lacking. Paced QRS duration is an imperfect marker of dyssynchrony, and methods based on body surface mapping, electrocardiographic imaging or echocardiography are laborious and time-consuming, and can be difficult to use during the implantation procedure. However, the ventricular activation sequence can be readily displayed from the chest leads using an ultra-high-frequency ECG. It can be performed during the implantation procedure to visualise ventricular depolarisation and resultant ventricular dyssynchrony during pacing. This information can assist the electrophysiologist in selecting a pacing location that avoids dyssynchronous ventricular activation.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Upgrading to His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) has been proven to reverse ventricular remodeling and improve cardiac function in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). This meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and clinical benefit of upgrading to HPCSP in patients with PICM after chronic right ventricular pacing (RVP).

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Embase for relevant articles from databases' establishment to April 22, 2022. Clinical outcomes and pacing parameters included left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) pre-RVP, pre-HPCSP, and during follow-up, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at baseline and follow-up, lead-related complications, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, pacing thresholds at implant and during follow-up, and QRS duration (QRSd) pre-RVP, pre-HPCSP, and during follow-up.

RESULTS

A total of 6 articles including 144 patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis. QRSd increased from 127 ± 29 ms at baseline to 175 ± 19 ms (P < 0.001) during RVP and then significantly narrowed to 116 ± 18 ms (P < 0.001) after upgrading to HPCSP. During a mean follow-up of 17.9 ± 10.5 months, LVEF improved from 35 ± 8% pre-HPSCP to 48 ± 12% after upgrading to HPCSP (P < 0.001). The capture thresholds were 1.2 ± 0.9 V at baseline and increased slightly during follow-up. NYHA functional class improved significantly from 2.7 ± 0.8 to 1.9 ± 0.8 during follow-up (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our meta-analysis indicates that upgrading to HPCSP in patients with PICM is feasible and efficient, as it significantly improves electrical synchrony and cardiac function.

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.

Pacemaker Induced Cardiomyopathy: An Overview of Current Literature

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

Feasibility and Outcomes of Upgrading to Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients With Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy and Infranodal Atrioventricular Block

His bundle pacing (HBP) can reverse left ventricular (LV) remodeling in patients with right ventricular (RV) pacing-induced cardimyopathy (PICM) but may be unable to correct infranodal atrioventricular block (AVB). Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) results in rapid LV activation and may be able to reliably pace beyond the site of AVB. Our study was conducted to assess the feasibility, safety, and outcomes of permanent LBBP in infranodal AVB and PICM patients. Patients with infranodal AVB and PICM who underwent LBBP for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) were included. Clinical evaluation and echocardiographic and electrocardiographic assessments were recorded at baseline and follow-up. Permanent LBBP upgrade was successful in 19 of 20 patients with a median follow-up duration of 12 months. QRS duration (QRSd) increased from 139.3 ± 28.0 ms at baseline to 176.2 ± 21.4 ms (P < 0.001) with right ventricular pacing (RVP) and was shortened to 120.9 ± 15.2 ms after LBBP (P < 0.001). The mean LBBP threshold was 0.7 ± 0.3 V at 0.4 ms at implant and remained stable during follow-up. The left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 36.3% ± 6.5% to 51.9% ± 13.0% (P < 0.001) with left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) reduced from 180.1 ± 43.5 to 136.8 ± 36.7 ml (P < 0.001) during last follow-up. LBBP paced beyond the site of block, which results in a low pacing threshold with a high success rate in infranodal AVB patients. LBBP improved LV function with stable parameters over the 12 months, making it a reasonable alternative to cardiac resynchronization pacing via a coronary sinus lead in infranodal AVB and PICM patients.

Assessing the facilities and healthcare services for heart failure: Taiwan versus European countries

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE

The present study was designed to evaluate the local cardiology infrastructure and services for heart failure (HF) care in Taiwan hospitals and to compare the HF care with the hospitals in European countries.

METHODS

Available data from a total of 98 medical centers and regional hospitals in Taiwan were analyzed. Each facility was given a single copy of the questionnaire between September and December 2019, and service records were extracted from the National Health Insurance Database. European data were adopted from the 2017 European Society of Cardiology Atlas.

RESULTS

The number of cardiologists per million populations in Taiwan was 57.4, and it was lower than the European median (72.8). The median percentages of interventional and electrophysiologists among cardiologists were 64% and 15% in Taiwan, which were both higher than the European median values (12% and 5%, respectively). The accessibility rates to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in Taiwan were both higher (3.4 and 3.0 centers per million populations) comparing to those in European countries (median 1.6 and 1.5 centers per million populations). Comparing to 67 hospitals without HF care teams in Taiwan, 31 hospitals (31.6%) with HF teams have significantly more cardiology staff, enhanced procedural capabilities with more alternatives on oral or intravenous HF relevant medications.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis clearly demonstrated discrepancies in cardiology subspecialties and CRT/ICD accessibilities between European countries and Taiwan. Variations in HF-focused services and facilities plus HF-directed medications have demonstrated significant differences among Taiwanese hospitals with or without HF care team.

His Bundle Pacing – Stand-alone or adjunctive physiological pacing: a systematic review

His-bundle pacing (HBP) appears to be a viable stand-alone or adjunctive physiological pacing therapy in pacemaker dependent patients. It could also serve as an effective adjunct or alternative pacing therapy for heart failure patients who require cardiac resynchronization therapy or pacemaker upgrade. His-bundle pacing has demonstrated improvement of His-Purkinje conduction, left ventricular electrical / mechanical synchronization, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) compared with right ventricle pacing. Patients who have high pacing dependence and/or LVEF impairment would benefit most from HBP in terms of heart failure hospitalization and LVEF improvement. Mortality benefit has not been consistently demonstrated in latest meta-analysis. The long-term clinical benefit and safety profile of HBP remains to be explored in future studies.  Key words: His bundle pacing, physiologic pacing, upgrade pacing

Network meta-analysis of His bundle, biventricular, or right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for advanced atrioventricular conduction disease with normal or mildly reduced ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Although right ventricular pacing (RVP) may impair ventricular function, it is commonly used for advanced atrioventricular block (AVB) and normal or mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF). We aimed to compare His bundle pacing (HBP), biventricular pacing (BiVP), and RVP for advanced AVB in patients with normal or mildly reduced EF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Outcomes were all-cause death, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH), EF, left ventricular volumes, 6-minute walk test, and QRS duration. HBP or BiVP was compared with RVP. Subsequently, network meta-analysis compared the three pacing options. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018094132). Six studies compared BiVP and RVP (704 vs 614 patients) and four compared HBP and RVP (463 vs 568 patients). Follow-up was 6 months to 5 years. There was significantly lower mortality and HFH with HBP or BiVP as compared with RVP (odds ratio [OR], 0.66, [0.51-0.85], P = .002; OR, 0.61 [0.45-0.82], P < .001, respectively]. HBP or BiVP also showed significant increase in EF and decrease in QRS duration (mean difference [MD], 5.27 [3.86-6.69], P < .001; MD -42.2 [-51.2 to -33.3], P < .001, respectively). In network meta-analysis, HBP and BiVP were associated with significantly improved survival compared to RVP, with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability of 79.4%, 69.4%, and 1.2% for HBP, BiVP, and RVP, respectively. For HFH, SUCRA probability was 91.5%, 57.2%, and 1.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HBP or BiVP were the superior strategies to reduce all-cause death and HFH for advanced AVB with normal or mildly reduced EF, with no significant difference between BiVP and HBP.

Efficacy, Safety, and Performance of Isolated Left vs. Right Ventricular Pacing in Patients with Bradyarrhythmias: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Background

Considering the potential deleterious effects of right ventricular (RV) pacing, the hypothesis of this study is that isolated left ventricular (LV) pacing through the coronary sinus is safe and may provide better clinical and echocardiographic benefits to patients with bradyarrhythmias and normal ventricular function requiring heart rate correction alone.

Objective

To assess the safety, efficacy, and effects of LV pacing using an active-fixation coronary sinus lead in comparison with RV pacing, in patients eligible for conventional pacemaker (PM) implantation.

Methods

Randomized, controlled, and single-blinded clinical trial in adult patients submitted to PM implantation due to bradyarrhythmias and systolic ventricular function ≥ 0.40. Randomization (RV vs. LV) occurred before PM implantation. The main results of the study were procedural success, safety, and efficacy. Secondary results were clinical and echocardiographic changes. Chi-squared test, Fisher's exact test and Student's t-test were used, considering a significance level of 5%.

Results

From June 2012 to January 2014, 91 patients were included, 36 in the RV Group and 55 in the LV Group. Baseline characteristics of patients in both groups were similar. PM implantation was performed successfully and without any complications in all patients in the RV group. Of the 55 patients initially allocated into the LV group, active-fixation coronary sinus lead implantation was not possible in 20 (36.4%) patients. The most frequent complication was phrenic nerve stimulation, detected in 9 (25.7%) patients in the LV group. During the follow-up period, there were no hospitalizations due to heart failure. Reductions of more than 10% in left ventricular ejection fraction were observed in 23.5% of patients in the RV group and 20.6% of those in the LV group (p = 0.767). Tissue Doppler analysis showed that 91.2% of subjects in the RV group and 68.8% of those in the LV group had interventricular dyssynchrony (p = 0.022).

Conclusion

The procedural success rate of LV implant was low, and the safety of the procedure was influenced mainly by the high rate of phrenic nerve stimulation in the postoperative period.

Impact of Physiologic Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing Among Patients With Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Greater Than 35%: A Systematic Review for the 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether physiologic pacing by either cardiac biventricular pacing (BiVP) or His bundle pacing (HisBP) may prevent adverse structural and functional consequences known to occur among some patients who receive right ventricular pacing (RVP).

AIM

Our analysis sought to review existing literature to determine if BiVP and/or HisBP might prevent adverse remodeling and be associated with structural, functional, and clinical advantages compared with RVP among patients without severe left ventricular dysfunction (>35%) who required permanent pacing because of heart block.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (through PubMed) and Embase to identify randomized trials and observational studies comparing the effects of BiVP or HisBP versus RVP on measurements of left ventricular dimensions, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure functional classification, quality of life, 6-minute walk, hospitalizations, and mortality. Data from studies that met the appropriate population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest were abstracted for meta-analysis. Studies that reported pooled outcomes among patients with LVEF both above and below 35% could not be included in the meta-analysis because of strict relationships with industry procedures that preclude retrieval of industry-retained unpublished data on the subset of patients with preserved left ventricular function.

RESULTS

Evidence from 8 studies, including a total of 679 patients meeting the prespecified criteria for inclusion, was identified. Results were compared for BiVP versus RVP, HisBP versus RVP, and BiVP+HisBP versus RVP. Among patients who received physiologic pacing with either BiVP or HisBP, the LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were significantly lower (mean duration of follow-up: 1.64 years; -2.77 mL [95% CI -4.37 to -1.1 mL]; P=0.001; and -7.09 mL [95% CI -11.27 to -2.91; P=0.0009) and LVEF remained preserved or increased (mean duration of follow-up: 1.57 years; 5.328% [95% CI: 2.86%-7.8%; P<0.0001). Data on clinical impact such as functional status and quality of life were not definitive. Data on hospitalizations were unavailable. There was no effect on mortality. Several studies stratified results by LVEF and found that patients with LVEF >35% but ≤52% were more likely to receive benefit from physiologic pacing. Patients with chronic atrial fibrillation who underwent atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implant demonstrated clear improvement in LVEF with BiVP or HisBP versus RVP.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with LVEF >35%, the LVEF remained preserved or increased with either BiVP or HisBP compared with RVP. However, patient-centered clinical outcome improvement appears to be limited primarily to patients who have chronic atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response rates and have undergone atrioventricular node ablation.

Dual-Site Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Fontan Physiology and Heart Block: Does it Mitigate the Detrimental Effects of Single-Site Ventricular Pacing?

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to determine the long-term effect of dual-site ventricular pacing (i.e., cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT]) versus single-site pacing in patients with Fontan physiology and high-grade atrioventricular block (AVB).

BACKGROUND

Chronic single-site ventricular pacing in Fontan patients is associated with significant morbidity and mortality.

METHODS

The study conducted a retrospective review of all Fontan patients with high-grade AVB who received pacemakers at a single institution between 1990 and 2016 with follow-up of 12 months or greater. The primary study outcome was a composite of death or heart transplantation.

RESULTS

Nineteen patients received CRT devices and 43 patients received single-site ventricular pacemakers (SVPMs), with a median follow-up of 4.9 years (range 1.1 to 11.3 years) and 10.4 years (range 1.1 to 26.8 years), respectively. One (5.3%) CRT patient and 11 (25.6%) SVPM patients reached the composite endpoint of death or transplant (odds ratio: 0.16; 95% confidence interval: 0.02 to 1.36; p = 0.09). Kaplan-Meier analysis showed similar rates of freedom from death or transplant between the 2 study groups over a 5-year follow-up period (p = 0.08). The proportion of SVPM patients with abnormal ventricular systolic function before device implantation (9.5%) and at follow-up (33.3%) significantly increased (p=0.009). The CRT cohort had less change in their ventricular function (42.1% before device implant, 36.8% at follow-up; p = 1.00); however, a Kaplan-Meier analysis over a 5-year follow-up period found no difference in the presence of abnormal ventricular systolic function between groups (p = 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference in long-term outcomes between Fontan patients who were single- or dual-site paced for high-grade AVB.

Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is a well described phenomenon that occurs in a minority of patients exposed to high-burden right ventricular (RV) pacing. Although several risk factors may identify patients at increased risk of PICM, many individuals tolerate high-burden RV pacing for many years without obviously deleterious effects, and the ability to identify those at highest risk remains insufficient. Treatment of PICM has primarily involved upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy once signs of cardiomyopathy manifest. The emergence of His bundle pacing may offer an opportunity to prevent PICM before it occurs.

Clinical outcomes with biventricular versus right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular conduction defects

There have been increasing concerns about the unexpected effects of right ventricular (RV) pacing. We aimed to systematically evaluate the effect of biventricular (BiV) versus RV pacing on clinical events in patients with impaired AV conduction. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing BiV pacing with RV pacing in patients with AV block, through April 2017. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on mortality, hospitalization for heart failure (HF), and/or 6-min walk distance (6MWD). A total of 12 RCTs were finally included. Pooled analysis suggested that BiV pacing was associated with a significantly reduced all-cause mortality in contrast to RV pacing (risk ratio (RR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.95, I² = 9.6%). BiV pacing, compared with RV pacing, significantly reduced the rate of HF hospitalization (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93, I² = 10.1%). Sensitivity analyses by excluding studies with AV nodal ablation showed that BiV pacing still had a lower mortality and non-significant reduced HF hospitalization. Patients in BiV and RV pacing mode had a similar 6WMD at follow-up (mean difference = 4.99 m, 95% CI - 11.34 to 21.33 m, I² = 0%). Meta-regression analysis showed that the effect size of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization was not significantly associated with mean LVEF value at baseline. In patients with impaired AV conduction that need frequent ventricular pacing, BiV pacing was associated with reduced mortality and hospitalization for HF, compared with traditional RV pacing mode.

Avoiding non-responders to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a practical guide

Over two decades after the introduction of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) into clinical practice, ∼30% of candidates continue to fail to respond to this highly effective treatment of drug-refractory heart failure (HF). Since the causes of this non-response (NR) are multifactorial, it will require multidisciplinary efforts to overcome. Progress has, thus far, been slowed by several factors, ranging from a lack of consensus regarding the definition of NR and technological limitations to the delivery of therapy. We critically review the various endpoints that have been used in landmark clinical trials of CRT, and the variability in response rates that has been observed as a result of these different investigational designs, different sample populations enrolled and different means of therapy delivered, including new means of multisite and left ventricular endocardial simulation. Precise recommendations are offered regarding the optimal device programming, use of telemonitoring and optimization of management of HF. Potentially reversible causes of NR to CRT are reviewed, with emphasis on loss of biventricular stimulation due to competing arrhythmias. The prevention of NR to CRT is essential to improve the overall performance of this treatment and lower its risk-benefit ratio. These objectives require collaborative efforts by the HF team, the electrophysiologists and the cardiac imaging experts.

Chronic Right Ventricular Pacing in the Heart Failure Population

Purpose of Review

We review the trials that have demonstrated potentially harmful effects from right ventricular (RV) apical pacing as well as reviewing the evidence of alternative RV pacing sites and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for patients who have heart failure and atrioventricular (AV) block.

Recent Findings

The role of CRT in patients with AV block and impaired left ventricular function remains an important consideration. The BLOCK HF trial demonstrated better outcomes with CRT pacing over RV pacing in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and AV block who were expected to have a high RV pacing burden, but failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit.

Summary

CRT seems to have a beneficial effect on left ventricular reverse remodeling, systolic function, and clinical outcomes in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I–III heart failure, moderate to severe LVSD, and AV block compared to RV pacing. However, it is less clear whether there is a similar benefit from CRT in patients with a high percentage of RV pacing who have normal or mild LVSD in the treatment of AV block.

Role of cardiac pacing in congenital complete heart block

INTRODUCTION

Congenital complete heart block affects 1/15,000 live-born infants, predominantly due to atrioventricular nodal injury from maternal antibodies of mothers with systemic lupus erythermatosus or Sjogren's syndrome. The majority of these children will need a pacemaker implanted prior to becoming young adults. This article will review the various patient and technical factors that influence the type of pacemaker implanted, and the current literature on optimal pacing practices. Areas covered: A literature search was performed using PubMed, Embase and Web of Science. Data regarding epicardial versus transvenous implants, pacing-induced ventricular dysfunction, alternative pacing strategies (including biventricular pacing, left ventricular pacing, and His bundle pacing), and complications with pacemakers in the pediatric population were reviewed. Expert commentary: There are numerous pacing strategies available to children with congenital complete heart block. The risks and benefits of the initial implant should be weighed against the long-term issues inherent with a life-time of pacing.

Permanent His Bundle Pacing: The Past, Present, and Future

Long-term right ventricular (RV) apical pacing has been associated with an increased risk of death, heart failure, and atrial fibrillation (AF). Alternative sites for RV pacing have not proven to be superior to RV apical pacing. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using a biventricular (BiV) lead system is indicated for patients with a low left ventricular ejection fraction and QRS prolongation, but there remains about a 25-30% nonresponse rate. CRT has been less effective for nonleft bundle branch block conduction delay and with normal/low normal left ventricular function. Over the past decade, there have been more data on the feasibility and advantages of pacing at the His Bundle (HB) region. We review the anatomy and physiology of the HB, the available data on permanent HB pacing, its current and potential future applications.

His Bundle Pacing Or Biventricular Pacing For Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy In Heart Failure: Discovering New Methods For An Old Problem

Heart failure (HF) is one of the biggest epidemics of modern cardiovascular medicine. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular (BiV) pacing has proven to have an integral role in the management of patients with reduced left ventricular (LV) function and left bundle branch blocks (LBBB). However, CRT with BiV pacing is not always feasible and even when it is, the percentage of non-responders remains high. Limitations in LV lead implantation due to anatomical or other constraints; non response to BiV pacing due to lead position or patient related factors and lack of benefit in patients with RBBB and patients with AV block and low normal LV function limit the use of BiV pacing. Permanent His Bundle pacing (HBP) is now a feasible alternative to BiV pacing for CRT therapy. This allows for recruitment of BBB disease and ventricular activation in a more physiological fashion. In this paper we review the physiology of HBP, available data on HBP for CRT and highlight how HBP can be a potential alternative in patients in whom BiV pacing did not provide clinical response or was unsuccessful.

Outcomes Related to First-Degree Atrioventricular Block and Therapeutic Implications in Patients With Heart Failure

The prevalence of first-degree atrioventricular block in the general population is approximately 4%, and it is associated with an increased risk of atrial fibrillation. Cardiac pacing for any indication in patients with first-degree heart block is associated with worse outcomes compared with patients with normal atrioventricular conduction. Among patients with heart failure, first-degree atrioventricular block is present in anywhere between 15% and 51%. Data from cardiac resynchronization therapy studies have shown that first-degree atrioventricular block is associated with an increased risk of mortality and heart failure hospitalization. Recent studies suggest that optimization of atrioventricular delay in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy is an important target for therapy; however, the optimal method for atrioventricular resynchronization remains unknown. Understanding the role of first-degree atrioventricular block in the treatment of patients with heart failure will improve medical and device therapy.