Apical vs. non-apical right ventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Septal Pacing: Mid-term Results and Learning Curve

Our study evaluated the efficacy and feasibility of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) compared to right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing (RVOSP). We conducted a prospective, single-center, observational study involving 200 consecutive patients who required pacemaker implantation. The patients were divided into two groups (LBBAP and RVOSP), with 100 patients in each group. We aimed to compare the safety and efficacy, as well as the procedure and fluoroscopy times, between the two groups. Additionally, we aimed to describe the learning curve for the LBBAP group. The success and acute complication rates were similar (P = .56 vs. P = .65). The procedure time was longer in the LBBAP group compared to the RVOSP group (18 [13-28] vs. 11 [7-17] min; P < .001), while the fluoroscopy time was shorter in the LBBAP group compared to the RVOSP group (2.8 [1.3-3.7] vs. 3.1 [2-5.9] min; P = .02). The paced QRS interval was narrower in the LBBAP group (123.77 ± 10.25 vs. 159.79 ± 17.0 ms; P = .001). There were no significant differences in pacing parameters like R-wave sensing (9.6 ± 5.2 vs. 9.1 ± 4.7 mV; P = .91), bipolar impedance (685.9 ± 151.8 vs. 686.5 ± 158.6 Ω; P = .98), or pacing threshold (0.70 ± 0.29 vs. 0.64 ± 0.26 V @ 0.4 ms; P = .63). In the LBBAP group, both the procedure time (12 [10.5-15] vs. 32 [28.5-38.5] min; P < .001) and the fluoroscopy time (2 [1-4.6] vs. 5.1 [3.4-12] min; P < .01) were shorter in the last quartile (Q4) compared to the first quartile (Q1). The procedure time was similar between LBBAP Q4 and RVOSP (12 [10.5-15] vs. 11 [7-17] min; P = .33). LBBAP is as safe as RVOSP and achieves a narrower paced QRS compared to RVOSP. After a rapid learning curve, a shorter fluoroscopy time and a similar procedure time can be achieved.

Apical or Septal Right Ventricular Location in Patients Receiving Defibrillation Leads: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This study reviews the published data comparing the efficacy and safety of apical and septal right ventricle defibrillator lead positioning at 1-year follow-up. Systemic research on Medline (PubMed), ClinicalTrials.gov , and Embase was performed using the keywords "septal defibrillation," "apical defibrillation," "site defibrillation," and "defibrillation lead placement," including implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices. Comparisons between apical and septal position were performed regarding R-wave amplitude, pacing threshold at a pulse width of 0.5 ms, pacing and shock lead impedance, suboptimal lead performance, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, readmissions due to heart failure and mortality rates. A total of 5 studies comprising 1438 patients were included in the analysis. Mean age was 64.5 years, 76.9% were male, with a median LVEF of 27.8%, ischemic etiology in 51.1%, and a mean follow-up period of 26.5 months. The apical lead placement was performed in 743 patients and septal lead placement in 690 patients. Comparing the 2 placement sites, no significant differences were found regarding R-wave amplitude, lead impedance, suboptimal lead performance, LVEF, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, and mortality rate at 1-year follow-up. Pacing threshold values favored septal defibrillator lead placement ( P = 0.003), as well as shock impedance ( P = 0.009) and readmissions due to heart failure ( P = 0.02). Among patients receiving a defibrillator lead, only pacing threshold, shock lead impedance, and readmission due to heart failure showed results favoring septal lead placement. Therefore, generally, the right ventricle lead placement does not appear to be of major importance.

Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in Japanese patients with bradycardia

Background

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) emerge as better alternatives to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP, HBP, and RVAP in Japanese patients with bradycardia.

Methods

A total of 424 patients who underwent successful pacemaker implantation (HBP, n = 53; LBBAP, n = 75; and RVAP, n = 296) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The primary study endpoint was the cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) during the follow-up.

Results

The success rate for implantation was higher in the LBBAP group than in the HBP group (94.9% and 81.5%, respectively). Capture threshold increase >1V during the follow-up occurred in the HBP and RVAP groups (9.4% and 5.1%, respectively), while it did not in the LBBAP group. The cumulative incidence of HFH was significantly lower in the LBBAP group than the RVAP (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.12 [95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.86]; p = .034); it did not differ between the HBP and RVAP groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.17-1.34]; p = .16). Advanced age, mean percent right ventricular pacing (per 10% increase), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, and RVAP were associated with HFH.

Conclusions

Compared to RVAP and HBP, LBBAP appeared more feasible and effective in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

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

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

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

Purpose

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

Patients and Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusion

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

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.

Assessing cardiac mechanical dyssynchrony in left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular septal pacing using myocardial perfusion scintigraphy in the acute phase of pacemaker implantation

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been reported to be a new, clinically feasible and safe physiological pacing strategy. The present study aims to investigate the usefulness of LBBAP in reducing mechanical dyssynchrony compared with right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

A total of 39 LBBAP patients, 42 RVSP patients, and 93 healthy control participants were retrospectively evaluated. We compared phase analysis- (bandwidth, phase standard deviation [PSD], entropy) and regional wall motion analysis parameters. Wall motion analysis parameters included the time to the end-systolic frame (TES) assessed using single-photon emission computed tomography analysis. The maximum differences between segmental TES (MDTES), the standard deviation of TES (SDTES), and the TES difference between the lateral and septal segments (DTES-LS) were obtained. All phase analysis parameters were significantly smaller in the LBBAP group than in the RVSP group (bandwidth: LBBAP, 74 ± 31° vs. RVSP, 102 ± 59°, p=0.009; PSD: LBBAP, 19 ± 6.7° vs. RVSP, 26 ± 15°, p=0.007; entropy: LBBAP, 0.57 ± 0.07 vs. RVSP, 0.62 ± 0.11 p=0.009). The regional wall motion analysis parameters were also smaller in the LBBAP group than in the RVSP group (MDTES:LBBAP, 17 ± 7.1% vs. RVSP, 25 ± 14%, p=0.004; SDTES :LBBAP, 4.5 ± 1.7% vs. RVSP, 6.0 ± 3.5%, p=0.015; DTES-LS: LBBAP, 4.1 ± 3.4% vs. RVSP, 7.1 ± 5.4%, p=0.004). All phase analysis and wall motion analysis parameters were same in the LBBAP and control groups.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP may reduce mechanical dyssynchrony and achieve greater physiological ventricular activation than RVSP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Preliminary study on left bundle branch area pacing in children:clinical observation of 12 cases

OBJECTIVE

To explore the safety and feasibility of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in children.

METHODS

This study observed 12 children attempted LBBAP from January 2019 to January 2021 in the department of pediatric cardiology of Anzhen Hospital prospectively.Clinical data, pacing parameters, electrocardiograms, intracardiac electrograms, echocardiographic measurements and complications were recorded at implant and during follow-up.

RESULTS

The 12 patients aged between 3 and 14 years old and weighted from 13 to 48kg. Eleven patients were diagnosed with third-degree atrioventricular block and 1 patient (case 4) suffered from cardiac dysfunction due to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP). Left bundle branch area pacing was successfully achieved in all patients with narrow QRS complexes and V₁ lead showed changes like right bundle branch block in the pacing electrocardiogram. Left ventricular ejection fraction in case 4 recovered on the 3rd day after LBBAP. The median of left ventricular end diastolic diameter Z score of the 12 patients decreased from 1.75 to1.05 3 months after implantation (p<0.05). The median of paced QRS duration was 103ms. The median of pacing threshold, R-wave amplitude and impedance were 0.85V, 15mV and 717Ω respectively and remained stable during follow-up. No complications such as loss of capture, lead dislodgement or septal perforation occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

Left bundle branch area pacing can be performed safely in children with narrow QRS duration and stable pacing parameters. Cardiac dysfunction caused by long-term RVAP can be corrected by LBBAP quickly. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Evaluation of clinical safety and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing in comparison with right ventricular septal pacing

ABSTRACT

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has recently emerged as a new physiological pacing strategy. The purpose of this study is to compare LBBaP with right ventricular sepal pacing (RVSP) in terms of their clinical safety and efficacy.From February 2019 to May 2020, consecutive pacing-indicated patients were prospectively enrolled and divided into 2 groups. Ventricular synchrony indexes such as QRS duration (QRSd), interventricular mechanical delay and septal-posterior wall motion delay, left ventricular function such as left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pacing parameters, and complications were evaluated in the perioperative period and during follow-up.LBBaP was successful in 45 patients (88.2%), and finally 46 patients underwent RVSP. With LBBaP, ventricular electricalmechanical synchrony were similar to those of native-conduction system (P = .78). However, the ventricular electrical synchrony (QRSd, 108.47±7.64 vs 130.63±13.63ms, P < .001) and mechanical synchrony (interventricular mechanical delay, 27.68±4.33 vs 39.88±5.83, P < .001; septal-posterior wall motion delay, 40.39±23.21 vs 96.36±11.55, P < .001) in the LBBaP group were significantly better than those in the RVSP group. No significant differences in LVEDD (46 [44-48.5] vs 47 [44-52] mm, P = .49) and LVEF% (66 [62.5-70] vs 64 [61-68], P = .76) was observed between 2 groups at last follow-up. But, in the subgroup analysis, LVEDD was shorter (46 [44-49] vs 50 [47-58] mm, P = .03) and the LVEF% was higher (65 [62-68] vs 63 [58-65], P = .02) in the LBBaP-H (high ventricular pacing ratio >40%) group compared with RVSP-H group at last follow-up. There were lower capture thresholds (0.59±0.18V vs 0.71 ± 0.26 V, P = 0.01) at implantation in the LBBaP group than those in the RVSP group, with R-wave amplitudes and pacing impedances showing no significant difference between 2 groups. No serious complications were found in both 2 groups at implantation and follow-ups.This study confirms the clinical safety and efficacy of LBBaP, and it produces better ventricular electrical-mechanical synchrony than RVSP. The event of pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction is lower in the LBBaP-H group than RVSP-H group.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Permanent His-bundle pacing using distal His-bundle electrogram-guided approach in patients with atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

Permanent His-bundle pacing (HBP) is effective and safe; however, the success rate of HBP is low, especially in patients with infranodal block. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and feasibility of HBP implantation using an electrophysiological guided approach targeting a distal His-bundle electrogram (HBE) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).

METHODS

Thirty-four consecutive patients with AVB (infranodal block in 28 patients) who underwent HBP were enrolled. During implantation, we attempted to target the distal part of the HBE (distal HBE) beyond the block site based on unipolar mapping. The His-capture threshold was evaluated for 1 year after implantation.

RESULTS

HBP was achieved in 26 patients and in 21 patients (75%) with infranodal block. Detection of distal HBE was significantly higher in the successful HBP group than in the HBP failure group (65.4% vs. 0%, p = .001). Among 15 patients with intra-Hisian block, 14 patients (93%) successfully achieved HBP with distal HBE detection. During the 1-year follow-up period, an increase in His-capture threshold by ≥1.0 V at 1.0 ms occurred in five (19.2%) of 26 patients. The increased His-capture threshold group exhibited significantly less detection of distal HBE (20% vs. 76.2%; odds ratio 0.078, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.87, p = .038) and a higher His-capture threshold at implantation (2.0 ± 1.1 V vs. 1.1 ± 0.9 V; odds ratio 1.702, 95% confidence interval 1.025-2.825, p = 0.04) than the non-increased His-capture threshold group.

CONCLUSION

HBP implantation guided by distal HBE approach may be feasible with subsequent stable pacing in patients with intra-Hisian and atrioventricular nodal block.

Feasibility and Safety of Permanent Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients With Conduction Disorders Following Prosthetic Cardiac Valves

Background: The feasibility and safety of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in patients with conduction diseases following prosthetic valves (PVs) have not been well described.

Methods: Permanent LBBP was attempted in patients with PVs. Procedural success and intracardiac electrical measurements were recorded at implant. Pacing threshold, complications, and echocardiographic data were assessed at implant and follow-up visit.

Results: Twenty-two consecutive patients with atrioventricular (AV) conduction disturbances (10 with AV nodal block and 12 with infranodal block) underwent LBBP. The PVs included aortic valve replacement (AVR) in six patients, mitral valve repair or replacement (MVR) with tricuspid valve ring (TVR) in four patients, AVR with TVR in one patient, AVR with MVR plus TVR in three patients, transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) in five patients, and MVR alone in three patients. LBBP succeeded in 20 of 22 (90.9%) patients. LBB potential was observed in 15 of 22 (68.2%) patients, including 10 of 15 (66.7%) patients with AVR/TAVR and five of seven (71.4%) patients without AVR/TAVR. AVR and TVR served as good anatomic landmarks for facilitating the LBBP. The final sites of LBBP were 17.9 ± 1.4 mm inferior to the AVR and 23.0 ± 3.2 mm distal and septal to the TVR. The paced QRS duration was 124.5 ± 13.8 ms, while the baseline QRS duration was 120.0 ± 32.5 ms (P = 0.346). Pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude at implant were 0.60 ± 0.16 V at 0.5 ms and 11.9 ± 5.5 mV and remained stable at the mean follow-up of 16.1 ± 10.8 months. No significant exacerbation of tricuspid valve regurgitation was observed compared to baseline.

Conclusion: Permanent LBBP could be feasibly and safely obtained in the majority of patients with PVs. The location of the PV might serve as a landmark for guiding the final site of the LBBP. Stable pacing parameters were observed during the follow-up.

The electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters of permanent left bundle branch pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Recent advances in conduction system pacing have led to the use of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), which has potential advantages over His bundle pacing (HBP). For example, LBBP engages the electrical activation through the left bundle branch, produces ventricular electrical synchrony, and avoids the weakness of HBP such as lead instability, higher threshold, and early battery depletion. This pacing modality has been considered an attractive mode to achieve normal physiological pacing. However, as a new technology, LBBP is still in the stage of clinical exploration and lacks adequate evaluation. This study aims to investigate the electrocardiogram characteristics, pacing parameters, the safety, and the effectiveness of LBBP.

METHODS

A computerized search of PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library for the effects of LBBP was done. The baseline characteristics of patients, successful rate of implantation, capture threshold, R-wave amplitude, pacing impedance, QRS duration, and follow-up date were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies including 712 patients were included in this analysis. The overall successful rate for implantation was 92.9%. The main indications for LBBP were atrioventricular block (AVB), sinus node dysfunction (SND), atrial fibrillation (AF) with slow ventricular rate, and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates. For patients with QRS duration>120 ms, permanent LBBP resulted in narrower QRS duration compared to that before implantation (P = 0.05). QRS duration and capture threshold of LBBP remained stable during follow-up. Moreover, there was higher R-wave amplitude and lower pacing impedance at follow-up compared to those at implantation (P = 0.01 and P < 0.00001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Permanent LBBP has shown promising results for pacemaker-indicated patients in small observational studies. Good electrical synchronization, high success rates, and stable pacemaker lead parameters suggested significant advantages of LBBP in physiological pacing. Randomized controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy of LBBP in patients.

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.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: Current Knowledge and Future Prospects

Cardiac pacing is an effective therapy for treating patients with bradycardia due to sinus node dysfunction or atrioventricular block. However, traditional right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) causes electric and mechanical dyssynchrony, which is associated with increased risk for atrial arrhythmias and heart failure. Therefore, there is a need to develop a physiological pacing approach that activates the normal cardiac conduction and provides synchronized contraction of ventricles. Although His bundle pacing (HBP) has been widely used as a physiological pacing modality, it is limited by challenging implantation technique, unsatisfactory success rate in patients with wide QRS wave, high pacing capture threshold, and early battery depletion. Recently, the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), defined as the capture of left bundle branch (LBB) via transventricular septal approach, has emerged as a newly physiological pacing modality. Results from early clinical studies have demonstrated LBBP's feasibility and safety, with rare complications and high success rate. Overall, this approach has been found to provide physiological pacing that guarantees electrical synchrony of the left ventricle with low pacing threshold. This was previously specifically characterized by narrow paced QRS duration, large R waves, fast synchronized left ventricular activation, and correction of left bundle branch block. Therefore, LBBP may be a potential alternative pacing modality for both RVAP and cardiac resynchronization therapy with HBP or biventricular pacing (BVP). However, the technique's widespread adaptation needs further validation to ascertain its safety and efficacy in randomized clinical trials. In this review, we discuss the current knowledge of LBBP.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing compared to right ventricular apical pacing in patients with atrioventricular block

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can produce near normalization of QRS duration. This has recently emerged as alternative technique to right ventricular pacing and His bundle pacing.

Hypothesis

The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of LBBP compared to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP).

Methods

A total of 70 AVB patients with indications for ventricular pacing were retrospectively studied. LBBP was attempted in 33 patients, classified as LBBP group. The other patients were classified as RVAP group. Pacing parameters, electrocardiogram and echocardiogram characteristics, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and atrial fibrillation (AF) were evaluated perioperatively and at follow‐ups. Patients were followed in the device clinic for a minimum of 12 months and up to 24 months at a 3–6 monthly interval.

Results

LBBP was successful in 29 of 33(87.9%) patients while all 37 of the remaining patients successfully underwent RVAP. Paced QRS duration was significantly narrower in the LBBP group compare to RVAP(110.75 ± 6.77 ms vs. 154.29 ± 6.96 ms, p = .000) at implantation, and the difference persisted during follow‐ups. Pacing thresholds (at implantation: 0.68 ± 0.22 V in the LBBP group and 0.73 ± 0.23 V in the RVAP group, p = .620) remained low and stable during follow‐ups. The cardiac function in the LBBP group remained stable during follow‐ups (LVEF%:55.08 ± 4.32 pre‐operation and 54.17 ± 4.34 at the end of follow‐up, p = .609), and better than RVAP group (LVEF%: 54.17 ± 4.34 vs. 50.14 ± 2.14, p = .005). Less HFH was observed in the LBBP group (2/29,6.89%) compared to RVAP group (10/37,27.03%).

Conclusions

The present investigation demonstrates the safety and feasibility of LBBP that produces narrower paced QRS duration than RVAP. LBBP is associated with reduction in the occurrence of pacing‐induced left ventricular dysfunction and HFH compared to RVAP in patients requiring permanent pacemakers.

Pre-implant global longitudinal strain as an early sign of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with complete atrioventricular block

Introduction

Long‐term right ventricular pacing is the only treatment for patients with a complete atrioventricular block (CAVB); however, it frequently triggers ventricular dys‐synchrony with left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Previous studies showed that an early decline of LV global longitudinal strain (GLS) predicts pacing‐induced LV dysfunction. We aimed to investigate the potential ability of the initial LV strain to predict pacing‐induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) through long‐term follow‐ups.

Methods

We retrospectively enrolled 80 patients with CAVB with normal LV function who were implanted with dual‐chamber pacemakers between 2008 and 2018. Echocardiographic data and parameters (including longitudinal, radial, and circumferential strain based on speckle‐tracking) were analyzed for the pre‐implant (≤6 months) and post‐implant periods. PICM was defined as a ≥10% reduction in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) resulting in an LVEF of <50% during the post‐implant period. Predictors of PICM were identified using Cox proportional hazard models.

Results

Patients who developed PICM were more likely to exhibit lower baseline LV GLS, as well as wider native and pacing QRS durations, than those who did not develop PICM (P = .016, P = .011, and P = .026, respectively). In the multivariate analysis, pre‐implant LV GLS (hazard ratio: 1.27; 95% confidence interval 1.009–1.492; P = .004) was independently associated with the development of PICM.

Conclusion

A lower baseline LV GLS predicts an increased risk of PICM. Patients with CAVB exhibiting low GLS are at increased risk of PICM. More frequent follow‐up visits are warranted in these patients, who may also require de novo His‐bundle pacing or an upgrade to biventricular pacing.

Left bundle branch pacing

Chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing has been associated with significant electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony leading to increased risk for recurrent heart failure hospitalizations and atrial arrhythmias. His bundle pacing (HBP) is an effective alternative to RV pacing as it is physiological and provides synchronized contraction of both ventricles. But there are limitations to HBP, which include lead stability, rise in threshold, early battery depletion and longer learning curve. Huang et al. recently reported a novel technique to directly capture the left bundle branch (LBB) by deep septal pacing. Subsequently, many studies have demonstrated the feasibility, safety and efficacy of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). This has the potential to overcome the limitations of HBP and provide a safe technique to capture the conduction system in patients with distal His bundle and proximal bundle branch disease. The criteria for LBB capture and the methodology to perform LBBP are discussed in detail in this review. The Medtronic SelectSecure®3830 pacing lead is used along with a fixed-curve C315His® or a deflectable C304His® sheath. LBBP provides safe and low threshold compared to HBP. Left bundle potential should be demonstrable in all patients except in those with infrahisian complete heart block (CHB) and complete left bundle branch block (LBBB), wherein antegrade activation of the left bundle will not occur. LBBP has the potential to be an effective alternative to biventricular pacing or HBP in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, LBBB and recurrent heart failure. Long-term safety and clinical outcomes compared to traditional pacing need to be carefully studied in randomized clinical trials.

Cardiomyopathy Induced by Artificial Heart Stimulation

With the advent of cardiac pacemakers more than 60 years ago, the era of artificial cardiac pacing began, which changed the natural history of symptomatic bradycardias, significantly increasing the survival especially of patients with complete atrioventricular block.

Cardiomiopatia Induzida por Estimulação Cardíaca Artificial

Com o advento dos marcapassos cardíacos há mais de 60 anos, iniciou-se a era da estimulação cardíaca artificial, que mudou a história natural das bradicardias sintomáticas, aumentando significativamente a sobrevida principalmente dos pacientes portadores de bloqueio atrioventricular total.

Cardiomyopathy Induced by Artificial Heart Stimulation

With the advent of cardiac pacemakers more than 60 years ago, the era of artificial cardiac pacing began, which changed the natural history of symptomatic bradycardias, significantly increasing the survival especially of patients with complete atrioventricular block.

Cardiomiopatia Induzida por Estimulação Cardíaca Artificial

Com o advento dos marcapassos cardíacos há mais de 60 anos, iniciou-se a era da estimulação cardíaca artificial, que mudou a história natural das bradicardias sintomáticas, aumentando significativamente a sobrevida principalmente dos pacientes portadores de bloqueio atrioventricular total.

Merits of Different Ventricular Lead Locations on Left Ventricular Myocardial Strain and Dyssynchrony in Patients with Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

The idea behind cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is to pace both ventricles resulting in a synchronized electro-mechanical coupling of the left ventricle (LV), meaning every effort should be made to improve the percentage of CRT responders.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed at demonstrating the short-term effect of right ventricular apical (RVA) and mid-septal (RVS) lead locations combined with different LV lead positions on LV myocardial strain, dyssynchrony, and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

We examined 60 patients with indication for CRT before and after 6 months of implantation for clinical outcome and CRT response (6-min walk test [6MWT], NYHA class, decrease in left ventricular end systolic volume [LVESV] by >15%), dyssynchrony, and myocardial strain.

RESULTS

After 6 months of follow-up, the two RV lead locations represented a significant improvement in 6MWT, left ventricular ejection fraction, and LVESV in comparison to baseline values, but no significant difference was found between both groups. With regards to NYHA class improvement, p values were insignificant between the groups (0.44 and 0.88) at baseline and 6 months after implantation, respectively. The mean 6MWT was 273.8 m in the RVA group compared to 279.0 m in the RVS group (p = 0.84) at baseline. After 6 months of CRT implantation, the 6MWT mean was 326.5 m in the RVA group compared to 316.2 m in the RVS group (p = 0.74). The posterolateral cardiac vein site showed a significant improvement when combined with RVS location in interventricular and intraventricular dyssynchrony, global longitudinal strain, global circumferential strain, and apical circumferential strain (p = 0.01 0.032, 0.02, 0.005, and 0.049), respectively.

CONCLUSION

RVS is not inferior and provides a good alternative to RVA pacing in short-term follow-up. However, the QRS duration, myocardial strain, and dyssynchrony varies depending on RV and LV stimulation sites. Long-term morbidity and mortality outcomes according to LV lead location in coronary sinus need more assessment.

Differential effect with septal and apical RV pacing on ventricular activation in patients with left bundle branch block assessed by non-invasive electrical imaging and in silico modelling

Purpose

It is uncertain whether right ventricular (RV) lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy impacts response. There has been little detailed analysis of the activation patterns in RV septal pacing (RVSP), especially in the CRT population. We compare left bundle branch block (LBBB) activation patterns with RV pacing (RVP) within the same patients with further comparison between RV apical pacing (RVAP) and RVSP.

Methods

Body surface mapping was undertaken in 14 LBBB patients after CRT implantation. Nine patients had RVAP, 5 patients had RVSP. Activation parameters included left ventricular total activation time (LVtat), biventricular total activation time (VVtat), interventricular electrical synchronicity (VVsync), and dispersion of left ventricular activation times (LVdisp). The direction of activation wave front was also compared in each patient (wave front angle (WFA)). In silico computer modelling was applied to assess the effect of RVAP and RVSP in order to validate the clinical results.

Results

Patients were aged 64.6 ± 12.2 years, 12 were male, 8 were ischemic. Baseline QRS durations were 157 ± 18 ms. There was no difference in VVtat between RVP and LBBB but a longer LVtat in RVP (102.8 ± 19.6 vs. 87.4 ± 21.1 ms, p = 0.046). VVsync was significantly greater in LBBB (45.1 ± 20.2 vs. 35.9 ± 17.1 ms, p = 0.01) but LVdisp was greater in RVP (33.4 ± 5.9 vs. 27.6 ± 6.9 ms, p = 0.025). WFA did rotate clockwise with RVP vs. LBBB (82.5 ± 25.2 vs. 62.1 ± 31.7 ^op = 0.026). None of the measurements were different to LBBB with RVSP; however, the differences were preserved with RVAP for VVsync, LVdisp, and WFA. In silico modelling corroborated these results.

Conclusions

RVAP activation differs from LBBB where RVSP appears similar.

Trial registration

(ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01831518)

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s10840-019-00567-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The usefulness of right ventriculography to aid anchoring a pacing lead to the right ventricular septum

Aims

Although right ventricular septal pacing is thought to be more effective in minimizing pacing-induced left ventricular dysfunction, the accurate way to anchor the lead to the right ventricular septum (RVS) has not been established. Our aim was to clarify the usefulness of right ventriculography (RVG) to aid accurate anchoring of the lead to the RVS.

Methods and results

Eighty-four patients who underwent pacemaker implantation were enrolled. We anchored the lead to the RVS by using an RVG image obtained at a 30° right anterior oblique view as a reference. We confirmed the actual lead position by performing computed tomography after the procedure and examined the characteristics of the paced QRS complex. Of the 81 patients, except 3 patients whose leads were anchored to the apex due to high pacing thresholds in the RVS, the leads were successfully anchored to the RVS in the 79 (98%) patients, and the number of leads placed in the high-, mid-, and low-RVS was 3 (4%), 58 (73%), and 18 (23%), respectively. The paced QRS duration in these 79 patients was 140 ± 13 ms. The paced QRS duration from mid-RVS was considerably narrower than that from high- or low-RVS (137 ± 12 ms vs. 146 ± 12 ms; P = 0.012).

Conclusion

Right ventriculography was very useful in aiding accurate anchoring of the lead to the RVS. Further, pacing from mid-RVS may be more effective in minimizing the QRS duration than pacing from other RVS sites.

Long-Term Outcomes of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Using Apical Versus Nonapical Left Ventricular Pacing

Background Experimental evidence indicates that left ventricular ( LV ) apical pacing is hemodynamically superior to nonapical LV pacing. Some studies have shown that an LV apical lead position is unfavorable in cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to determine whether an apical LV lead position influences cardiac mortality after cardiac resynchronization therapy. Methods and Results In this retrospective observational study, the primary end point of cardiac mortality was assessed in relation to longitudinal (basal, midventricular, or apical) and circumferential (anterior, lateral, or posterior) LV lead positions, as well as right ventricular (apical or septal), assigned using fluoroscopy. Lead positions were assessed in 1189 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation over 15 years. After a median follow-up of 6.0 years (interquartile range: 4.4-7.7 years), an apical LV lead position was associated with lower cardiac mortality than a nonapical position (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-0.99) after covariate adjustment. There were no differences in total mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Death from pump failure was lower with apical than nonapical positions (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.51-0.94). Compared with a basal position, an apical LV position was also associated with lower risk of sudden cardiac death (adjusted hazard ratio: 0.34; 95% confidence interval, 0.13-0.93). No differences emerged between circumferential LV lead positions or right ventricular positions with respect to any end point. Conclusions In recipients of cardiac resynchronization therapy, an apical LV lead position was associated with better long-term cardiac survival than a nonapical position. This effect was due to a lower risk of pump failure and sudden cardiac death.

Clinical and echocardiographic response of apical vs nonapical right ventricular lead position in CRT: A meta-analysis

Background

Traditionally the right ventricular (RV) pacing lead is placed in the RV apex in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). It is not clear whether nonapical placement of the RV lead is associated with a better response to CRT. We aimed to perform a meta‐analysis of all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared apical and nonapical RV lead placement in CRT.

Methods

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Scopus, and relevant references for studies and performed meta‐analysis using random effects model. Our main outcome measures were all‐cause mortality, composite of death and heart failure hospitalization, improvement in ejection fraction (EF), left ventricle end‐diastolic volume (LVEDV), left ventricle end‐systolic volume (LVESV), and adverse events.

Results

Seven RCTs with a total population of 1641 patients (1199 apical and 492 nonapical) were included in our meta‐analysis. There was no difference in all‐cause mortality (5% vs 4.3%, odds ratio (OR) = 0.86; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45‐1.64; P = .65; I² = 11%) and a composite of death and heart failure hospitalization (14.2% vs 12.9%, OR = 0.92; 95% CI: 0.61‐1.38; P = .68; I² = 0) between apical and nonapical groups. No difference in improvement in EF (Weighted mean difference (WMD) = 0.37; 95% CI: −2.75‐3.48; P = .82; I² = 68%), change in LVEDV (WMD = 3.67; 95% CI: −4.86‐12.20; P = .40; I² = 89%) and LVESV (WMD = −1.20; 95% CI: −4.32‐1.91; P = .45; I² = 0) were noted between apical and nonapical groups. Proportion of patients achieving >15% improvement in EF was similar in both groups (OR = 0.85; 95% CI: 0.62‐1.16; P = .31; I² = 0).

Conclusion

In patients with CRT, nonapical RV pacing is not associated with improved clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared with RV apical pacing.

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.

Effects of right ventricular pacing sites on blood pressure variation in upright posture: a comparison of septal vs. apical pacing sites

AIMS

Large variations in blood pressure (BP) in the upright position are a major cause of pacemaker syndrome, observed in up to 80% of patients paced non-physiologically at the right ventricular (RV) apex. We hypothesized that the magnitude of BP variations might be influenced by the RV pacing site. To assess this, we compared haemodynamic findings during supine and upright posture with RV apical vs. septal pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study population comprised a retrospective cohort of 24 dual-chamber pacemaker patients with advanced or complete atrioventricular block, in which 11 were randomly chosen from those with RV apical pacing, and 13 randomly chosen from those with septal pacing. Studies were performed during fixed rate VVI and DDD pacing modes with patients in both supine and passive head-up tilt positions. Continuous BP, stroke volume, cardiac index, and total peripheral resistance index were measured non-invasively. During RV apical pacing, there were significant differences of beat-to-beat BP variation after movement from supine to upright posture for both VVI and DDD pacing modes (P < 0.05); however, this was not the case for either mode during RV septal pacing. Further, comparing RV apical to RV septal pacing in the supine position, there were no BP variation differences for either DDD or VVI modes. Conversely, in the upright position BP variation was significantly greater during RV apical vs. RV septal VVI pacing (P = 0.017) but not during DDD pacing.

CONCLUSION

During VVI pacing, RV septal pacing exhibited lesser BP variation during upright posture compared with RV apical pacing.