EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS)

With the global increase in device implantations, there is a growing need to train physicians to implant pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although there are international recommendations for device indications and programming, there is no consensus to date regarding implantation technique. This document is founded on a systematic literature search and review, and on consensus from an international task force. It aims to fill the gap by setting standards for device implantation.

Trends in implantable cardioverter defibrillator and cardiac resynchronisation therapy lead parameters for patients with arrhythmogenic and dilated cardiomyopathies

BACKGROUND

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead parameters may deteriorate due to right ventricular (RV) disease such as arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC), with implications for safe delivery of therapies. We compared ICD and CRT-D (cardiac resynchronisation therapy-defibrillator) lead parameters in patients with ARVC and dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM).

METHODS

RV lead sensing (R wave amplitude) and pacing (threshold and amplitude-pulse width product (APWP)), left ventricular (LV) pacing (APWP), and imaging parameter trends were assessed in 18 patients with ARVC and 18 with DCM.

RESULTS

R wave amplitude did not change significantly over time in either group (over 5 years, ARVC -0.4 mV, 95% CI -3.8-3.0 mV; DCM -1.8 mV, 95% CI -5.0-1.3 mV). Within ARVC group, divergent trends were seen according to lead position. DCM patients experienced an increase in RV lead threshold (+1.1 V over 5 years, 95% CI + 0.5 to +1.7 V) and RV APWP (+0.48 Vms over 5 years, 95% CI + 0.24 to +0.71 Vms); ARVC patients had no change. ARVC patients had a higher LVEF at baseline than DCM patients (52 vs 20%, p < 0.001), though LVEF decreased over time for the former, while increasing for the latter. TAPSE did not change over time for ARVC patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Lead parameters in ARVC patients were stable over medium-term follow up. In DCM patients, RV lead threshold and RV and LV APWP increased over time. These differential responses for DCM and ARVC were not explained by imaging indices, and may reflect distinct patterns of disease progression.

Long-term performance of right ventricular pacing leads: risk factors associated with permanent right ventricular pacing threshold increase

Purpose

Right ventricular pacing threshold (RVPT) may rise over time accompanied by the increased use of implantable cardiac pacemakers. However, risk factors for permanent RVPT increase are not fully clarified in patients without definite lead fracture and dislodgment. We aimed to evaluate the long-term performance of RV pacing leads and identify risk factors associated with the occurrence of permanent RVPT increase in this population.

Methods

Patients with first implantation of cardiac pacemakers from January 2008 to June 2016 were consecutively enrolled. Follow-up for RVPT increase was until December 2017. The clinical data, specific data on the pacemaker implantation, and routine follow-up were retrieved.

Results

During a follow-up duration of 5.4 ± 2.1 years, permanent RVPT increase (except lead fracture and dislodgment) was found in 8.4% (87/1033) patients. Patients with permanent RVPT increase had higher prevalence of myocardial infarction (MI), diabetes, and the use of amiodarone. The risk factors independently associated with permanent RVPT increase were MI (HR = 1.094, 95% CI 1.014–1.180, p = 0.031), diabetes (HR = 2.804, 95% CI 1.064–3.775, p = 0.003). MI patients with RVPT increase had higher prevalence of multivessel disease and atrioventricular block. Diabetic patients with RVPT increase exhibited higher serum fasting blood glucose (FBG) and hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, which were correlated with the maximum RVPT (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Our data showed that permanent RVPT increases (except lead fracture and dislodgement) during long-term follow-up after pacemaker implantation. The likely risk factors predisposing to chronic permanent RVPT increase are MI and diabetes with higher FBG and HbA1c levels.

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.

Implications of right ventricular septal pacing for medium-term prognosis: Propensity-matched analysis

BACKGROUND

The effect of right ventricular (RV) septal pacing as opposed to RV apical pacing on prognosis in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation remains controversial. This study was performed to examine the clinical efficacy of RV septal pacing in a large cohort with medium-term follow-up and propensity-matched analysis.

METHODS

A total of 982 consecutive patients with first pacemaker implantation between 2008 and 2013 at two centers in Japan (51.4% male, age 76.1±10.6years, 64.3% septal pacing, 94% preserved ejection fraction [EF]) were enrolled. Propensity matching successfully matched 446 patients into RV septal and apical pacing groups. The primary endpoint, a combination of all-cause death and hospitalization due to heart failure, was compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the propensity-matched cohort, the primary endpoint was observed in 61 patients (13.7%) over a median follow-up period of 2.1years (interquartile range, 1.1-3.5years). The effects of septal pacing on prognosis were not statistically significant (hazard ratio [HR]=1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.60-2.04, P=0.752). No significant benefit of septal pacing was observed on all-cause death (HR=1.86, 95%CI=0.74-4.66, P=0.187) and heart failure hospitalization (HR=0.93, 95%CI=0.44-1.98, P=0.847) when assessed separately.

CONCLUSION

Septal pacing did not show medium-term advantages in prognosis in this large-scale retrospective cohort study with propensity matching of patients with predominantly preserved EF.

Medium-term effects of septal and apical pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients: a double-blind prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Pacing the right ventricle is established practice, but there remains controversy as to the optimal site to preserve hemodynamic function.

AIMS

To evaluate clinical and hemodynamic differences between apical and septal pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients.

METHODS

Patients receiving their first pacemaker for advanced atrioventricular block, with the atria in sinus rhythm, were randomized to receive apical (Group A) or septal (Group S) ventricular leads. After implant, with the device programmed VVI 70 beats/min fixed rate, patients underwent a 6-minute walk test and a transthoracic echocardiogram. Then, DDDR was programmed at nominal settings. The same tests were performed at 6 months and 12 months follow-up. If ventricular pacing was less than 98%, the patient was excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were included in the study. During the study year, 71 (50%) were excluded for not fulfilling the condition of 98% ventricular pacing. Groups A and S had 34 and 37 patients, respectively. Age and gender were similar in the groups. At implant, QRS duration was significantly greater in Group A (158 ms) than Group S (146 ms; P = 0.018), and the QRS axis was different: -74.5° in Group A and 1° in Group S (P < 0.001). At 1 year, the 6-minute walk improved significantly in both groups: Group A 15% (P = 0.048) and Group S 24% (P = 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 0.57 to 0.61 (P = 0.008) in Group S, without significant change in Group A.

CONCLUSIONS

After 1 year, pacemaker-dependent patients with septal ventricular leads have better clinical and functional (LVEF) outcome.

Heart failure in patients with sick sinus syndrome treated with single lead atrial or dual-chamber pacing: no association with pacing mode or right ventricular pacing site

AIMS

Previous studies indicate that ventricular pacing may precipitate heart failure (HF). We investigated occurrence of HF during long-term follow-up among patients with sick sinus syndrome (SSS) randomized to AAIR or DDDR pacing. Furthermore, we investigated effects of percentage of ventricular pacing (%VP) and pacing site in the ventricle.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We analysed data from 1415 patients randomized to AAIR (n = 707) or DDDR pacing (n = 708). Ventricular pacing leads were recorded as located in either an apical or a non-apical position. The %VP and HF hospitalizations were recorded during follow-up. Patients were classified with new HF, if in New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class IV or if presence of ≥2 of: oedema; dyspnoea; NYHA functional class III. Mean follow-up was 5.4 ± 2.4 years. Heart failure hospitalizations did not differ between groups. In the AAIR group, 170 of the 707 (26%) patients developed HF vs. 169 of the 708 (26%) patients in the DDDR group, hazard rate ratio (HR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79-1.22, P = 0.87. In DDDR patients, 146 of the 512 patients (29%) with ventricular leads in an apical position developed HF vs. 28 of the 161 patients (17%) with the leads in a non-apical position, HR 0.67, CI 0.45-1.00, P = 0.05. After adjustments this difference was non-significant. The incidence of HF was not associated with %VP (P = 0.57).

CONCLUSION

In patients with SSS, HF was not associated with pacing mode, %VP, or ventricular lead localization. This suggests that DDDR pacing is safe in patients with SSS without precipitating HF.

Right ventricular pacing and sensing function in high posterior septal and apical lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

The conventional right ventricular (RV) lead position in cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (CRT-P) is the RV apex (RV-A). Little is known about electrophysiological stability and associated complications of pacing leads in RV high posterior septal (RV-HS) position in CRT-P.

METHODS

Two hundred and thirty-five consecutive CRT-P patients were included from 1999-2010. Pacing thresholds at 0.5ms and 2.5V, sensing electrograms and lead impedances were measured at implant and repeated 1,3,6,12,18 and 24 months after CRT-P. Electrophysiological measurements of leads located in RV-A and RV-HS were analyzed retrospectively. Bipolar RV leads were used, including high impedance leads, passive fixation and active fixation.

RESULTS

RV pacing leads were implanted in RV-A (n=79) and RV-HS (n=156). Average RV pacing thresholds from CRT implant procedure to 24-month follow-up at 0.5ms were 0.77±0.69V in RV-A and 0.71±0.35V in RV-HS (P=0.31), and at 2.5V were 0.06±0.08ms in RV-A and 0.07±0.05ms in RV-HS (P=0.12). Average RV electrogram amplitudes from baseline to 24 months after CRT were 15.3±6.9mV in RV-A and 12.1±6.0mV in RV-HS (P=0.55). Average RV impedances during follow-up were 850±286Ω in RV-A and 618±147Ω in RV-HS (P=0.57). Similar RV lead revisions between RV-A and RV-HS were observed after 2-year follow-up (P=0.55).

CONCLUSION

The RV-HS lead position demonstrated stable and acceptable long-term pacing and sensing function, with rates of complications comparable to conventional RV-A lead position in CRT. The RV-HS lead position is feasible in CRT-P.

Pacing the right ventricular outflow tract septum: time to embrace the future

Transvenous pacing has revolutionized the management of patients with potentially life-threatening bradycardias and at its most basic level ensures rate support to maintain cardiac output. However, we have known for at least a decade that pacing from the right ventricle (RV) apex can induce left ventricle (LV) dysfunction, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and maybe an increased mortality. Although pacemaker manufacturers have developed successful pacing algorithms designed to minimize unnecessary ventricular pacing, it cannot be avoided in a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients. Just as there is undoubted evidence that RV apical pacing is injurious, there is emerging evidence that pacing from the RV septum is associated with a shorter duration of activation, improved haemodynamics, and less LV remodelling. The move from traditional RV apical pacing to RV septal pacing requires a change in mindset for many practitioners. The anatomical landmarks and electrocardiograph features of RV septal pacing are well described and easily recognized. While active fixation is required to place the lead on the septum, shaped stylets are now available to assist the implanter. In addition, concerns about the stability and longevity of steroid-eluting active fixation leads have proven to be unfounded. We therefore encourage all implanters to adopt RV septal pacing to minimize the potential of harm to their patients.

Current concepts in pacing 2010-2011: the right and wrong way to pace

OPINION STATEMENT

Over five decades have passed since the first permanent cardiac pacemakers were introduced into clinical medicine. Evolving technology and falling costs have demanded adaptation to clinical practice and implantation trends and, with the advent of evidenced-based medicine, the specific roles and benefits of individual pacemaker technologies have never been so carefully scrutinized. Pacing mode choice continues to be a subject of great controversy, and there are great regional variations in practice. We believe that single chamber atrial pacing use (AAI/R) has become an anachronism that should generally be abandoned (obviously with rare exceptional cases) and be replaced by dual chamber pacemakers (DDD/R) equipped with modern pacing algorithms that minimize patient exposure to ventricular pacing. Also, in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block, randomized clinical trials have failed to show improvement in clinically relevant outcomes such as mortality, stroke, and heart failure, particularly in the elderly, which has led some to advocate that DDD/R devices should never be offered to elderly AV block patients. However, we believe that the elderly, like the young, come in many "shapes and sizes" and individualized medicine compels us to consider each pacemaker candidate as unique. Implanting DDD/R devices in chronologically older, yet physiologically younger, patients is justifiable and good medical practice. Where right ventricular (RV) pacing is necessary and unavoidable, physicians should consider routinely placing RV leads on the RV mid- or outflow tract septum because these location are as good, if not better, for patients than the current practice of RV apical lead placement. In patients with AV block and asymptomatic yet moderate to severely depressed left ventricular systolic function, primary cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) should be strongly considered. Compelling clinical trial evidence does not yet exist to indicate that CRT should be the standard of care in patients with AV block and intact left ventricular systolic function. Right ventricular septal lead placement remains a reasonable option.

Long-term RV threshold behavior by automated measurements: safety is the standpoint of pacemaker longevity!

BACKGROUND

We studied long-term right ventricular (RV) pacing threshold (RVPT) behavior in patients consecutively implanted with pacemakers capable of automatic output reprogramming tracked by automatic RV threshold measurement (automatic verification of capture [AVC]).

METHODS

All the patients had state-of-the art steroid-eluting bipolar pacing leads and were RV-paced by an AVC algorithm from the three American manufacturers. Follow-up occurred twice in the first year after implantation, then yearly until approaching elective replacement indicator.

RESULTS

Three hundred and twenty-one patients aged 73 ± 12 years were observed for 49 ± 26 months on average. At implantation, RVPT was 0.54 ± 0.2 V at 0.4 ms at an average 774 ± 217 Ω impedance. Forty-one of the 321 patients (12.8%) had a permanent RVPT increase above 1.5 V at 0.4 ms: RVPT was between 1.6 and 2.5 V in 29 of 321 (9%) patients, whereas it was between 2.6 and 3.5 V in seven of 321 (2.2%) patients, and >3.5 V in five of 321 (1.5%) patients. No exit block occurred because of automatic RV output adjustment by AVC algorithms. No predictor of RVPT increase was found at multivariable analysis. The maximum RVPT increase occurred within 12 months from implantation in 19 of 321 (5.9%) patients, between the first and the second year in 12 of 321 (3.7%), between the second and the sixth year in eight of 321 (2.5%), and after the sixth year in two of 321 (0.6%).

CONCLUSION

Despite technologic improvement in lead manufacturing, long-term increase of the RVPT occurs in about 13% of patients, possibly representing a serious safety issue in 3.7% when 2.5 V at 0.4 ms is exceeded. AVC algorithms can improve patients' safety by automatic tailoring of the pacing output to threshold fluctuations, while maximizing device longevity.

[Progress in cardiac pacing]

This review discusses the utility and current status of remote monitoring in patients with cardiac devices in Spain, the different anticoagulation strategies used during device implantation, the surgical replacement and maintenance of pacemakers and defibrillators, and the present and future importance of impedance sensors in cardiac pacing and heart failure management. Finally, there is a summary of the most relevant scientific articles published in the last year.