Effects of epicardial versus transvenous left ventricular lead placement on left ventricular function and cardiac perfusion in cardiac resynchronization therapy: A randomized clinical trial

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Long-Term Performance of Epicardial versus Transvenous Left Ventricular Leads for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Aims: to study the technical performance of epicardial left ventricular (LV) leads placed via video assisted thoracic surgery (VATS), compared to transvenously placed leads for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Methods: From 2001 until 2013, a total of 644 lead placement procedures were performed for CRT. In the case of unsuccessful transvenous LV lead placement, the patient received an epicardial LV lead. Study groups consist of 578 patients with a transvenous LV lead and 66 with an epicardial LV lead. The primary endpoint was LV-lead failure necessitating a replacement or deactivation. The secondary endpoint was energy consumption. Results: The mean follow up was 5.9 years (epicardial: 5.5 ± 3.1, transvenous: 5.9 ± 3.5). Transvenous leads failed significantly more frequently than epicardial leads with a total of 66 (11%) in the transvenous leads group vs. 2 (3%) in the epicardial lead group (p = 0.037). Lead energy consumption was not significantly different between groups. Conclusions: Epicardial lead placement is feasible, safe and shows excellent long-term performance compared to transvenous leads. Epicardial lead placement should be considered when primary transvenous lead placement fails or as a primary lead placement strategy in challenging cases.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Alternative pacing strategies for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) improves morbidity, mortality, and quality of life, especially in subsets of patients with impaired cardiac function and wide QRS. However, the rate of unsuccessful or complicated left ventricular (LV) lead placement through coronary sinus is 5–7%, and the rate of “CRT non-response” is approximately 30%. These reasons have pushed physicians and engineers to collaborate to overcome the challenges of LV lead implantation. Thus, various alternatives to BVP have been proposed to improve CRT effectiveness. His bundle pacing (HBP) has been increasingly used by activating the His–Purkinje system but is constrained by challenging implantation, low success rates, high and often unstable thresholds, and low perception. Therefore, the concept of pacing a specialized conduction system distal to the His bundle to bypass the block region was proposed. Multiple clinical studies have demonstrated that left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has comparable electrical resynchronization with HBP but is superior in terms of simpler operation, higher success rates, lower and stable capture thresholds, and higher perception. Despite their well-demonstrated effectiveness, the transvenous lead-related complications remain major limitations. Recently, leadless LV pacing has been developed and demonstrated effective for these challenging patient cohorts. This article focuses on the current state and latest progress in HBP, LBBAP, and leadless LV pacing as alternatives for failed or non-responsive conventional CRT as well as their limits and prospects.

Thoracoscopic Implantation of Epicardial Left Ventricular Lead for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

(1) Background: Limited data exist on the safety and efficacy of epicardial left ventricular (LV) lead placement using video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). (2) Methods: Acute and post-discharge outcomes of CRT were compared between patients with epicardial LV leads (Epicardial-LV group, n = 13) and those with endocardial LV leads (Endocardial-LV group, n = 243). (3) Results: Epicardial LV leads were implanted via VATS alone (n = 8) or along with mini-thoracotomy (n = 5), for failed endocardial implantation (n = 11) or recurrent lead dislodgement (n = 2). All epicardial procedures under general anesthesia with one-lung ventilation were successfully completed in 1.0 ± 0.4 h without phrenic nerve stimulation. LV pacing thresholds in the epicardial-LV (1.5 ± 1.0 V) and endocardial-LV (1.3 ± 0.8 V) were comparable (p = 0.651). All patients were discharged alive post-VATS 8.8 ± 3.9 days. During the follow-up (34.3 ± 28.6 months), all patients with epicardial LV leads stayed alive except for one cardiac death post-CRT 14 months and one heart transplantation post-CRT 30 months. All epicardial LV leads maintained stable performance without dislodgement/significant changes in pacing threshold/impedance. LV lead dislodgement occurred only in endocardial-LV (7/243, 2.9%). Efficacy in both groups was comparable in terms of QRS narrowing, increase in LV ejection fraction, and survival free of cardiac death, or heart-failure-related hospitalization. (4) Conclusions: Epicardial LV lead placement using VATS can be a safe and effective alternative to endocardial implantation, with comparable acute and post-discharge outcomes achieved by both approaches.

Strategy for Failed Transvenous Left-Ventricular Lead Placement in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: Surrender or Struggle?

INTRODUCTION

For those cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) candidates who experience left-ventricular (LV) lead placement failure or underwent concomitant cardiac surgeries, surgical placement of epicardial LV lead guided by electroanatomic mapping may be a promising alternative.

METHODS

Electroanatomic mapping was used to guide positioning of the LV lead through a surgical approach. The LV lead was placed at the region with the latest local LV activation and normal voltage, away from the scar.

RESULTS

From April 2010 to September 2018, 10 consecutive patients (3 female) underwent surgical epicardial LV lead implantation. Among them, 3 had other surgical indications simultaneously (including 1 CRT non-responder), and 7 had failed transvenous LV lead placement. After CRT, the QRS duration was shortened from 149.3 ± 20.4 ms to 125.1 ± 15.2 ms (p = 0.01). At 6 months, the LV ejection fraction was significantly improved and remained stable in the follow-up (FU) period thereafter (baseline vs. 6 months, 31.0 ± 8.3% vs. 42.2 ± 13.4%, p = 0.006). Other parameters, including the threshold and impedance of the LV lead, were also stable at a mean FU of 755 ± 406 days, and the NYHA functional classification decreased from 2.9 ± 0.7 to 1.8 ± 0.8 (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Placement of an epicardial LV lead guided by electroanatomic mapping could be used as an adjunctive strategy in patients who were unable or refractory to conventional CRT therapy. This approach could also be applied in patients who had other surgical indications at the same time.

Fracture of an epicardial left ventricular lead implanted at open-heart surgery in anticipation of future need for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Epicardial left ventricular leads can be implanted at open-heart surgery for cardiac resynchronization therapy. We report a 2-year-old fractured epicardial left ventricular lead detected at generator implant. It highlights the importance of good surgical implant technique and of rigorous lead evaluation for signs of impending failure at generator implant.

Alternative left ventricular pacing approaches for optimal cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves mortality, morbidity, and quality of life in selected heart failure patients with severe left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction impairment. However, between 20% and 40% of device recipients do not benefit clinically from CRT. Indeed, some anatomic and technical difficulties are related to the coronary venous implantation site via the coronary sinus (CS). Additionally, electrical constraints have been described, and CS does not always correspond to the optimal LV lead position. In the last decade, engineers and physicians have worked together to overcome the challenging LV lead implantation, and various biventricular pacing alternatives have been developed to improve CRT response. In this review, we discuss the evolution from CS pacing to wireless LV stimulation and His-bundle pacing.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: a comprehensive review

Despite improved understanding of heart failure (HF) and advances in medical treatments, its prevalence continues to rise, and the role of implantable devices continues to evolve. While cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an accepted form of treatment for many suffering from HF, there is an ever-evolving body of evidence examining novel indications, optimization of lead placement and device programming, with several competing technologies now also on the horizon. This review aims to take a clinical perspective on the major trials, current indications, controversies and emerging aspects of CRT in the treatment of HF.