Short-term and intermediate-term performance and safety of left bundle branch pacing

Ventricular activation pattern of left ventricular septal pacing in a canine model

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a feasible and effective physiological pacing technique. The QRS morphology of left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) is similar to that of LBBP. The ventricular activation pattern of LBBP is well-known, whereas the pattern of LVSP still needs further investigation. The present study aimed to determine ventricular activation pattern difference between LVSP and LBBP in a canine model.

METHOD

All six canines underwent successful LBBP and LVSP through trans-ventricular septum using intracardiac echocardiography and intracardiac electrogram. Their hearts were isolated and stained with Lugol's iodine to determine the position of the pacing lead. The activation sequences of the left ventricular myocardium and His-Purkinje system were recorded by placing multiple electrode catheters.

RESULTS

First, the left His-Purkinje system in LVSP was activated simultaneously from apical and basal regions to the left ventricular middle septal region, whereas the left ventricular septal myocardium was activated from the apical to basal region. The left His-Purkinje system activation in LBBP occurred in the direction of the apex from the pacing lead, but the left ventricular septal myocardium was activated in the apical to basal direction. Furthermore, the left intraventricular electrical synchrony was similar between LVSP and LBBP as determined by mapping the left ventricular septal to free wall activation time (46.7 ± 1.8 ms vs. 45.0 ± 1.4 ms, p = 0.11).

CONCLUSION

The ventricular activation sequence of LVSP was similar to LBBP. LVSP can capture LBB due to the wide distribution of LBB. These findings suggest a rationale for clinical application of LVSP.

A Study to Analyse the Feasibility and Effectiveness of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Used in Young Children

This study aimed to investigate the feasibility and effectiveness of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) in young children. From September 2020 to May 2021, a total of 31 children (≤ 7 years) with complete atrioventricular block were included. All patients were scheduled to undergo LBBaP. Pacing parameters, and cardiac function and synchrony were evaluated during follow-up. LBBaP succeeded in 21 children (3.3 ± 2.1 years old), with a success rate of 70.9%. LBBaP failed in nine children, who eventually received right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP). The average postoperative QRS duration in patients of LBBaP group was narrower than that of RVSP group: 100.9 ± 9.1 versus 114.2 ± 11.9 ms (P = 0.002). The median follow-up duration was 12 [interquartile range (IQR) 6-15] months. At last time of follow-up, the capture threshold of ventricular electrode in patients of LBBaP group were significantly lower than that of RVSP group (0.70 ± 0.25 versus 1.39 ± 0.94 V, P = 0.011). The echo-left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients in the LBBaP group was better than that in the RVSP group (66.1 ± 3.3 versus 63.1 ± 2.2%, P = 0.025). LBBaP can be safely and effectively administered in young children. Satisfactory pacing parameters, and narrow QRS durations were obtained.

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.

The effectiveness and feasibility of using multi-lead ECG monitoring combined with a programmed intracavitary ECG to complete left bundle branch area pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) as an alternative method for delivering physiological pacing, is difficult for many primary hospitals that lack the electrophysiological multichannel recorder to carry out. We hope to find a simple and feasible method that combines the multi-lead surface electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring and the intracavity ECG of the pacing programmer to achieve LBBaP.

METHODS

A total of 50 patients with bradycardia indications who attempted permanent pacemaker implantation were included in this study. We referred to multi-lead surface ECG monitoring and pacing system analyzer (PSA), combined with the nine-zone pacing method of the LBBaP, to complete LBBaP. We assessed multiple parameters to verify whether the LBBaP was successfully achieved and used univariable analysis of variance for repeated measures to judge the feasibility and effectiveness of LBBaP without the electrophysiological multichannel recorder.

RESULTS

LBBaP was successfully archived without the electrophysiological multichannel recorder in 44 of 50 patients (88%). In the study, paced QRS duration and the stimulus to peak left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) were 117.04 ± 10.34 ms and 71.10 ± 7.91 ms and had no significant changes in the 3-month follow-up. The unipolar pacing threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.85 ± 0.32 V and 10.36 ± 5.24 mV at baseline respectively, which also showed stability during the 1-month and 3-month follow-up. During the 3-month follow-up, no lead-related complication was recorded.

CONCLUSION

It is effective and feasible to achieve LBBaP combining the multi-lead ECG monitoring and the intracavitary ECG of PSA without the electrophysiological multichannel recorder, which could be an alternative to perform LBBaP.

Comparison of the safety and efficiency of temporary cardiac pacing methods during left bundle branch pacemaker implantation: Femoral vein pacing versus atrial spiral pacing with electrodes placed at the ventricle

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacemakers (LBBPs) can better maintain ventricular electrical synchronization than traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Temporary cardiac pacing (TCP) is needed to ensure the safety of the operation in patients undergoing LBBP. Currently, there are two methods of installing TCP in conventional permanent pacemaker implantation.

HYPOTHESIS

To evaluate the safety and efficiency of replacing femoral vein pacing with atrial spiral pacing in the right ventricle for temporary cardiac pacing (TCP) during left bundle branch pacemaker (LBBP) implantation.

METHOD

A total of 179 patients who underwent TCP during LBBP were selected for retrospective analysis from April 2019 to 2021 and divided into two groups: the atrial spiral electrode group (n = 76) and the femoral vein electrode group (n = 103). The following were observed: operation time; radiation dose; radiation time; operation expenses; hospitalization time; pacemaker parameters immediately after the operation and at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after the operation; operation complications and femoral vein puncture point complications were observed in the two groups.

RESULTS

Compared to the femoral vein electrode group, the atrial electrode group had significantly lower operation times ([116.86 ± 24.63] versus [128.94 ± 25.27] min, p < 0.05), radiation doses ([805.07 ± 132.94] versus [846.42 ± 87.37] mgy, p < 0.05), and decreased risk of a displaced or dislodged temporary pacing electrode during the operation ([0.00%] versus [4.85%], p < 0.05). The atrial electrode group did not have significant operation costs or material costs associated with femoral vein temporary pacing electrode implantation. In addition, the atrial electrode group did not have an increased risk of pacemaker-related infections, and the parameters of the pacemaker were unaffected. However, some puncture point complications appeared in the femoral vein electrode group (8 cases of local subcutaneous hematoma, 3 cases of pseudoaneurysms, 3 cases of arteriovenous fistula).

CONCLUSION

The replacement of the femoral vein pacing electrode with an atrial spiral pacing electrode in the right ventricle for TCP during LBBP implantation was safe and effective.

His-Purkinje system pacing reduced tricuspid regurgitation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery

Background & objective

Tricuspid regurgitation after left-sided valve surgery was a common and difficult problem. Atrial fibrillation was considered to be an important etiology of tricuspid regurgitation. His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) was a physiological pacing method, which could prevent and treat heart failure and might reduce tricuspid regurgitation. Our study aimed to investigate the effect of HPSP on tricuspid regurgitation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery.

Methods

This study was a retrospective study. The 3-year patient review focused on those who underwent permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation of HPSP after mitral valve and/or aortic valve replacement from Jan 1st, 2019 to Jan 1st, 2022. HPSP included His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Clinical data collected included electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, ultrasonic cardiogram parameters and chest x-ray at implantation and 3-month follow up. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis of tricuspid regurgitation velocity were performed.

Results

A total of 44 patients was retrospectively reviewed. Eight patients who had undergone implantation of HPSP after left-sided heart valve replacement were enrolled in the study. All patients had persistent atrial fibrillation. Three of them received HBP and five underwent LBBP. At 3-month follow-up, the tricuspid regurgitation grade was significantly lower than that before implantation (P = 0.007). The tricuspid regurgitation velocity significantly decreased (317 ± 74 cm/s vs. 261 ± 52 cm/s, P = 0.022) and tricuspid valve pressure gradient (PG) reduced (42 ± 21 mmHg vs. 28 ± 10 mmHg, P = 0.040). The cardiothoracic ratio of patients was significantly lower than that before implantation (0.61 ± 0.08 vs. 0.64 ± 0.09, P = 0.017). The NYHA classification of patients also improved (P = 0.013). In multivariate liner regression analysis, the pacing ratio (β = 0.736, P = 0.037) was an independent determinant of tricuspid regurgitation velocity variation.

Conclusion

HPSP might reduce tricuspid regurgitation and improve cardiac function in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery.

Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review

Background

As a novel physiological pacing technique, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can preserve the left ventricular (LV) electrical and mechanical synchronization by directly capturing left bundle branch (LBB). Approximately 60-90% of LBBP were confirmed to have captured LBB during implantation, implying that up to one-third of LBBP is actually left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). LBB capture is critical for distinguishing LBBP from LVSP.

Methods and results

A total of 15 articles were included in the analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database till August 2022. Comparisons of paced QRS duration between LVSP and LBBP have not been uniformly concluded, but the stimulus artifact to LV activation time in lead V5 or V6 (Stim-LVAT) was shorter in LBBP than LVSP in all studies. Stim-LVAT was used to determine LBB capture with a sensitivity of 76-95.2% and specificity of 78.8-100%, which varied across patient populations.

Conclusion

The output-dependent QRS transition from non-selective LBBP to selective LBBP or LVSP is direct evidence of LBB capture. LBB potential combined with short Stim-LVAT can predict LBB capture better. Personalized criteria rather than a fixed value of Stim-LVAT are necessary to confirm LBB capture in different populations, especially in patients with LBB block or heart failure.

Characteristics of intracardiac electrogram of the interventricular septum in the left bundle branch pacing

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has become a hot topic in the field of physiological pacing. However, only a few studies have described the characteristics of the intrinsic intracardiac electrogram (EGM) while placing the left bundle branch (LBB) lead.

Case presentation

Herein, we reported a case with atrial premature contractions to the ventricle during the LBBP procedure. Paced and intrinsic (supraventricular) EGMs were recorded and analyzed.

Conclusions

The myocardium of the interventricular septum could be divided into four regions based on electrophysiology: the right septal area, the left septal area, the endocardium of the left ventricular septum, and the LBB area. This might guide the electrophysiological localization of the LBB lead in the septum.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: How I Do It?

Search for the combined use of LV lead with HBP yielded 2 clinical outcome case studies and one mechanistic study in peer-reviewed journals. One case series reported implantation and follow-up of outcomes in patients who had an inadequate response to HBP with subsequent additional LV lead. Search for the combined use of LV lead with LBBAP yielded two case series studies in non-peer reviewed publications were found. The His-Optimized CRT (HOT-CRT) is a term introduced describing combining HBP with LV pacing. The LB-Optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) is a term recently used to describe combining LBBAP with LV pacing.

Left ventricular septal pacing versus left bundle branch pacing in the treatment of atrioventricular block

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and clinical response of LVSP as an alternative to LBBP.

METHODS

This was a retrospective study of pacemaker implantation, and 46 consecutive patients with pacemaker implantation were enrolled in the study. The patients were divided into the LBBP and LVSP groups. Electrocardiogram characteristics, pacing parameters, cardiac function, and safety events were assessed during implantation and 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The procedure time was significantly increased in the LBBP group compared with the LVSP group (53.52 ± 14.39 min vs. 38.13 ± 11.52 min, respectively, p = .000). The pacing QRS duration (PQRSD) decreased by 14.09 ± 41.80 ms in the LBBP group and increased by 9.70 ± 29.60 ms in the LVSP group (p = .031). Furthermore, the left ventricle activation time (LVAT) was shorter in the LBBP group than in the LVSP group (48.70 ± 13.67 ms vs. 58.70 ± 13.67 ms, p =  .032). During the 12-month follow-up, pacing thresholds remained low and stable, and there was no significant decrease in cardiac function. No adverse event was observed during the follow-up period.

CONCLUSIONS

Both LBBP and LVSP are safe and feasible methods. LVSP is a good option when multichannel electrophysiological instruments are not available and when the time available for the procedure is limited.

The Physiologic Mechanisms of Paced QRS Narrowing During Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Right Bundle Branch Block Patients

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing technique that captures the left bundle branch (LBB) directly, causing the left ventricle (LV) to be excited earlier than the right ventricle (RV), resulting in a “iatrogenic” right bundle branch block (RBBB) pacing pattern. Several studies have recently shown that permanent LBBP can completely or partially narrow the wide QRS duration of the intrinsic RBBB in most patients with bradycardia, although the mechanisms by which this occurs has not been thoroughly investigated. This article presents a review of the LBBP in patients with intrinsic RBBB mentioned in current case reports and clinical studies, discussing the technique, possible mechanisms, future clinical explorations, and the feasibility of eliminating the interventricular dyssynchronization accompanied with LBBP.

A single-center experience with early adoption of physiologic pacing approaches

BACKGROUND

Increasing interest in physiological pacing has been countered with challenges such as accurate lead deployment and increasing pacing thresholds with His-bundle pacing (HBP). More recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative approach to physiologic pacing.

OBJECTIVE

To compare procedural outcomes and pacing parameters at follow-up during initial adoption of HBP and LBBAP at a single center.

METHODS

Retrospective review, from September 2016 to January 2020, identified the first 50 patients each who underwent successful HBP or LBBAP. Pacing parameters were then assessed at first follow-up after implantation and after approximately 1 year, evaluating for acceptable pacing parameters defined as sensing R-wave amplitude >5 mV, threshold <2.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and impedance between 400 and 1200 Ω.

RESULTS

The HBP group was younger with lower ejection fraction compared to LBBAP (73.2 ± 15.3 vs. 78.2 ± 9.2 years, p = .047; 51.0 ± 15.9% vs. 57.0 ± 13.1%, p = .044). Post-procedural QRS widths were similarly narrow (119.8 ± 21.2 vs. 116.7 ± 15.2 ms; p = .443) in both groups. Significantly fewer patients with HBP met the outcome for acceptable pacing parameters at initial follow-up (56.0% vs. 96.4%, p = .001) and most recent follow-up (60.7% vs. 94.9%, p ≤ .001; at 399 ± 259 vs. 228 ± 124 days, p ≤ .001). More HBP patients required lead revision due to early battery depletion or concern for pacing failure (0% vs. 13.3%, at a mean of 664 days).

CONCLUSION

During initial adoption, HBP is associated with a significantly higher frequency of unacceptable pacing parameters, energy consumption, and lead revisions compared with LBBAP.

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.

Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study

Background

Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing is a novel pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to both right ventricular pacing for symptomatic bradycardia and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). A substantial amount of data is reported by relatively few, highly experienced centres. This study describes the first experience of LBB pacing in a high-volume device centre.

Methods

Success rates (i.e. the ability to achieve LBB pacing), electrophysiological parameters and complications at implant and up to 6 months of follow-up were prospectively assessed in 100 consecutive patients referred for various pacing indications.

Results

The mean age was 71 ± 11 years and 65% were male. Primary pacing indication was atrioventricular (AV) block in 40%, CRT in 42%, and sinus node dysfunction or refractory atrial fibrillation prior to AV node ablation in 9% each. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was < 50% in 57% of patients, mean baseline QRS duration 145 ± 34 ms. Overall LBB pacing was successful in 83 of 100 (83%) patients but tended to be lower in patients with CRT pacing indication (69%, p = ns). Mean left ventricular activation time (LVAT) during LBB pacing was 81 ms and paced QRS duration was 120 ± 19 ms. LBB capture threshold and R‑wave sense at implant was 0.74 ± 0.4 mV at 0.4 ms and 11.9 ± 5.9 V and remained stable at 6‑month follow-up. No complications occurred during implant or follow-up.

Conclusion

LBB pacing for bradycardia pacing and resynchronisation therapy can be easily adopted by experienced implanters, with favourable success rates and safety profile.

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.

Long-Term Safety and Feasibility of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Large Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel pacing method and has been observed to have low and stable pacing thresholds in prior small short-term studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LBBP in a large consecutive diverse group of patients with long-term follow-up.

METHODS

This study prospectively enrolled 632 consecutive pacemaker patients with attempted LBBP from April 2017 to July 2019. Pacing parameters, complications, ECG, and echocardiographic measurements were assessed at implant and during follow-up of 1, 6, 12, and 24 months.

RESULTS

LBBP was successful in 618/632 (97.8%) patients according to strict criteria for LBB capture. Mean follow-up time was 18.6±6.7 months. Two hundred thirty-one patients had follow-up over 2 years. LBB capture threshold at implant was 0.65±0.27 mV at 0.5 ms and 0.69±0.24 mV at 0.5 ms at 2-year follow-up. A significant decrease in QRS duration was observed in patients with left bundle branch block (167.22±18.99 versus 124.02±24.15 ms, P<0.001). Postimplantation left ventricular ejection fraction improved in patients with QRS≥120 ms (48.82±17.78% versus 58.12±13.04%, P<0.001). The number of patients with moderate and severe tricuspid regurgitation decreased at 1 year. Permanent right bundle branch injury occurred in 55 (8.9%) patients. LBB capture threshold increased to >3 V or loss of bundle capture in 6 patients (1%), 2 patients of them had a loss of conduction system capture. Two patients required lead revision due to dislodgement.

CONCLUSIONS

This large observational study suggests that LBBP is feasible with high success rates and low complication rates during long-term follow-up. Therefore, LBBP appears to be a reliable method for physiological pacing for patients with either a bradycardia or heart failure pacing indication.

Novel left ventricular cardiac synchronization: left ventricular septal pacing or left bundle branch pacing?

It is well recognized that a high burden of right ventricular pacing results in deleterious clinical outcomes over the long term. His bundle pacing can achieve optimal ventricular synchronization; however, relatively high pacing thresholds, low R-wave amplitudes, and the long-term performance have been concerns. Recently, left ventricular (LV) septal endocardium pacing (LVSP) has demonstrated improved acute haemodynamics. Another novel technique of intraseptal left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) via transvenous approach has been adopted rapidly and has demonstrated its feasibility and effectiveness. This article reviews the clinical application and differences between LVSP and LBBP. Compared with LVSP, LBBP has strict criteria for left conduction system capture and lead location. In addition to LV septal capture it also stimulates the proximal left bundle branch, resulting in rapid and physiological LV activation. With a uniformity and standardization of the implant procedure and definitions, it may be possible to achieve widespread application of this form of physiological pacing.

Pros and Cons of Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Single-Center Experience

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has recently emerged as a promising alternative modality for conduction system pacing. However, limited real-world data exists on the advantages and complications associated with LBBP. We analyzed the Rush conduction system pacing registry on LBBP to assess the success rates and complications associated with LBBP.

METHODS

All patients with an indication for permanent pacemaker or cardiac resynchronization therapy that underwent LBBP for various reasons from June 2018 to April 2020 were included in the analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 57 of 59 patients underwent successful LBBP (success rate 97%). The average follow-up duration was 6.2±5 months. The implanted devices included 38 dual-chamber pacemakers, 17 cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators, and 2 cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing systems. The most common reason for performing LBBP was a high His-Bundle pacing threshold (n=23) at implant. The mean LBBP capture threshold at implant was 0.62±0.21 V at 0.4 ms which remained stable during follow-up at 0.65±0.68 V at 0.4ms. In 21 patients with cardiomyopathy, there was a significant improvement in left ventricle ejection fraction from 30±11% to 42±15%. A total of 7 lead-related complications (12.3%) were noted in the follow-up period. Three patients (5.3%) required lead revision during the follow-up period. Interventricular septal perforation occurred (as late sequela) after 2 weeks in one patient.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP can be achieved with a high success rate and low capture thresholds. Left ventricular dysfunction improved significantly during follow-up. Lead-related complications were relatively common occurring in 12.3% of initially successful implants. Lead revision was required in 3 (5%) of patients.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in heart failure patients: tough road but clear future

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) based on biventricular pacing (BVP) is an invaluable intervention currently used in heart failure (HF) patients. The therapy involves electromechanical dyssynchrony, which can not only improve heart function and quality of life but also reduce hospitalization and mortality rates. However, approximately 30% to 40% of patients remain unresponsive to conventional BVP in clinical practice. In the recent years, extensive research has been employed to find a more physiological approach to cardiac resynchronization. The His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) may potentially be the future of CRT. These technologies present various advantages including offering an almost real physiological pacing, less complicated procedures, and economic feasibility. Additionally, other methods, such as isolated left-ventricular pacing and multipoint pacing, may in the future be important but non-mainstream alternatives to CRT because currently, there is no strong evidence to support their effectiveness. This article reviews the current situation and latest progress in CRT, explores the existing technology, and highlights future prospects in the development of CRT.

Remarkable response to cardiac resynchronization therapy via left bundle branch pacing in patients with true left bundle branch block

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative means to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

HYPOTHESIS

LBBP may deliver resynchronization therapy along with an advantage over traditional biventricular (BiV) pacing in clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Heart failure patients who presented LBBB morphology according to Strauss's criteria and received successful CRT procedure were enrolled in the present study. Propensity score matching was applied to match patients into LBBP-CRT group and BiV-CRT group. Then, the electrographic data, the echocardiographic data and New York heart association (NYHA) class were compared between the groups.

RESULTS

Twenty-one patients with successful LBBP procedure and another 21 matched patients with successful BiV-CRT procedure were finally enrolled in the study. The QRS duration (QRSd) was narrowed from 167.7 ± 14.9 ms to 111.7 ± 12.3 ms (P < .0001) in the LBBP-CRT group and from 163.6 ± 13.8 ms to 130.1 ± 14.0 ms (P < .0001) in the BiV-CRT group. A trend toward better left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was recorded in the LBBP-CRT group (50.9 ± 10.7% vs 44.4 ± 13.3%, P = .12) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group at the 6-month follow-up. A trend toward better echocardiographic response was documented in patients receiving LBBP-CRT procedure (90.5% vs 80.9%, P = .43) and more super CRT response was documented in the LBBP-CRT group (80.9% vs 57.1%, P = .09) compared to that in the BiV-CRT group.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP-CRT can dramatically improve the electrical synchrony in heart failure patients with LBBB. Meanwhile, compared with the traditional BiV-CRT, it has a tendency to significantly improve LVEF and enhance the NYHA cardiac function scores.

Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a promising pacing modality for preventing pacing induced cardiomyopathy in patients complicated with conduction abnormalities (CAs) after prosthetic valve (PV) implantation.

OBJECTIVE

The present study aimed to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LBBP in this patient population.

METHODS

LBBP was attempted in 20 patients complicated with atrioventricular block after PV implantation. Surface, intracardiac electrical measurements, and echocardiographic data were documented. Lead parameters and complications were routinely tracked at implantation and each follow-up visit.

RESULTS

LBBP was successful in 90% (18/20) participants. The paced QRS duration and the stimulus to left ventricular activation time were 106.8 ± 6.8 ms and 65.5 ± 5.4 ms, respectively. Left bundle branch (LBB) potential was recorded in 61.1% (11/18) patients who succeeded in LBBP. During the procedure, the mean unipolar myocardium capture threshold was 0.51 ± 0.15 V@0.4 ms while the unipolar bundle capture threshold was 0.84 ± 0.51 V@0.4 ms. The mean fluoroscopic exposure time and the radiation dose were 13.0 ± 9.2 min and 81.7 ± 8.3 mGy, respectively. The average follow-up period was 10.4 ± 5.9 months (range 3-23 months). Pacing parameters remained stable and no significant lead-related complications occurred during the whole observation period.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP was safe and feasible in patients with PVs. Acceptable and stable pacing parameters could be expected during the procedure and the follow-ups.

Short-term and intermediate-term performance and safety of left bundle branch pacing

Introduction

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a promising new method for patients with pacing indications. This study aims to evaluate the safety and feasibility of LBBP in a relatively longer time span.

Methods and Results

A total of 164 patients were recruited for LBBP in this study. Among these patients, 148 patients had pacing indications due to symptomatic bradycardia while the other 16 patients had indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). LBBP was successful in 89.0% (146/164) of all recruited patients. Intracardiac and surface electrographic parameters and image data were documented during the LBBP procedure. The mean paced QRS duration (pQRSD) and the mean stimulus to left ventricular activation time (stim‐LVAT) was 106.0 ± 12.9 ms and 64.4 ± 13.7 ms respectively. Left bundle branch (LBB) potentials were recorded in 89 patients. Forty‐three of whom had sick sinus syndrome (SSS), and 46 had atrioventricular block (AVB). The presence of LBB potential was more common in patients with SSS (82.7% vs 57.5%, P = .002). No significant differences in pQRSD, stim‐LVAT, or capture threshold were detected between patient groups with or without LBB potential. Patients were followed up at 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year after the procedure. Pacing parameters and the echocardiographic data remained stable within a mean follow‐up period of 8.6 ± 4.3 months. No serious complication caused by this procedure was found in this study.

Conclusions

Successful LBBP carried an aspect of short pQRSD and stim‐LVAT while the LBB potential was not the prerequisite and necessary feature. The LBBP procedure had a high success rate with satisfied and stable lead parameters during short and intermediate‐term observations.