Within-patient comparison of His-bundle pacing, right ventricular pacing, and right ventricular pacing avoidance algorithms in patients with PR prolongation: Acute hemodynamic study

AV-optimized conduction system pacing for treatment of AV dromotropathy: A randomized, cross-over study

BACKGROUND

Severe first-degree atrioventricular (AV) block may produce symptoms similar to heart failure due to AV dyssynchrony, a syndrome termed AV dromotropathy. According to guidelines, it should be considered for permanent pacemaker implantation, yet evidence supporting this treatment is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the impact of AV-optimized conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients with symptomatic severe first-degree AV block and echocardiographic signs of AV dyssynchrony.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic first-degree AV block (PR > 250 ms), preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, narrow QRS, and AV dyssynchrony were included in the study. In a single-blind cross-over design, patients were randomized to AV sequential CSP or backup VVI pacing with a base rate of 40 bpm. We compared exercise capacity, echocardiographic parameters, and symptom occurrence at the end of 3 months of each period.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients completed the study. During the AV-optimized CSP compared to the backup pacing period, patients achieved a higher workload on exercise test (147.2 ± 50.9 vs. 140.7 ± 55.8 W; p = .032), with a trend towards higher peak VO2 (23.3 ± 7.1 vs. 22.8 ± 7.1 mL/min/kg; p = .224), and higher left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV 74.5 ± 13.8 vs. 66.4 ± 12.5 mL; p < .001). Symptomatic improvement was recorded, with fewer patients reporting general tiredness and 71% of patients preferring the AV-optimized CSP (p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

AV-optimized CSP could improve symptoms, exercise capacity and LVSV in patients with severe first-degree AV block.

Current role of Conduction System Pacing in Patients Requiring Permanent Pacing

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) are novel methods of pacing directly pacing the cardiac conduction system. HBP while developed more than two decades ago, only recently moved into the clinical mainstream. In contrast to conventional cardiac pacing, conduction system pacing including HBP and LBBP utilizes the native electrical system of the heart to rapidly disseminate the electrical impulse and generate a more synchronous ventricular contraction. Widespread adoption of conduction system pacing has resulted in a wealth of observational data, registries, and some early randomized controlled clinical trials. While much remains to be learned about conduction system pacing and its role in electrophysiology, data available thus far is very promising. In this review of conduction system pacing, the authors review the emergence of conduction system pacing and its contemporary role in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Cardiac Conduction System Pacing: A Comprehensive Update

The field of cardiac pacing has changed rapidly in the last several years. Since the initial description of His bundle pacing targeting the conduction system, recent advances in pacing the left bundle branch and its fascicles have evolved. The field and investigators' knowledge of conduction system pacing including relevant anatomy and physiology has advanced significantly. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on recent advances in conduction system pacing.

Effects of haemodynamically atrio-ventricular optimized His bundle pacing on heart failure symptoms and exercise capacity: the His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE-HF) randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial

AIMS

Excessive prolongation of PR interval impairs coupling of atrio-ventricular (AV) contraction, which reduces left ventricular pre-load and stroke volume, and worsens symptoms. His bundle pacing allows AV delay shortening while maintaining normal ventricular activation. HOPE-HF evaluated whether AV optimized His pacing is preferable to no-pacing, in a double-blind cross-over fashion, in patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, PR interval ≥200 ms and either QRS ≤140 ms or right bundle branch block.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients had atrial and His bundle leads implanted (and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead if clinically indicated) and were randomized to 6 months of pacing and 6 months of no-pacing utilizing a cross-over design. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake during symptom-limited exercise. Quality of life, LVEF and patients' holistic symptomatic preference between arms were secondary outcomes. Overall, 167 patients were randomized: 90% men, 69 ± 10 years, QRS duration 124 ± 26 ms, PR interval 249 ± 59 ms, LVEF 33 ± 9%. Neither peak oxygen uptake (+0.25 ml/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23 to +0.73, p = 0.3) nor LVEF (+0.5%, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.6, p = 0.4) changed with pacing but Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life improved significantly (-3.7, 95% CI -7.1 to -0.3, p = 0.03). Seventy-six percent of patients preferred His bundle pacing-on and 24% pacing-off (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

His bundle pacing did not increase peak oxygen uptake but, under double-blind conditions, significantly improved quality of life and was symptomatically preferred by the clear majority of patients. Ventricular pacing delivered via the His bundle did not adversely impact ventricular function during the 6 months.