Nonselective versus selective His bundle pacing: An acute intrapatient speckle‐tracking strain echocardiographic study

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.

Conduction system pacing on track to replace CRT? Review of current evidence and prospects of conduction system pacing

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.

Electro-energetics of Biventricular, Septal and Conduction System Pacing

Abnormal electrical activation of the ventricles creates abnormalities in cardiac mechanics. Local contraction patterns, as reflected by strain, are not only out of phase, but also show opposing length changes in early and late activated regions. Consequently, the efficiency of cardiac pump function (the amount of stroke work generated by a unit of oxygen consumed), is approximately 30% lower in dyssynchronous than in synchronous hearts. Maintaining good cardiac efficiency appears important for long-term outcomes. Biventricular, left ventricular septal, His bundle and left bundle branch pacing may minimise the amount of pacing-induced dyssynchrony and efficiency loss when compared to conventional right ventricular pacing. An extensive animal study indicates maintenance of mechanical synchrony and efficiency during left ventricular septal pacing and data from a few clinical studies support the idea that this is also the case for left bundle branch pacing and His bundle pacing. This review discusses electro-mechanics and mechano-energetics under the various paced conditions and provides suggestions for future research.

Hemodynamic Effects of Permanent His Bundle Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing Assessed by Two-Dimensional Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography

We compared the effects of right ventricular (RVP; n = 26) and His bundle (HBP; n = 24) pacing in patients with atrioventricular conduction disorders and preserved LVEF. Postoperatively (1D), and after six months (6M), the patients underwent global longitudinal strain (GLS) and peak systolic dispersion (PSD) evaluation with 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography, assessment of left atrial volume index (LAVI) and QRS duration (QRSd), and sensing/pacing parameter testing. The RVP threshold was lower than the HBP threshold at 1D (0.65 ± 0.13 vs. 1.05 ± 0.20 V, p < 0.001), and then it remained stable, while the HBP threshold increased at 6M (1.05 ± 0.20 vs. 1.31 ± 0.30 V, p < 0.001). The RVP R-wave was higher than the HBP R-wave at 1D (11.52 ± 2.99 vs. 4.82 ± 1.41 mV, p < 0.001). The RVP R-wave also remained stable, while the HBP R-wave decreased at 6M (4.82 ± 1.41 vs. 4.50 ± 1.09 mV, p < 0.02). RVP QRSd was longer than HBP QRSd at 6M (145.0 ± 11.1 vs. 112.3 ± 9.3 ms, p < 0.001). The absolute value of RVP GLS decreased at 6M (16.32 ± 2.57 vs. 14.03 ± 3.78%, p < 0.001), and HBP GLS remained stable. Simultaneously, RVP PSD increased (72.53 ± 24.15 vs. 88.33 ± 30.51 ms, p < 0.001) and HBP PSD decreased (96.28 ± 33.99 vs. 84.95 ± 28.98 ms, p < 0.001) after 6 months. RVP LAVI increased (26.73 ± 5.7 vs. 28.40 ± 6.4 mL/m², p < 0.05), while HBP LAVI decreased at 6M (30.03 ± 7.8 vs. 28.73 ± 8.7 mL/m², p < 0.01). These results confirm that HBP does not disrupt ventricular synchrony and provides advantages over RVP.

Novel approach to diagnosis of His bundle capture using individualized left ventricular lateral wall activation time as reference

BACKGROUND

During nonselective His bundle (HB) pacing, it is clinically important to confirm His bundle capture versus right ventricular septal (RVS) capture. The present study aimed to validate the hypothesis that during HB capture, left ventricular lateral wall activation time, approximated by the V₆ R-wave peak time (V₆ RWPT), will not be longer than the corresponding activation time during native conduction.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with permanent HB pacing were recruited; cases with abnormal His-ventricle interval or left bundle branch block were excluded. Two corresponding intervals were compared: stimulus-V₆ RWPT and native HB potential-V₆ RWPT. The difference between these two intervals (delta V₆ RWPT), which was diagnostic of lack of HB capture, was identified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 723 electrocardiograms (ECGs) (219 with native rhythm, 172 with selective HB, 215 with nonselective HB, and 117 with RVS capture) were obtained from 219 patients. The native HB-V₆ RWPT, nonselective-, and selective-HB paced V₆ RWPT were nearly equal, while RVS V₆ RWPT was 32.0 (±9.5) ms longer. The ROC curve analysis indicated delta V₆ RWPT > 12 ms as diagnostic of lack of HB capture (specificity of 99.1% and sensitivity of 100%). A blinded observer correctly diagnosed 96.7% (321/332) of ECGs using this criterion.

CONCLUSIONS

We validated a novel criterion for HB capture that is based on the physiological left ventricular activation time as an individualized reference. HB capture can be diagnosed when paced V₆ RWPT does not exceed the value obtained during native conduction by more than 12 ms, while longer paced V₆ RWPT indicates RVS capture.

Impact of His bundle pacing on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation

BACKGROUND

His-Bundle pacing (HBP) is an emerging technique for physiological pacing. However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown.

METHODS

We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for pacemaker (PM) implantation to compare HBP versus RV pacing (RVP) effects on RV performance. Patients were evaluated before implantation and after 6 months by a transthoracic echocardiogram.

RESULTS

A total of 84 patients (age 75.1±7.9 years, 64% male) were enrolled, 42 patients (50%) underwent successful HBP, and 42 patients (50%) apical RVP. At follow up, we found a significant improvement in RV-FAC (Fractional Area Change)% [baseline: HBP 34 IQR (31-37) vs. RVP 33 IQR (29.7-37.2),p = .602; 6-months: HBP 37 IQR (33-39) vs. RVP 30 IQR (27.7-35), p < .0001] and RV-GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)% [baseline: HBP -18 IQR (-20.2 to -15) vs. RVP -16 IQR (-18.7 to -14), p = .150; 6-months: HBP -20 IQR(-23 to -17) vs. RVP -13.5 IQR (-16 to -11), p < .0001] with HBP whereas RVP was associated with a significant decline in both parameters. RVP was also associated with a significant worsening of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (p < .0001) and S wave velocity (p < .0001) at follow up. Conversely from RVP, HBP significantly improved pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) [baseline: HBP 38 IQR (32-42) mmHg vs. RVP 34 IQR (31.5-37) mmHg,p = .060; 6-months: HBP 32 IQR (26-38) mmHg vs. RVP 39 IQR (36-41) mmHg, p < .0001] and tricuspid regurgitation (p = .005) irrespectively from lead position above or below the tricuspid valve.

CONCLUSIONS

In patients undergoing PM implantation, HBP ensues a beneficial and protective impact on RV performance compared with RVP.

The Year in Electrophysiology: Selected Highlights From 2020

This article is the third in an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia. The authors thank the Editor-in-Chief Dr. Kaplan, the Associate Editor-in-Chief Dr. Augoustides, and the editorial board for the opportunity to continue this series; namely, the highlights of the year that pertain to electrophysiology in relation to cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia. This third article focuses on the convergent procedure, His-bundle pacing, a comparison of subcutaneous and transvenous defibrillator therapies, the 2020 practice advisory update for the perioperative management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices, and a technology update regarding the Micra AV (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), the EMPOWER leadless pacemaker (Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA), WiSE-CRT (EBR Systems, Sunnyvale, CA), the Extravascular Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (Medtronic, Moundsview, MN), and the BAROSTIM NEO (CVRx Inc, Minneapolis, MN).