Safety and feasibility of left bundle branch area pacing following valvular interventions: Multicenter study

Physiologic Pacing Targeting the His Bundle and Left Bundle Branch: a Review of the Literature

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a means to preserve or restore physiological ventricular activation via pacing at the His bundle or at more distal targets in the conduction system, including the left bundle branch area. This review examines strengths, weaknesses, and clinical applications of CSP performed via these approaches.

RECENT FINDINGS

His bundle pacing (HBP) has been successfully utilized for standard bradyarrhythmia indications and for QRS correction among patients receiving devices for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Limitations of HBP pacing have included implant complexity and rising pacing thresholds over time. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) appears to deliver similar physiological benefits with shorter implant times and more stable thresholds. More recently, hybrid systems utilizing HBP or LBBAP in combination with left ventricular leads have been used to treat heart failure (HF) patients, and may be useful in multilevel or mixed conduction blocks. There is growing interest in CSP for bradycardia and HF indications, although high quality data with randomized controlled trials are needed to help guide future treatment paradigms.

Conduction system pacing in prosthetic heart valves

BACKGROUND

There has been increasing interest in physiologic pacing techniques that directly activate the specialized conduction system. We aimed to assess outcomes of conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients with prosthetic heart valves.

METHODS

This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Freeman-Tukey double arcsine transformation with the random-effect model was used to summarize the data. Outcomes studied were 1) implant success (defined as ability to recruit the His-Purkinje system or the distal Purkinje system); (2) lead parameters at implant and follow-up; and (3) procedure-related complications.

RESULTS

This systematic review of 7 studies included 267 unique patients in whom CSP was attempted with either HBP or LBBAP for pacing indications after a prosthetic valve. HBP was attempted in 38% (n = 108), while LBBAP in 62% (n = 175) patients. The overall success rate of CSP was 87%, while in patients post-TAVR, the overall success rate was 83.2%. In the subgroup analysis, LBBAP had a significant higher overall success rate compared to HBP (94.3% vs. 76.5%, p _interaction = 0.02) and post-TAVR patients (94.3 vs. 66.9%, p _interaction < 0.01), respectively. The LBBAP thresholds were significantly lower compared to HBP both at implant (0.67 ± 0.4 @ 0.44 ms vs. 1.35 ± 1 @ 0.85 ms, p _interaction < 0.01) and at a mean follow-up of 12.4 ± 8 months (0.73 ± 0.1 @ 0.44 ms vs. 1.39 ± 1 @ 0.85 ms, p _interaction < 0.01), respectively.

CONCLUSION

CSP is safe and feasible in patients with a prosthetic valve, with a significantly higher success rate and superior lead parameters with LBBAP than HBP, especially in patients post-TAVR.