Comparison of synchronization between left bundle branch and his bundle pacing in atrial fibrillation patients: An intra-patient-controlled study

Review of Atrioventricular Node Ablation Combined with Permanent His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation with Heart Failure

With the advancement of pacing technologies, His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) has been increasingly recognized as superior to conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) and biventricular pacing (BVP). This method is characterized by a series of strategies that either strengthen the native cardiac conduction system or fully preserve physical atrioventricular activation, ensuring optimal clinical outcomes. Treatment with HPCSP is divided into two pacing categories, His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and when combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA), can significantly improve left ventricular (LV) function. It effectively prevents tachycardia and regulates ventricular rates, demonstrating its efficacy and safety across different QRS wave complex durations. Therefore, HPCSP combined with AVNA can alleviate symptoms and improve the quality of life in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) who are unresponsive to multiple radiofrequency ablation, particularly those with concomitant heart failure (HF) who are at risk of further deterioration. As a result, this "pace and ablate" strategy could become a first-line treatment for refractory AF. As a pacing modality, HBP faces challenges in achieving precise localization and tends to increase the pacing threshold. Thus, LBBP has emerged as a novel approach within HPCSP, offering lower thresholds, higher sensing amplitudes, and improved success rates, potentially making it a preferable alternative to HBP. Future large-scale, prospective, and randomized controlled studies are needed to evaluate patient selection and implantation technology, aiming to clarify the differential clinical outcomes between pacing modalities.

Comparison of His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing with Atrial-Ventricular Node Ablation and Pharmacotherapy in HFpEF Patients with Recurrent Persistent Atrial Fibrillation (HPP-AF study)

BACKGROUND

There is currently no particularly effective strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation accompanying heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), especially with recurrent atrial fibrillation after ablation. In this study, we will evaluate a new treatment strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who had at least two attempts (≧2 times) of radio-frequency catheter ablation but experienced recurrence, and physiologic conduction was reconstructed after atrioventricular node ablation or drug therapy, to control the patient's ventricular rate to maintain a regular heart rhythm, which is called His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) with atrioventricular node ablation.

METHODS AND RESULTS

This investigator-initiated, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit 296 randomized HFpEF patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation. All the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to the pacing group or the drug treatment group. The primary endpoint is differences in cardiovascular events and clinical composite endpoints (all-cause mortality) between patients in the HPCSP and drug-treated groups. Secondary endpoints included heart failure hospitalization, exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise tests, quality of life, echocardiogram parameters, 6-minute walk distance, NT-ProBNP, daily patient activity levels, and heart failure management report recorded by the CIED. It is planned to compete recruitment by the end of 2023 and report in 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

The study aims to determine whether His-Purkinje conduction system pacing with atrioventricular node ablation can better improve patients' symptoms and quality of life, postpone the progression of heart failure, and reduce the rate of rehospitalization and mortality of patients with heart failure.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1900027723, URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=46128&htm=4.

"Ablate and Pace" with Conduction System Pacing: Concomitant versus Delayed Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Objectives: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve the outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). In this setting, AVJA can be performed simultaneously with implantation or in a second procedure a few weeks after implantation. Comparison data on these two alternative strategies are lacking. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, observational study enrolled consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing CSP and AVJA performed in a single procedure or in two separate procedures. Data on the long-term outcomes and healthcare resource utilization were prospectively collected. Results: A total of 147 patients were enrolled: for 105 patients, CSP implantation and AVJA were performed simultaneously (concomitant AVJA); in 42, AVJA was performed in a second procedure, with a mean of 28.8 ± 19.3 days from implantation (delayed AVJA). After a mean follow-up of 12 months, the rate of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups (3.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.666). Concomitant AVJA was associated with a lower number of procedure-related hospitalizations per patient (1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 2.0 ± 0.3; p < 0.001) and with a lower number of hospital treatment days per patient (4.7 ± 1.8 vs. 7.4 ± 1.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Concomitant AVJA resulted as being as safe as delayed AVJA and was associated with a lower utilization of healthcare resources.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Paradigm Shift in Physiological Pacing for Patients With Atrioventricular Block and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function, A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) via His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Pacing (LBBP) offer a physiological approach to pacing by restoring normal ventricular activation. This meta-analysis compares the feasibility, outcomes, and success rates of HBP and LBBP in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and preserved left ventricular function. A systematic search identified studies comparing LBBP with HBP in AVB patients with preserved systolic function. Primary outcomes included QRS duration, success rates, pacing threshold, and improvement in R-wave amplitudes. Secondary outcomes were procedure time and fluoroscopy time. Random-effects models calculated odds ratios (OR) and mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Among 382 screened articles, seven observational studies involving 1035 patients were analyzed. The mean age was 69.9 years, the mean LVEF was 59.3%, and the average follow-up duration was 8.7 months. LBBP showed higher R-wave amplitudes (MD 7.88, 95% CI 7.26 to 8.50, P < 0.0001) and lower pacing thresholds (MD -0.64, 95% CI -0.81 to -0.47, P < 0.0001) compared to HBP. LBBP had shorter procedure time (MD -17.81, 95% CI -30.44 to -5.18, P = 0.006) and reduced fluoroscopy time (MD -5.39, 95% CI -8.81 to -1.97, P = 0.002). No significant differences were observed in QRS duration or success rates. LBBP offers advantages over HBP, including improved electrical activation, lower pacing thresholds, and shorter procedure and fluoroscopy times. Success rates and QRS duration reductions were comparable between LBBP and HBP. These findings support LBBP as a feasible and effective alternative to HBP in AVB patients with preserved systolic function.

Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing as a primary pacing strategy: Systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Novel pacing technologies, such as His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP), have emerged to maintain physiological ventricular activation. We investigated the outcomes of LBBP with HBP for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacing.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing LBBaP with HBP until March 01, 2023 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included pacing metrics, QRS duration, lead revision, procedure parameters, all-cause mortality and heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Overall, 10 studies with 1596 patients were included. Implant success rate was higher in LBBaP compared with HBP (RR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.08 to 1.42, p = .002). LBBaP was associated with lower capture threshold at implantation (mean difference (MD) -0.62 V, 95% CI: -0.74 to -0.51 V, p < .0001) and at follow-up (MD -0.74 V, 95% CI: -0.96 to -0.53, p < .0001), shorter procedure duration (MD -14.66 min, 95% CI: -23.54 to -5.78, p = .001) and shorter fluoroscopy time (MD -4.2 min, 95% CI: -8.4 to -0.0, p = .05). Compared with HBP, LBBaP was associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality (RR: 0.50, 95% CI: 0.33 to 0.77, p = .002) and HFH (RR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.00, p = .05). No statistical differences were found in lead revisions and QRS duration before and after pacing.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis found that LBBaP was superior to HBP regarding pacing metrics and implant success rate as an initial pacing strategy, although absence of head-to-head randomized comparison warrants caution in interpretation of the results.

Left bundle branch pacing preserved left ventricular myocardial work in patients with bradycardia

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. Left ventricular (LV) myocardial work (MW) incorporates afterload and LV global longitudinal strain to estimate global and segmental myocardial contractility. However, the effect of LBBP on LV MW remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of LBBP on LV MW in patients receiving pacemaker for bradyarrhythmia.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 70 bradycardia patients with normal LV systolic function receiving LBBP (n = 46) and non-selective His-bundle pacing (NS-HBP) (n = 24). For comparative analysis, patients receiving right ventricular pacing (RVP) (n = 16) and control subjects (n = 10) were enrolled. Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography was performed. The LV pressure-strain loop was non-invasively constructed to assess global LV MW.

Results

After 6-month follow-up, LBBP group (with >40% ventricular pacing during 6 months) had shorter peak strain dispersion (PSD) compared with RVP group, and higher LV global longitudinal strain compared with RVP group and NS-HBP group, but had no difference in left intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony, including septal-to-posterior wall motion delay and PSD, compared with NS-HBP group. During ventricular pacing, LBBP group had higher global MW index (GWI) (2,189 ± 527 vs. 1,493 ± 799 mmHg%, P = 0.002), higher global constructive work (GCW) (2,921 ± 771 vs. 2,203 ± 866 mmHg%, P = 0.009), lower global wasted work (GWW) (211 ± 161 vs. 484 ± 281 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher global MW efficiency (GWE) (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 80.9 ± 8.3%, P < 0.001) compared with RVP group, and had lower GWW (211 ± 161 vs. 406 ± 234 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher GWE (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 86.4 ± 8.1%, P < 0.001) compared with NS-HBP group.

Conclusions

In this study we found that in patients with mid-term (6-month) high ventricular pacing burden (>40%), LBBP preserved more LV MW compared with NS-HBP and RVP. Further studies are warranted to assess the association between LV MW and long-term clinical outcomes in LBBP with high ventricular pacing burden.

Safety and efficacy of His-Purkinje system pacing in the treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

To evaluate the safety and efficacy of the His-Purkinje system pacing (HPCSP) in the treatment of individuals with atrial fibrillation (AF) complicated by heart failure (HF).

Methods

The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase databases were searched through September 1, 2022. The literature was initially screened based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The baseline characteristics of the subjects, implantation success rate, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDd), QRS duration, pacing threshold, and impedance were extracted and summarized; statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software.

Results

In all, 22 articles were included, involving 1,445 patients. Compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP), HPCSP resulted in improved cardiac function, including increased ejection fraction (MD = 5.69, 95% CI: 0.78-10.60, P = 0.02) and decreased LVEDd (MD = -3.50, 95% CI: -7.05-0.05, P = 0.05). It was also correlated with shorter QRS duration (MD = -38.30, 95% CI: -60.71--15.88, P < 0.01) and reduced all-cause mortality and rehospitalization events (RR = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.57-0.91, P < 0.01) in patients. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) lowered the pacing threshold (MD = 0.47; 95% CI: 0.25-0.69; P < 0.01), and there was no statistical difference in the rate of endpoint events when comparing these two physiologic pacing modalities (RR = 1.56, 95% CI: 0.87-2.80, P = 0.14).

Conclusion

The safety and efficacy of HPCSP in patients with AF and HF were verified in this meta-analysis. HPCSP can reverse cardiac remodeling and has great clinical application value. Relatively speaking, His-bundle pacing (HBP) can maintain better ventricular electro-mechanical synchronization, and the pacing parameters of LBBP are more stable.

Systematic Review Registration

PROSPERO (CRD42022336109).

Clinical, procedural and lead outcomes associated with different pacing techniques: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

His- Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) techniques have been proposed as alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP).

OBJECTIVE

To compare data regarding clinical, procedural and lead outcomes associated with different pacing techniques.

METHODS

An accurate search of online scientific libraries (from inception to May, 12,022) was performed. Thirty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis involving 4386 patients, of whom 1324 receiving RVP, 1032 patients receiving BVP, 1069 patients receiving his-bundle pacing (HBP) and 968 patients receiving left bundle branch pacing (LBBP).

RESULTS

LBBP provided a statistically significant increase in LVEF relative to HBP (0.4473 [0.0584; 0.8361] p = 0.0242) and BVP (0.6733 [0.4734; 0.8732] p < 0.0001) in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication. LBBP and HBP significantly decreased QRS duration as compared to BVP, with largest QRS narrowing obtained by LBBP (-0.4951 [-0.9077; -0.0824] p = 0.0187). As compared to LBBP, HBP was associated with a significant increase of pacing threshold (p = 0.0369) and significant reduction of R-wave amplitude over time (p = 0.027). LBBP was associated with significant reduction in RR of hospitalization for HF (HFH) as compared to both BVP (p = 0.0343) and HBP (p = 0.0476), whereas, as compared to RVP, the risk of lead issues was significantly higher with BVP (p = 0.0424) and HBP (p = 0.0298), but not for LBBP (p = 0.425).

CONCLUSIONS

As compared to other pacing techniques, LBBP significantly improved LVEF, narrowed QRS duration and reduced HFHs, with steadily lower capture thresholds and higher R-wave amplitude, and without increasing lead issues.

His bundle combined with deep septal left bundle branch area pacing for atrial fibrillation prior to atrioventricular node ablation

Background

To mitigate the risk of dyssynchrony-induced cardiomyopathy, international guidelines advocate His bundle pacing (HBP) with a ventricular backup lead prior to atrioventricular node ablation in treatment-refractory atrial fibrillation and normal left ventricular ejection fraction. As a result of concerns with long-term pacing parameters associated with HBP, this case series reports an adopted strategy of HBP combined with deep septal left bundle branch area pacing (dsLBBAP) in this patient cohort, enabling intrapatient comparison of the two pacing methods.

Methods and Results

Eight patients aged 72 ± 10 years (left ventricular ejection fraction 53 ± 4%) underwent successful combined HBP and dsLBBAP implant prior to AV node ablation. Intrinsic QRS duration was 118 ± 46 ms. When compared to dsLBBAP, HBP had lower sensed ventricular amplitude (2.4 ± 1.1 vs. 15 ± 5.3 V, p = .001) and lower lead impedance (522 ± 57 vs. 814 ± 171ohms, p = .02), but shorter paced QRS duration (101 ± 20 vs. 119 ± 17 ms, p = .02). HBP pacing threshold was 1.0 ± 0.6 V at 1 ms pulse width, and dsLBBAP pacing threshold was 0.5 ± 0.2 V at 0.4 ms pulse width. Five patients underwent cardiac CT showing adequate dsLBBAP ventricular septal penetration (8.6 ± 1.3 mm depth, 2.4 ± 0.5 mm distance from left ventricular septal wall). No complications occurred during a mean follow-up duration of 121 ± 92 days.

Conclusions

Combined HBP and dsLBBAP pacing is a feasible approach as a pace and ablate strategy for atrial fibrillation refractory to medical therapy.

His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch pacing on ventricular function in atrial fibrillation patients referred for pacing: a prospective crossover comparison

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) both provide physiologic pacing which maintain left ventricular synchrony. They both improve heart failure (HF) symptoms in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients. We aimed to assess the intra-patient comparison of ventricular function and remodeling as well as leads parameters corresponding to two pacing modalities in AF patients referred for pacing in intermediate term.

METHODS

Uncontrolled tachycardia AF patients with both leads implantation successfully were randomized to either modality. Echocardiographic measurements, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, quality-of-life assessments and leads parameters were obtained at baseline and at each 6-month follow up. Left ventricular function including the left ventricular endo-systolic volume (LVESV), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and right ventricular (RV) function quantified by tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) were all assessed.

RESULTS

Consecutively twenty-eight patients implanted with both HBP and LBBP leads successfully were enrolled (69.1 ± 8.1 years, 53.6% male, LVEF 59.2% ± 13.7%). The LVESV was improved by both pacing modalities in all patients (n = 23) and the LVEF was improved in patients with baseline LVEF at less than 50% (n = 6). The TAPSE was improved by HBP but not LBBP (n = 23).

CONCLUSION

In this crossover comparison between HBP and LBBP, LBBP was found to have an equivalent effect on LV function and remodeling but better and more stable parameters in AF patients with uncontrolled ventricular rates referred for atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation. HBP could be preferred in patients with reduced TAPSE at baseline rather than LBBP.

Pacing Characteristics of His Bundle Pacing vs. Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological pacing strategy, which aims to capture the His bundle-Purkinje system and synchronously activate the ventricles. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a newly discovered physiological pacing technique similar to HBP. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the pacing parameters and clinical results between HBP and LBBP.

Methods

We systematically retrieved studies using the PubMed, Embase database, and Cochrane Library. Mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals [CIs] were used to measure the outcomes. A random-effect model was used when studies were of high heterogeneity.

Results

A total of seven studies containing 867 individuals were included. Compared with HBP, LBBP was associated with higher implant success rates (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05–1.18; I² = 60%, P = 0.0003), lower capture threshold at implantation (V/0.5 ms) (MD: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.35–0.90, I² = 89%, P < 0.0001) and capture threshold at follow-up (V/0.5 ms) (MD: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.34–1.18, I² = 93%, P = 0.0004), and larger sensed R wave amplitude (mV) at implantation (MD: 7.23, 95% CI: 5.29–9.16, P < 0.0001) and sensed R wave amplitude (mV) at follow-up (MD: 7.53, 95% CI: 6.85–8.22, P < 0.0001). In LBBP recipients, greater QRS wave complex reduction was found in the paced QRS duration at follow-up compared with HBP recipients at follow-up (MD: 6.12, 95% CI: 1.23–11.01, I² = 0%, P = 0.01). No statistical differences were found in procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, native left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF), LVEF improvement, native QRS duration, and QRS reduction from the native QRS duration vs. paced QRS duration at implantation.

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests that pacing characteristics are better in LBBP compared with HBP. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the clinical advantages of LBBP.

Clinical Outcomes Associated With His-Purkinje System Pacing vs. Biventricular Pacing, in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Meta-Analysis

Aims

His-Purkinje system pacing has recently emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BIVP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The aim of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the clinical outcomes associated with His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) vs. BIVP in patients with heart failure. There is also a comparison of clinical outcomes of His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in the His-Purkinje system.

Methods

We searched the Cochrane Library, Embase, and PubMed, for studies published between January 2010 and October 2021 that compared the clinical outcomes associated with HPSP vs. BIVP and HBP vs. LBBP in HPSP in patients who underwent CRT. The pacing threshold, R-wave amplitudes, QRS duration, New York Heart Association functional (NYHA), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) of heart failure, at follow-up, were extracted and summarized for meta-analysis.

Results

A total of 18 studies and 1517 patients were included in our analysis. After a follow-up period of 9.3 ± 5.4 months, the HPSP was found to be associated with shorter QRS duration in the CRT population compared to that in the BIVP (SMD, −1.17; 95% CI, −1.56 to −0.78; P &lt; 0.00001; I2 = 74%). No statistical difference was verified between HBP and LBBP on QRS duration (SMD, 0.04; 95% CI, −0.32 to 0.40; P = 0.82; I2 = 84%). In the comparison of HPSP and BIVP, the LBBP subgroup showed improved LVEF (SMD, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.42–0.91; P &lt; 0.00001; I2 = 0%), shorter LVEDD (SMD, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.93–0.26; P = 0.0005; I2 = 0%), and higher New York Heart Association functional class (SMD, −0.65; 95% CI, −0.86 to −0.43; P &lt; 0.00001; I2 = 45%). In terms of pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude clinical outcomes, LBBP has a lower pacing threshold (SMD, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.12–1.39; P &lt; 0.00001; I2 = 47%) and higher R-wave amplitude (MD, −7.88; 95% CI, −8.46 to −7.31; P &lt; 0.00001; I2 = 8%) performance compared to HBP.

Conclusion

Our meta-analysis showed that the HPSP produced higher LVEF, shorter QRS duration, and higher NYHA functional class in the CRT population than the BIVP as observed on follow-up. LBBP has a lower pacing threshold and higher R-wave amplitude. HPSP may be a new and promising alternative to BIVP in the future.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing: A systematic review and network meta-analysis in bradycardia and conduction disorders

BACKGROUND

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) has emerged as an effective alternative to overcome the limitations of right ventricular pacing (RVP) via physiological left ventricular activation, but there remains a paucity of comparative information for His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP).

METHODS

A Bayesian random-effects network analysis was conducted to compare the relative effects of HBP, LBBP, and RVP in patients with bradycardia and conduction disorders. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched from database inception until September 21, 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 4160 patients were included in this meta-analysis. LBBP significantly improved success rate, pacing threshold, pacing impedance, and R-wave amplitude compared with HBP. LBBP also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend towards superior outcomes of lead complications, heart failure hospitalization, atrial fibrillation, and all-cause death. However, HBP was associated with significantly shorter paced QRS duration relative to LBBP. Despite higher success rates, shorter procedure/fluoroscopy duration, and fewer lead complications, patients receiving RVP were more likely to experience reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, longer paced QRS duration, and higher rates of heart failure hospitalization than those receiving HPCSP. No statistical differences were observed in the remaining outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis demonstrates the efficacy and safety of HPCSP for the treatment of bradycardia and conduction disorders, with differences in pacing parameters, electrophysiology characteristics, and clinical outcomes between HBP and LBBP. Larger-scale, long-term comparative studies are warranted for further verification.