Advances in cardiac resynchronisation therapy: review of indications and delivery options

Is Conduction System Pacing a Valuable Alternative to Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) significantly improves clinical outcomes in patients with ventricular systolic dysfunction and dyssynchrony. Biventricular pacing (BVP) has a class IA recommendation for patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, approximately 30% of patients have a poor therapeutic response and do not achieve real clinical benefit. Pre-implant imaging, together with tailored programming and dedicated device algorithms, have been proposed as possible tools to improve success rate but have shown inconsistent results. Over the last few years, conduction system pacing (CSP) is becoming a real and attractive alternative to standard BVP as it can restore narrow QRS in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) by stimulating and recruiting the cardiac conduction system, thus ensuring true resynchronization. It includes His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Preliminary data coming from small single-center experiences are very promising and have laid the basis for currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP. The purpose of this review is to delve into the emerging role of CSP as an alternative method of achieving CRT. After framing CSP in a historical perspective, the pathophysiological rationale and available clinical evidence will be examined, and crucial technical aspects will be discussed. Finally, evidence gaps and future perspectives on CSP as a technique of choice to deliver CRT will be summarized.

Frontiers in conduction system pacing: treatment of long PR in patients with heart failure

Patients with heart failure who have a prolonged PR interval are at a greater risk of adverse clinical outcomes than those with a normal PR interval. Potential mechanisms of harm relating to prolonged PR intervals include reduced ventricular filling and also the potential progression to a higher degree heart block. There has, however, been relatively little work specifically focusing on isolated PR prolongation as a therapeutic target. Secondary analyses of trials of biventricular pacing in heart failure have suggested that PR prolongation is both a prognostic marker and a promising treatment target. However, while biventricular pacing offers an improved activation pattern, it is nonetheless less physiological than native conduction in patients with a narrow QRS duration, and thus, may not be the ideal option for achieving therapeutic shortening of atrioventricular delay. Conduction system pacing aims to preserve physiological ventricular activation and may therefore be the ideal method for ventricular pacing in patients with isolated PR prolongation. Acute haemodynamic experiments and the recently reported His-optimized pacing evaluated for heart failure (HOPE HF) Randomised Controlled Trial demonstrates the potential benefits of physiological ventricular pacing on patient symptoms and left ventricular function in patients with heart failure.

Stepwise application of ECG and electrogram-based criteria to ensure electrical resynchronization with left bundle branch pacing

AIMS

To define a stepwise application of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) criteria that will simplify implantation and guarantee electrical resynchronization. Left bundle branch pacing has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing. However, a systematic stepwise criterion to ensure electrical resynchronization is lacking.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A cohort of 24 patients from the LEVEL-AT trial (NCT04054895) who received LBBP and had electrocardiographic imaging (ECGI) at 45 days post-implant were included. The usefulness of ECG- and electrogram-based criteria to predict accurate electrical resynchronization with LBBP were analyzed. A two-step approach was developed. The gold standard used to confirm resynchronization was the change in ventricular activation pattern and shortening in left ventricular activation time, assessed by ECGI. Twenty-two (91.6%) patients showed electrical resynchronization on ECGI. All patients fulfilled pre-screwing requisites: lead in septal position in left-oblique projection and W paced morphology in V1. In the first step, presence of either right bundle branch conduction delay pattern (qR or rSR in V1) or left bundle branch capture Plus (QRS ≤120 ms) resulted in 95% sensitivity and 100% specificity to predict LBBP resynchronization, with an accuracy of 95.8%. In the second step, the presence of selective capture (100% specificity, only 41% sensitivity) or a spike-R <80 ms in non-selective capture (100% specificity, sensitivity 46%) ensured 100% accuracy to predict resynchronization with LBBP.

CONCLUSION

Stepwise application of ECG and electrogram criteria may provide an accurate assessment of electrical resynchronization with LBBP (Graphical abstract).

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Left Atrial Remodeling: A Novel Insight?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) restores ventricular dyssynchrony, improving left ventricle (LV) systolic function, symptoms, and outcome in patients with heart failure, systolic dysfunction, and prolonged QRS interval. The left atrium (LA) plays tremendous roles in maintaining cardiac function, being often inflicted in various cardiovascular diseases. LA remodeling implies structural-dilation, functional-altered phasic functions, and strain and electrical-atrial fibrillation remodeling. Until now, several important studies have approached the relationship between LA and CRT. LA volumes can predict responsiveness to CRT, being also associated with improved outcome in these patients. LA function and strain parameters have been shown to improve after CRT, especially in those who were positive responders to it. Further studies still need to be conducted to comprehensively characterize the impact of CRT on LA phasic function and strain, and, also, in conjunction with its impact on functional mitral regurgitation and LV diastolic dysfunction. The aim of this review was to provide an overview of current available data regarding the relation between CRT and LA remodeling.

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy and Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy: A Comprehensive Review

Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is an inherited primary myocardial disease characterized by asymmetrical/symmetrical left ventricle (LV) hypertrophy, with or without LV outflow tract (LVOT) dynamic obstruction, and poor prognosis. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has emerged as a minimally invasive tool for patients with heart failure (HF) with decreased LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and prolonged QRS duration of over 120 ms with or without left bundle branch block (LBBB). Several HCM patients are at risk of developing LBBB because of disease progression or secondary to septal myomectomy, while others might develop HF with decreased LVEF, alleged end-stage/dilated HCM, especially those with thin myofilament mutations. Several studies have shown that patients with myectomy-induced LBBB might benefit from left bundle branch pacing or CRT to relieve symptoms, improve exercise capacity, and increase LVEF. Otherwise, patients with end-stage/dilated HCM and prolonged QRS interval could gain from CRT in terms of NYHA class improvement, LV systolic performance increase and, to some degree, LV reverse remodeling. Moreover, several electrical and imaging parameters might aid proper selection and stratification of HCM patients to benefit from CRT. Nonetheless, current available data are scarce and further studies are still required to accurately clarify the view. This review reassesses the importance of CRT in patients with HCM based on current research by contrasting and contextualizing data from various published studies.

Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing in Heart Failure and Wide QRS Patients: LEVEL-AT Trial

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP). Randomized studies comparing both therapies are scarce and do not include left bundle branch pacing.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to compare ventricular resynchronization achieved by CSP vs BiVP in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication.

METHODS

LEVEL-AT (Left Ventricular Activation Time Shortening with Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Resynchronization Therapy) was a randomized, parallel, controlled, noninferiority trial. Seventy patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication were randomized 1:1 to BiVP or CSP, and followed up for 6 months. Crossover was allowed when primary allocation procedure failed. Primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular activation time, measured using electrocardiographic imaging. Secondary endpoints were left ventricular reverse remodeling and the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or death at 6-month follow-up.

RESULTS

Thirty-five patients were allocated to each group. Eight (23%) patients crossed over from CSP to BiVP; 2 patients (6%) crossed over from BiVP to CSP. Electrocardiographic imaging could not be performed in 2 patients in each group. A similar decrease in left ventricular activation time was achieved by CSP and BiVP (-28 ± 26 ms vs -21 ± 20 ms, respectively; mean difference -6.8 ms; 95% CI: -18.3 ms to 4.6 ms; P < 0.001 for noninferiority). Both groups showed a similar change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-37 ± 59 mL CSP vs -30 ± 41 mL BiVP; mean difference: -8 mL; 95% CI: -33 mL to 17 mL; P = 0.04 for noninferiority) and similar rates of mortality or heart failure hospitalizations (2.9% vs 11.4%, respectively) (P = 0.002 for noninferiority).

CONCLUSIONS

Similar degrees of cardiac resynchronization, ventricular reverse remodeling, and clinical outcomes were attained by CSP as compared to BiVP. CSP could be a feasible alternative to BiVP. (LEVEL-AT [Left Ventricular Activation Time Shortening With Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Resynchronization Therapy]; NCT04054895).

Dual-chamber ICD for left bundle branch area pacing: the cardiac resynchronization and arrhythmia sensing via the left bundle (cross-left) pilot study

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a promising technique to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, safety and efficacy of ventricular arrhythmia sensing via the left bundle in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) recipients remain unclear. We sought to evaluate the feasibility of a single LBBAP lead connected to a dual-chamber ICD in patients indicated with a CRT-D implantation.

METHODS

The CROSS-LEFT pilot study prospectively included 10 consecutive patients with a reduced ejection fraction and a complete left bundle branch block, indicated with a prophylactic CRT-D. A DF-1 lead was implanted at the right ventricular (RV) apex, and an LBBAP lead through the interventricular septum. Ventricular fibrillation was induced at implantation in both conventional (RV) and left bundle branch area sensing configurations. The latter was the final sensing configuration, and patients were implanted with a dual-chamber DF-1 ICD connected to the atrial lead (RA port), the LBBAP lead (RV IS-1 port), and the defibrillation lead (RV DF-1 port), the IS-1 pin being capped. Atrioventricular delay was optimized to ensure fusion between LBBAP and native conduction from the right bundle. Patients were followed during 6 months.

RESULTS

No difference between both configurations was observed regarding R-wave sensing in sinus rhythm (p = 0.22), ventricular fibrillation median interval detection (p = 1.00), or total induced episode duration (p = 0.78). LBBAP resulted in a significant reduction of median QRS width from 164 to 126 ms (p = 0.002). Median ventricular sensing significantly improved from 9.7 at implantation to 18.8 mV at 6 months (p = 0.01). Median LVEF also significantly improved from 29 to 44% at 6 months (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Ventricular arrhythmia sensing and defibrillation can be performed via a single LBBAP lead connected to a dual-chamber ICD, and is associated with significant electromechanical reverse remodeling.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05102227 In patients presenting with left bundle branch block and left ventricular systolic dysfunction, a left bundle branch area pacing lead connected to a DF-1 dual-chamber implantable cardioverter-defibrillator provides safe ventricular arrhythmia sensing and efficient electro-mechanical resynchronization.