Effects of anodal vs. cathodal pacing on the mechanical performance of the isolated rabbit heart

ECG optimisation for CRT systems in the era of automatic algorithms: a comprehensive review

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) may fail in up to one third of patients, mainly due to anatomical and procedural issues. In the daily practice, ECG optimisation is largely used to address CRT delivery. Ineffective CRT can be related to non-optimal pacing timing as well as inadequate pacing-capture. A rate-competitive atrial fibrillation (AF) or a high daily burden of premature ventricular contractions (PVC) may also affect CRT by means of fusion or pseudo-fusion captures. Growing observations suggest that in a subset of patients with typical left bundle branch block (LBBB), selected LV pacing may be more effective, producing a complete fusion between the left pacing and the intrinsic right bundle activation. The His-ventricular (HV) interval is an invasive measurement (derived from electrophysiological study), which mainly reflects the RV activation (and its contribution to QRS timing) and has been proposed by some authors when addressing LV-paced–RV-sensed fusion. In sinus rhythm CRT patients, with baseline typical LBBB criteria and preserved AV conduction, the “dromotropic” management to achieve RV intrinsic activation with LV fusion is also “AV delay dependent”. In this regard, the RV intrinsic activation (detected by RV sensing) and the A (paced/sensed)-RV (sensed) interval are also influenced by the RV lead position within the RV. The current families of CRT devices have implemented automatic algorithms to optimise AV and VV timing intervals. The proof of principle is again the evidence that fusion of an LV-paced beat with intrinsic rhythm may be more beneficial than standard biventricular pacing, provided a preserved AV conduction. In the present review, all the above issues are discussed.

A transient, closed-loop network of wireless, body-integrated devices for autonomous electrotherapy

Temporary postoperative cardiac pacing requires devices with percutaneous leads and external wired power and control systems. This hardware introduces risks for infection, limitations on patient mobility, and requirements for surgical extraction procedures. Bioresorbable pacemakers mitigate some of these disadvantages, but they demand pairing with external, wired systems and secondary mechanisms for control. We present a transient closed-loop system that combines a time-synchronized, wireless network of skin-integrated devices with an advanced bioresorbable pacemaker to control cardiac rhythms, track cardiopulmonary status, provide multihaptic feedback, and enable transient operation with minimal patient burden. The result provides a range of autonomous, rate-adaptive cardiac pacing capabilities, as demonstrated in rat, canine, and human heart studies. This work establishes an engineering framework for closed-loop temporary electrotherapy using wirelessly linked, body-integrated bioelectronic devices.

The Physiologic Mechanisms of Paced QRS Narrowing During Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Right Bundle Branch Block Patients

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing technique that captures the left bundle branch (LBB) directly, causing the left ventricle (LV) to be excited earlier than the right ventricle (RV), resulting in a “iatrogenic” right bundle branch block (RBBB) pacing pattern. Several studies have recently shown that permanent LBBP can completely or partially narrow the wide QRS duration of the intrinsic RBBB in most patients with bradycardia, although the mechanisms by which this occurs has not been thoroughly investigated. This article presents a review of the LBBP in patients with intrinsic RBBB mentioned in current case reports and clinical studies, discussing the technique, possible mechanisms, future clinical explorations, and the feasibility of eliminating the interventricular dyssynchronization accompanied with LBBP.

Electrogram analysis to detect cathodal and anodal capture in left ventricular cardiac resynchronization pacing leads

AIMS

Our study analyzed cardiac electrograms (EGMs) to identify characteristics for detecting cathodal, anodal, or cathodal-anodal (simultaneous) capture in left ventricular (LV) quadripolar pacing leads of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patients. The relationship between these EGM characteristics and the electrocardiogram (ECG) was also examined.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of 54 bipolar pacing configurations across 9 patients with implanted CRT devices and quadripolar leads who had undergone a 12 lead ECG optimization. Three pacing tests (cathode unipolar, anode unipolar, and bipolar) per bipolar pair were performed, examining ECG and EGM morphology changes accompanying each test and any transitions of morphology or amplitude during voltage stepdown.

RESULTS

During the cathode and anode unipolar pacing tests, the EGM was biphasic (negative/positive) or monophasic (positive) in 52/53 (98%), and biphasic (positive/negative) or monophasic (negative) in 50/51 (98%) respectively. During bipolar LV capture threshold testing, 30 bipolar pairs displayed a sudden increase in EGM amplitude (median 9.4mV, interquartile range [7 to 14mV]) when transitioning from cathodal-anodal capture to cathodal or anodal capture. 90% of these EGM transitions had a corresponding simultaneous change in ECG, while 10% had no ECG changes. Two patients demonstrated "quad-site" capture on their quadripolar lead with multipoint pacing enabled and cathodal-anodal capture from each stimulus.

CONCLUSION

EGM characteristics during LV pacing tests can reliably detect cathodal, anodal, or cathodal-anodal capture, with greater sensitivity than 12 lead ECG changes. Integration of EGM analysis into routine CRT device follow up can be performed easily and may have implications for CRT efficacy. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Left ventricle pacing challenges in cardiac resynchronization therapy systems

Left ventricle (LV) pacing can be considered peculiar due to its different lead/tissue interface (epicardial pacing) and the small vein wedging lead locations with less reliable lead stability. The current technologies available for LV capture automatic confirmation adopt the evoked response (ER), as well as "LV pace to right ventricular (RV) sense" algorithms. The occurrence of anodal RV capture is today completely solved by the use of bipolar LV leads, while intriguing data are recently published regarding the unintentional LV anodal capture beside the cathodal one, which may enlarge the front wave of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery. The LV threshold behavior over time leading to ineffective CRT issues (subthreshold stimulation or concealed loss of capture), the extracardiac capture with phrenic nerve stimulation (PNS), the flexible electronic cathode reprogramming and the inadequate CRT delivery related to inadequate AV and VV pace timing (and its management by LV "dromotropic pace-conditioning") are discussed. Moreover, recently, His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) have shown growing interest to prevent pacing-induced cardiomyopathy as well as for direct intentional CRT. The purpose of the present review is to explore these new challenges regarding LV pacing starting from old concepts.

Left ventricle automatic pacing threshold management in CRT systems: A comprehensive review

Modern cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device-based threshold detection enables capture management and voltage output adjusting to combine consistent left ventricular (LV) pacing with acceptable battery drainage. The current technologies available for LV capture automatic confirmation in most cases require the evoked response, as well as "LV pace to right ventricular sense" algorithms. The LV pacing percentage counter may overestimate the CRT delivery which may be reduced due to pacing inhibition (by sensed LV activation) or inadequate capture due to subthreshold current or pacing into refractory tissue. Moreover, the LV threshold at implant and its behavior over time (as a marker of electrical viability) and the ineffective CRT issues (subthreshold stimulation or concealed loss of capture) are discussed. The purpose of the present review is to explore these new challenges regarding LV pacing automatic management.

Ventricular pacing - Electromechanical consequences and valvular function

Although great strides have been made in the areas of ventricular pacing, it is still appreciated that dyssynchrony can be malignant, and that appropriately placed pacing leads may ameliorate mechanical dyssynchrony. However, the unknowns at present include: 1. The mechanisms by which ventricular pacing itself can induce dyssynchrony; 2. Whether or not various pacing locations can decrease the deleterious effects caused by ventricular pacing; 3. The impact of novel methods of pacing, such as atrioventricular septal, lead-less, and far-field surface stimulation; 4. The utility of ECG and echocardiography in predicting response to therapy and/or development of dyssynchrony in the setting of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) lead placement; 5. The impact of ventricular pacing-induced dyssynchrony on valvular function, and how lead position correlates to potential improvement. This review examines the existing literature to put these issues into context, to provide a basis for understanding how electrical, mechanical, and functional aspects of the heart can be distorted with ventricular pacing. We highlight the central role of the mitral valve and its function as it relates to pacing strategies, especially in the setting of CRT. We also provide future directions for improved pacing modalities via alternative pacing sites and speculate over mechanisms on how lead position may affect the critical function of the mitral valve and thus overall efficacy of CRT.

Atrial burst pacing with biphasic and monophasic waveforms for atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Biphasic pacing is a novel mode of pacing that was suggested to increase cardiac conduction velocity as compared with cathodal monophasic pacing. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of rapid atrial pacing to convert atrial fibrillation (AF) to normal sinus rhythm.

METHODS

Multiple biphasic (anodal/cathodal), reverse biphasic (cathodal/anodal), and monophasic (cathodal) atrial pacing therapies were performed among 12 patients undergoing left atrial catheter ablation for AF. The efficacy end point was successful conversion of AF to sinus rhythm, and safety end point no induction of ventricular arrhythmias. Patients were paced at three cycle lengths (100, 200, and 333 msec) for 60 seconds at three locations (right and left atrial appendages and coronary sinus).

RESULTS

Among the 66 biphasic (anodal/cathodal) pacing procedures one procedure in a patient with chronic AF, which involved pacing at the left atrial appendage with a cycle length of 200 msec, led to conversion of AF to sinus rhythm. None of the 66 monophasic pacing procedures or the 66 reverse biphasic (cathodal/anodal) pacing procedures was associated with AF termination. None of the biphasic pacing procedures was associated with induction of ventricular arrhythmias.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid atrial pacing using a variety of waveforms at the cycle length and output used in the current study was found to be safe. There was a single success in converting a chronic AF to sinus rhythm.

Reverse Polarity Pacing:The Hemodynamic Benefit of Anodal Currents at Lead Tips forCardiac Resynchronization Therapy

BACKGROUND

Myocardial depolarization can be achieved with currents of either anodal or cathodal polarity. In contrast to conventional cathodal pacing, anodal pacing initially hyperpolarizes tissue and improves myocardial contractility in animal models.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In 13 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation, we compared the mean left ventricular outflow velocity-time integral (LV-VTI) for anodal and cathodal polarities in three different pacing configurations. Intraoperative continuous-wave Doppler measurements were taken at a fixed interrogation angle, while polarities were switched during unipolar left ventricular, unipolar biventricular, and shared-coil biventricular pacing. Comparisons used identical pacing rates, intervals, and stimulus strengths. Patients had a mean ejection fraction of 0.18 +/- 0.08 and a mean QRS duration of 140 +/- 34 ms. All capture thresholds were less than 4.5 volts at a pulse width of 0.4 ms. Data were suitable for analysis in 37 of the 39 pairs of Doppler measurements. Anodal polarity significantly increased average LV-VTI in 36 of these 37 comparisons. The mean increase in LV-VTI for each configuration with anodal versus cathodal polarity was 2.8 +/- 2.6 cm (P < 0.001). The combined mean LV-VTI for all configurations was similarly higher for anodal polarity (24.4 +/- 11.7 cm) versus cathodal polarity (21.7 +/- 10.9 cm; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Anodal pacing polarity significantly improves a measure of LV function compared to traditional cathodal currents. Anodal pacing, which can be achieved by a simple reversal of pacing circuit polarity, may represent an important therapeutic addition to future resynchronization devices.