Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Right Ventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block

Comparison of clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular pacing in older patients

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is safe and effective, but studies in older patients are lacking. This study compared the clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients aged ≥75 years.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included older patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBAP or RVP between 2019 and 2022. Clinical data, including pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and device-related complications were collected. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

RESULTS

Of 267 included patients, 110 underwent LBBAP and 157 underwent RVP. LBBAP was successful in 109 patients (success rate: 99.1%), with one patient eventually undergoing RVP. The pacing parameters of LBBAP were similar to those of RVP, except for a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (112.8 ± 11.6 vs. 138.3 ± 23.9 ms, p < .001). Ventricular lead implanting procedural duration was longer for LBBAP than RVP (14.0 vs. 6.0 min, p < .001), as was the fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.0 min, p < .001). During a mean follow-up period of 31.0 ± 16.8 months, the primary outcome incidence was significantly lower following LBBAP than RVP (15.1% vs. 21.1%; hazard ratio, 0.471; 95% confidence interval, 0.215-1.032; p = .036) in 149 patients (55.8%) with ventricular pacing burden > 20%. RVP reduced LVEF from 62.7 ± 4.1% at baseline to 59.8 ± 7.8% at the final follow-up (p = .001), whereas LBBAP preserved LVEF (61.4 ± 6.3% vs. 60.1 ± 7.4%, p = .429).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP demonstrated improved clinical outcomes compared with RVP and maintained LVEF in older patients with high ventricular pacing burdens.

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW

Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

Mid-term clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to accurate right ventricular septal pacing

BACKGROUND

Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) reportedly results in fewer adverse outcomes after implantation than conventional stylet-guided right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP), previous studies have not compared LBBAP with accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter. The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and accurate RVSP among patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).

METHODS

This single-center observational study enrolled 160 patients requiring RV pacing due to symptomatic AVB between September 2018 and December 2021. Primary composite outcomes included all-cause death, hospitalization due to heart failure (HF), and upgrading to biventricular pacing. Secondary composite outcomes included any procedural and postprocedural complications.

RESULTS

Overall, 160 patients were analyzed (LBBAP, n = 81; RVSP, n = 79). No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed between the two groups. The RV pacing burden at 1 year after implantation was 90.8% ± 20.4% and 86.2% ± 22.6%, respectively (p = 0.21). During a mean follow-up of 840 ± 369 days, the incidence of the primary outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (4.9%) compared to RVSP (22.8%) (Log-rank p = 0.02). There was no significant difference in the incidence of the secondary outcome between the two groups (3.7% vs. 5.1%, p = 0.65). In the multivariate analysis, baseline QRS duration, RV pacing burden, and LBBAP were independently associated with the primary outcome (baseline QRS duration: hazard ratio [HR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; RV pacing burden: HR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00-1.02; p < 0.001; LBBAP: HR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.31-0.64; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

In patients requiring frequent RV pacing, LBBAP was associated with reduced adverse clinical outcome compared to accurate RVSP using a delivery catheter.

Is Conduction System Pacing Going to Be the New Gold Standard for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?

The current gold standard in device therapy for advanced heart failure (HF), which has been firmly established in HF management for more than 25 years, is classical biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT). In the last decade, a new pacing modality called conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a variant for advanced cardiac device therapy. It provides pacing with preserved intrinsic cardiac activation by direct stimulation of the specific cardiac conduction system. The term CSP integrates the modalities of HIS bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), both of which have provided convincing data in smaller randomized and big non-randomized studies for the prevention of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy and for providing effective cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with classical CRT-indication (primary approach or after failed CRT). Recent American guidelines proposed the term "cardiac physiological pacing" (CPP), which summarizes CSP including left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), a technical variant of LBBAP together with classical BiV-CRT. The terms HOT-CRT (HIS-optimized CRT) and LOT-CRT (LBBP-optimized CRT) describe hybrid technologies that combine CSP with an additional coronary-sinus electrode, which is sometimes useful in patients with advanced HF and diffuse interventricular conduction delay. If CSP continues providing promising data that can be confirmed in big, randomized trials, it is likely to become the new gold standard for patients with an expected high percentage of pacing (>20%), possibly also for cardiac resynchronization therapy. CSP is a sophisticated new treatment option that has the potential to raise the term "cardiac resynchronization therapy" to a new level. The aim of this review is to provide basic technical, anatomical, and functional knowledge of these new pacemaker techniques in order to facilitate the understanding of the different modalities, as well as to provide an up-to-date overview of the existing randomized and non-randomized evidence, particularly in direct comparison to right ventricular and classical biventricular pacing.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography- and X-ray-guided left bundle branch pacing for bradycardia: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing modality. However, the long procedure and fluoroscopy time of LBBP is still a problem. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)- and X-ray-guided LBBP.

METHODS

This is a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study. Consecutive patients who underwent LBBP in our team from June 2022 to November 2022 were enrolled. Procedure and fluoroscopy time, pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, as well as complications were recorded at implantation and during follow-up.

RESULTS

In this study, 60 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups: 30 patients were allocated to the X-ray group and the remaining 30 to the TTE group. There was no significant difference in the success rate between the two groups (86.7% vs. 76.7%, p = .317). The procedure time of TTE group was comparable to that of the X-ray group (9.0 vs. 12.0 min, p = .063). However, the fluoroscopy time in the TTE group was significantly lower than that of the X-ray group (2.5 vs. 5.0 min, p = .002). There were no statistically significant differences in pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, or complications between the two groups at implantation and during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

TTE-guided LBBP is a feasible and safe method. Compared with X-ray, TTE showed a comparable success rate and procedure time, but it could significantly reduce the fluoroscopy time of LBBP.

Conduction system pacing: how far are we from the "electrical" bypass?

Conduction system pacing is an alternative practice to conventional right ventricular apical pacing. It is a method that maintains physiologic ventricular activation, based on a correct pathophysiological basis, in which the pacing lead bypasses the lesion of the electrical fibers and the electrical impulse transmits through the intact adjacent conduction system. For this reason, it might be reasonably characterized by the term "electrical bypass" compared to the coronary artery bypass in revascularization therapy. In this review, reference is made to the sequence of events in which conventional right ventricular pacing may cause adverse outcomes. Furthermore, there is a reference to alternative strategies and pacing sites. Interest focuses on the modalities for which there are data from the literature, namely for the right ventricular (RV) septal pacing, the His bundle pacing (HBP), and the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). A more extensive reference is about the HBP, for which there are the most updated data. We analyze the considerations that limit HBP-wide application in three axes, and we also present the data for the implantation and follow-up of these patients. The indications with their most important studies to date are then described in detail, not only in their undoubtedly positive findings but also in their weak aspects, because of which this pacing mode has not yet received a strong recommendation for implementation. Finally, there is a report on LBBP, focusing mainly on its points of differentiation from HBP.

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing for patients with stable coronary artery disease

Aims

Stable coronary artery disease (CAD) is a prevalent comorbidity among patients requiring pacemaker implantation. This comorbidity may have an impact on the safety and prognosis of traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing modality. Our aim was to investigate the feasibility and safety of LBBaP in patients with the stable CAD.

Methods

This study included 309 patients with symptomatic bradycardia who underwent LBBaP from September 2017 to October 2021. We included 104 patients with stable CAD (CAD group) and 205 patients without CAD (non-CAD group). Additionally, 153 stable CAD patients underwent RVP, and 64 stable CAD patients underwent His-bundle pacing (HBP) were also enrolled in this study. The safety and prognosis of LBBaP was assessed by comparing pacing parameters, procedure-related complications, and clinical events.

Results

During a follow-up period of 17.4 ± 5.3 months, the safety assessment revealed that the overall rates of procedure-related complications were similar between the stable CAD group and the non-CAD group (7.7% vs. 3.9%). Likewise, similar rates of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) (4.8% vs. 3.4%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD) and the primary composite outcome including death due to cardiovascular disease, HFH, or the necessity for upgrading to biventricular pacing (6.7% vs. 3.9%, stable CAD vs. non-CAD), were observed. In stable CAD patients, LBBaP demonstrated lower pacing thresholds and higher R wave amplitudes when compared to HBP. Additionally, LBBaP also had significantly lower occurrences of the primary composite outcome (6.7% vs. 19.6%, P = 0.003) and HFH (4.8% vs. 13.1%, P = 0.031) than RVP in stable CAD patients, particularly among patients with the higher ventricular pacing (VP) burden (>20% and >40%).

Conclusion

Compared with non-CAD patients, LBBaP was found to be attainable in stable CAD patients and exhibited comparable mid-term safety and prognosis. Furthermore, in the stable CAD population, LBBaP has demonstrated more stable pacing parameters than HBP, and better prognostic outcomes compared to RVP.

Comparison of ventricular synchrony in children with left bundle branch area pacing and right ventricular septal pacing

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine the ideal pacing site in children by comparing the postoperative ventricular synchrony in children with left bundle branch area pacing and those with right ventricular septal pacing.

METHODS

This retrospective study included children with complete atrioventricular block who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation from March 2019 to August 2021. Patients were grouped according to their ventricular pacing site, the left bundle branch area pacing group and the right ventricular septal pacing group. Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography was used to evaluate the ventricular synchrony.

RESULTS

Forty-eight children (median age, 2.7 years; interquartile range, 1.7-4.6 years) were included. The paced QRS duration in the left bundle branch area pacing group was significantly narrower than that in the right ventricular septal pacing group (100.2 ± 9.3 versus 115.4 ± 15.1 ms, p = 0.001). The median follow-up duration was 1.5 years (interquartile range, 1-2 years). At the last follow-up, the average capture threshold of the ventricular electrode in the left bundle branch area pacing group was lower than that in the right ventricular septal pacing group (0.79 ± 0.18 versus 1.20 ± 0.56 V, p = 0.008). The left ventricular intraventricular synchrony parameters in the left bundle branch area pacing group were better than those in the right ventricular septal pacing group (e.g. standard deviation of the time to peak longitudinal strain, 37.4 ± 4.3 versus 46.6 ± 8.2 ms, p = 0.000). The average interventricular mechanical delay time in the left bundle branch area pacing group was significantly shorter than that in the right ventricular septal pacing group (36.4 ± 14.2 versus 52.5 ± 22.7 ms, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

Compared with right ventricular septal pacing, left bundle branch area pacing in children produces a narrower QRS duration and better pacing and ventricular synchrony parameters postoperatively.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Feasibility and safety of zero-fluoroscopy left bundle branch pacing: An initial experience

INTRODUCTION

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged in recent years as a new pacing modality, providing patients with a narrower paced QRS than conventional pacing and stable pacing parameters. At the same time, there is a growing concern about the use of fluoroscopy in pacemaker implantations, given its harmful effects on both patients and operators. However, there are no prior experiences of zero-fluoroscopy in LBBP procedure.

METHODS

We conducted an observational prospective study recruiting consecutive patients that underwent zero-fluoroscopy LBBP pacemaker implantation. A 6-month follow-up visit was programmed for every patient. The main goal of our study was to assess the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of the procedure.

RESULTS

From January 2021 to February 2022, we included 10 patients, 8 males. The average age was 63 ± 4 years. The procedure was successful in all patients. We observed a significant reduction in paced QRS width compared with basal QRS width (149 ± 31.9 vs. 116 ± 15.6 ms, p = .02). All device parameters remained stable at 6-month follow-up: no significant differences in mean impedance (700.5 ± 136.4 vs. 494 ± 72.7 Ohm, p = .09), capture threshold (0.67 ± 0.2 vs. 0.83 ± 0.2 V @ 0.4 ms, p = .27) or endocardial V-wave amplitude (10.6 ± 5.2 vs. 13.9 ± 6.3 mV, p = .19). No complications were reported in any case.

CONCLUSION

Zero-fluoroscopy LBBP is feasible and safe, and it may be considered in cases where radiation exposure is contraindicated or especially undesirable. Future randomized clinical trials are needed for the widespread use of this new technique.

A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis comparing left bundle branch pacing, his bundle branch pacing, and right ventricular pacing for atrioventricular block

Background

Although right ventricular pacing (RVP) is recommended by most of the guidelines for atrioventricular block, it can cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony, impair left ventricular function, and increase the risk of atrial fibrillation. Recently, the His-Purkinje system pacing, including His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), has emerged as a physiological pacing modality. However, few studies have compared their efficacy and safety in atrioventricular block (AVB).

Methods and results

The PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and ScienceDirect databases were searched for observational studies and randomized trials of patients with atrioventricular block requiring permanent pacing, from database inception until 10 January 2022. The primary outcomes were complications and heart failure hospitalization. The secondary outcomes included changes in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), pacing parameters, procedure duration, and success rate. After extracting the data at baseline and the longest follow-up duration available, a pairwise meta-analysis and a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis were performed. Odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) or 95% credible intervals (CrIs) were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, whereas mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs or 95% CrIs were calculated for continuous outcomes. Seven studies and 1,069 patients were included. Overall, 43.4% underwent LBBP, 33.5% HBP, and 23.1% RVP. Compared with RVP, LBBP and HBP were associated with a shorter paced QRS duration and a more preserved LVEF. HBP significantly increased the pacing threshold and reduced the R-wave amplitude. There was no difference in the risk of complications or the implant success rate. The pacing threshold remained stable during follow-up for the three pacing modalities. The pacing impedance was significantly reduced in HBP, while a numerical but non-significant pacing impedance decrease was observed in both LBBP and RVP. LBBP was associated with an increased R-wave amplitude during follow-up.

Conclusion

In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in paced QRS duration and preservation of LVEF for patients with atrioventricular block. LBBP was associated with a lower pacing threshold and a greater R-wave amplitude than HBP. However, the stability of the pacing output of LBBP may be a concern. Further investigation of the long-term efficacy in left ventricular function and the risk of heart failure hospitalization is needed.

Systematic review registration

[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=315046], identifier [CRD42022315046].

Criteria for differentiating left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing: A systematic review

Background

As a novel physiological pacing technique, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can preserve the left ventricular (LV) electrical and mechanical synchronization by directly capturing left bundle branch (LBB). Approximately 60-90% of LBBP were confirmed to have captured LBB during implantation, implying that up to one-third of LBBP is actually left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). LBB capture is critical for distinguishing LBBP from LVSP.

Methods and results

A total of 15 articles were included in the analysis by searching PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library database till August 2022. Comparisons of paced QRS duration between LVSP and LBBP have not been uniformly concluded, but the stimulus artifact to LV activation time in lead V5 or V6 (Stim-LVAT) was shorter in LBBP than LVSP in all studies. Stim-LVAT was used to determine LBB capture with a sensitivity of 76-95.2% and specificity of 78.8-100%, which varied across patient populations.

Conclusion

The output-dependent QRS transition from non-selective LBBP to selective LBBP or LVSP is direct evidence of LBB capture. LBB potential combined with short Stim-LVAT can predict LBB capture better. Personalized criteria rather than a fixed value of Stim-LVAT are necessary to confirm LBB capture in different populations, especially in patients with LBB block or heart failure.

Defining the distance between the His bundle and first septal perforator: implications for left bundle branch pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a developing method of native conduction pacing, but cases of injury to the septal perforator arteries during implantation have been reported. Knowing the distance between the His bundle and the first septal perforator artery can help operators implant LBBP leads more safely.

METHODS

Using previously performed coronary CT angiography (CCTA) studies, the distance between the His bundle and the first septal perforator was measured.

RESULTS

A total of 50 CCTA studies were included. The mean distance from the His bundle to the first septal perforator (His-SP) along the line connecting the His bundle to the RV apex (His-RV apex) was 27.17 ± 7.7 mm with a range of 13.0 to 44.7 mm. The distance was greater than 2.0 cm in 84% of patients. To standardize this distance among patients with varying cardiac structures, the ratio between the His-SP distance and the His-RV Apex distance was also measured. The mean His-SP:His-RV Apex was 0.302 and the median was 0.298. Eighty-six percent of patients had a ratio of greater than 0.20.

CONCLUSION

Using this information, operators can aim to implant LBBP leads within 2.0 cm of the His bundle or 20% of the distance between the His bundle and the RV apex with minimal risk of causing vascular injury.

Long-term follow-up results of patients with left bundle branch pacing and exploration for potential factors affecting cardiac function

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an alternative strategy for His bundle pacing (HBP). This study aimed to analyze the long-term performance of LBBP and the potential factors affecting long-term cardiac function.

Methods: Patients with LBBP were continuously enrolled from January 2018 to August 2020. Pacing parameters, electrocardiogram (ECG), and echocardiography were collected. The anatomic position of LBBP leads was described by echocardiographic and fluoroscopic parameters.

Results: A total of 91 patients with a median follow-up of 18 months were enrolled. Most patients maintained stable pacing parameters during follow-up. The intra-septal position of the 3830 lead also remained stable as the distance from the lead tip to the left surface of the ventricular septum was 0.4 (0, 1.4) mm. The overall level of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) slightly increased. 59 patients had improved LVEF (∆LVEF &gt; 0), while 28 patients had unchanged or reduced LVEF (∆LVEF ≤ 0). The declines of baseline LVEF, ∆ Paced QRSd, and corrected longitudinal distance (longit-dist) of lead-implanted site correlated with LVEF improvement, and these three factors had negative linear correlations with ∆LVEF. Patients with tricuspid valve regurgitation (TVR) deterioration had longer follow-up duration (20.5 vs. 15.0 months, p = 0.01) and shorter Lead-TVA-dist (18.6 vs. 21.6 mm, p = 0.04) than those without TVR deterioration.

Conclusion: Patients with LBBP generally remained stable in pacing performance, anatomic lead positions, and cardiac function in long-term follow-up. Baseline LVEF, ∆ Paced QRSd, and corrected longit-dist might be associated with potential LVEF decrease, which required further confirmation.

Achievement rate and learning curve of left bundle branch capture in left bundle branch area pacing procedure performed to demonstrate output-dependent QRS transition

INTRODUCTION

Recently, output-dependent QRS transition was reported to be required to confirm left bundle branch (LBB) capture in LBB area pacing (LBBAP) procedure. This study aimed to evaluate the achievement rate and the learning curve of LBB capture in LBBAP procedure performed with the goal of demonstrating output-dependent QRS transition, and investigate predictors of LBB capture.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The LBBAP procedure was performed in 126 patients with bradyarrhythmia. LBB capture was defined as a demonstration of output-dependent QRS transition. The following pacing definitions were used for evaluation: a) LBBAP, which met the previously reported LBBAP criteria, b) LBB pacing (LBBP), LBB capture was confirmed, and c) available LBBP, LBB threshold was clinically usable (<3 V at 0.4 ms). The learning curve was evaluated by division into three time-periods. The achievement rates of LBBAP, LBBP, and available LBBP were 88.1%, 41.2%, and 35.7%, respectively. The achievement rates of all three pacing definitions significantly increased with experience (p < 0.01), but the achievement rate of available LBBP was still 50% in the third period. As predictors of LBB capture, the interval between LBB-Purkinje potential and QRS onset ≥22 ms had high specificity of 98.3%, while R wave peak time in V6 <68 ms had insufficient sensitivity of 79% and specificity of 68%.

CONCLUSION

Even if LBB capture was aimed in LBBAP procedure, it was not easy to achieve, and there was a clear learning curve. Much of LBBAP may be left ventricular septal pacing that does not capture LBB. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

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.

Clinical Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in Comparison with Right Ventricular Septal Pacing in Patients with High Ventricular Pacing Ratio ≥40%

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing in a Giant Atrium With Atrial Standstill: A Case Report and Literature Review

Atrial standstill (AS) is a rare condition defined by the lack of atrial electrical and mechanical activities. It is usually clinically manifested as symptomatic bradycardia, which requires permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation. Traditional right ventricular apical pacing causes electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony resulting in left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, and arrhythmias. As a novel physiological pacing strategy, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has demonstrated effectiveness and safety in recent years, but its application in exceptional conditions is rarely reported. We report the case of a 47-year-old female, who was diagnosed with AS complicated with a giant atrium, and successfully received a single-chamber PPM with LBBaP.

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.

Comparison of Procedure and Fluoroscopy Time Between Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing for Bradycardia: The Learning Curve for the Novel Pacing Strategy

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing approach.

Objective: To assess learning curve for LBBAP and compare the procedure and fluoroscopy time between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP).

Methods: Consecutive bradycardia patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP were prospectively recruited from June 2018 to June 2020. The procedure and fluoroscopy time for ventricular lead placement, pacing parameters, and periprocedural complications were recorded. Restricted cubic splines were used to fit learning curves for LBBAP.

Results: Left bundle branch area pacing was successful in 376 of 406 (92.6%) patients while 313 patients received RVP. Learning curve for LBBAP illustrated initial (1–50 cases), improved (51–150 cases), and stable stages (151–406 cases) with gradually increased success rates (88.0 vs. 90.0 vs. 94.5%, P = 0.106), steeply decreased median procedure (26.5 vs. 14.0 vs. 9.0min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (16.0 vs. 6.0 vs. 4.0min, P < 0.001), and shortened stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT; 78.7 vs. 78.1 vs. 71.2 ms, P < 0.001). LBBAP at the stable stage showed longer but close median procedure (9.0 vs. 6.9min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.8min, P < 0.001) compared with RVP.

Conclusion: The procedure and fluoroscopy time of LBBAP could be reduced significantly with increasing procedure volume and close to that of RVP for an experienced operator.