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

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.

Enhancing cardiac pacing strategies: a review of conduction system pacing compared with right and biventricular pacing and their influence on myocardial function

Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been linked to the deterioration of both left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. This worsening often culminates in elevated rates of hospitalization due to heart failure, an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, and increased morbidity. While biventricular pacing (BVP) has demonstrated clinical and echocardiographic improvements in patients afflicted with heart failure and left bundle branch block, it has also encountered significant challenges such as a notable portion of non-responders and procedural failures attributed to anatomical complexities. In recent times, the interest has shifted towards conduction system pacing, initially, His bundle pacing, and more recently, left bundle branch area pacing, which are seen as promising alternatives to established methods. In contrast to other approaches, conduction system pacing offers the advantage of fostering more physiological and harmonized ventricular activation by directly stimulating the His-Purkinje network. This direct pacing results in a more synchronized systolic and diastolic function of the left ventricle compared with RVP and BVP. Of particular note is the capacity of conduction system pacing to yield a shorter QRS, conserve left ventricular ejection fraction, and reduce rates of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation when compared with RVP. The efficacy of conduction system pacing has also been found to have better clinical and echocardiographic improvement than BVP in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization. This review will delve into myocardial function in conduction system pacing compared with that in RVP and BVP.

Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP.

METHODS

We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications.

RESULTS

Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08-1.22); p < 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.78); p = 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21-0.72); p = 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.35); p < 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.

Outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to His bundle pacing and right ventricular apical pacing in Japanese patients with bradycardia

Background

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) emerge as better alternatives to right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing. We aimed to compare the clinical outcomes of LBBAP, HBP, and RVAP in Japanese patients with bradycardia.

Methods

A total of 424 patients who underwent successful pacemaker implantation (HBP, n = 53; LBBAP, n = 75; and RVAP, n = 296) were retrospectively enrolled in this study. The primary study endpoint was the cumulative incidence of heart failure hospitalization (HFH) during the follow-up.

Results

The success rate for implantation was higher in the LBBAP group than in the HBP group (94.9% and 81.5%, respectively). Capture threshold increase >1V during the follow-up occurred in the HBP and RVAP groups (9.4% and 5.1%, respectively), while it did not in the LBBAP group. The cumulative incidence of HFH was significantly lower in the LBBAP group than the RVAP (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.12 [95% confidence interval: 0.02-0.86]; p = .034); it did not differ between the HBP and RVAP groups (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% confidence interval: 0.17-1.34]; p = .16). Advanced age, mean percent right ventricular pacing (per 10% increase), left ventricular ejection fraction <50%, and RVAP were associated with HFH.

Conclusions

Compared to RVAP and HBP, LBBAP appeared more feasible and effective in patients with bradycardia requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Assessing Torque Transfer in Conduction System Pacing: Development and Evaluation of an Ex Vivo Model

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) faces challenges in achieving reliable and safe deployments. Complex interactions between tissue and lead tip can result in endocardial entanglement, a drill effect that prevents penetration. No verified ex vivo model exists to quantitatively assess this relationship.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to quantitatively characterize CSP lead tip to tissue responses for 4 commonly used leads.

METHODS

CSP leads (from Medtronic, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, and Abbott) were examined for helix rotation efficiency in ex vivo ovine right ventricular septa. A custom jig was utilized for rotation measurements. Fifteen turns were executed, documenting tissue-interface changes every 90° using high-resolution photography. Response curves (input rotation vs helix rotation) were evaluated using piecewise linear regression, with a focus on output vs input response slopes and torque breakpoint events.

RESULTS

We analyzed 3,840 quarter-turn CSP insertions with 4 different lead types. Helix rotations were consistently less than input: Abbott Tendril = 0.21:1, Medtronic 3830 = 0.21:1, Biotronik Solia = 0.47:1, and Boston Scientific Ingevity = 0.56:1. Torque breakpoint events were observed on average 7.22 times per insertion (95% CI: 6.08-8.35; P = NS) across all leads. In 57.8% of insertions (37 of 64), uncontrolled torque breakpoint events occurred, signaling unexpected excess helix rotations.

CONCLUSIONS

Using a robust ex vivo model, we revealed a muted helix rotation response compared with input turns on the lead, and frequent torque change events during insertion. This is critical for CSP implanters, emphasizing the potential for unexpected torque breakpoint events, and suggesting the need for novel lead designs or deployment methods to enhance CSP efficiency and safety.

Effects of coronary artery disease in patients with permanent left bundle branch area pacing: A retrospective study

Aims

Myocardial ischemia can affect traditional right ventricular (RV) pacing parameters, but it is unclear whether coronary artery disease (CAD) impact the pacing parameters and electrophysiological characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) as a physiological pacing representative.

Methods

Patients who underwent coronary angiography (CAG) after/before the LBBaP procedure and underwent percutaneous coronary intervention after LBBaP procedure were divided into CAD group and Non-CAD group according to visual CAG. Pacing parameters and electrophysiological characteristics were recorded at LBBaP implantation. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was implemented to evaluate the association between CAD and higher capture threshold. Sensitivity analyses were conducted to verify result stability.

Results

A total of 176 patients met inclusion criteria (115 Non-CAD patients and 61 CAD patients) with a mean age of 71.1 ± 9.0 years. Compared with the Non-CAD patients, CAD patients had the higher capture threshold (0.67 ± 0.22 V vs. 0.82 ± 0.28 V, P < 0.001) and lower R-wave amplitude (12.5 ± 4.8 mV vs. 10.1 ± 2.7 mV, P = 0.001). Moreover, CAD was independently associated with higher capture threshold (adjusted Odds ratio (OR) 3.418, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.621-7.206, P = 0.001), which was further validated through sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Patients without CAD might have safer pacing parameters in the LBBaP procedure. Besides, CAD might be the risk factor of capture threshold increase during permanent LBBaP implantation.

Feasibility of Conduction System Pacing in Patients with Baseline Bundle Branch Block-A Single-Center Mid-Term Follow-Up Study

BACKGROUND

The primary prerequisite for a successful conduction system pacing (CSP) procedure is the integrity of the conduction system, which may be impaired if a baseline bundle branch block (BBB) is present. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and mid-term performance of permanent CSP in patients with baseline BBB and to compare the results between left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB) patterns.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A total of 101 patients with typical BBB and an attempt at CSP were retrospectively reviewed. Procedural characteristics, pacing, sensing parameters, and complications at baseline and after a mid-term follow-up were analyzed.

RESULTS

The global procedural success for CSP was 93%. His bundle pacing (HBP) had a significantly lower success rate than left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) (50.5% vs. 86%). The paced QRS duration was significantly narrower with HBP. The pacing and sensing thresholds were significantly better with LBBAP. Procedural complications occurred only in the LBBAP group (two acute perforations in the LV cavity and one acute chest pain during lead fixation) without long-term sequelae. The HBP and the LBBAP procedural success rates were higher in the RBBB versus the LBBB group (62.5% vs. 44.9% and 100% vs. 81.5%, respectively). Baseline QRS duration, atrial volumes, and right ventricular diameters were significantly associated with HBP procedural failure. The follow-up pacing and sensing thresholds were similar to the baseline values for all pacing methods and BBB morphology. Only one device-related complication leading to pacing interruption was recorded.

CONCLUSION

In patients with bundle branch blocks, CSP is a feasible procedure associated with a high success rate, stable pacing and sensing parameters, and low complication rates over a mid-term follow-up.

Utility of a guiding catheter for conduction system pacing: An early multicenter experience

Background

Conduction system pacing (CSP), either as His bundle pacing (HBP) or as left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), may be superior to right ventricular apical or septal pacing.

Objective

The study sought to present acute results for a new guiding catheter (Biotronik Selectra 3D) designed for CSP implantations of a retractable screw-in lead (Biotronik Solia S).

Methods

The primary endpoint of the prospective, international nonrandomized BIO|MASTER.Selectra 3D study was freedom from catheter-related serious adverse device effects (SADEs) within 1 week of lead implantation.

Results

Of 157 enrolled patients, CSP was achieved in 147 (93.6%) patients. No SADEs occurred within 7 days. LBBAP was achieved in 82 patients (45 as crossover from an HBP attempt) and HBP in 65 (44.2%) patients. In centers considering both HBP and LBBAP, the CSP implantation success approached 99%. Successful CSP implantations lasted on average ∼50 minutes (fluoroscopy ∼6 minutes). Most procedures (87.9%) needed only 1 catheter, even after switch from HBP to LBBAP. The catheter's handling was rated largely positive. In patients without bundle branch block, mean QRS duration increased from 106 ms (intrinsic) to 122 ms (CSP) (P = .001). In patients with bundle branch block, mean QRS duration decreased from 151 ms (intrinsic) to 137 ms (CSP) (P = .004).

Conclusion

The Selectra 3D catheter is a valuable tool for HBP and LBBAP implantations of the stylet-supported pacemaker leads. When implanters considered both HBP and LBBAP, the success rate was ∼99%. Flexibility to change between different approaches may be advisable in heterogeneous and challenging areas, such as CSP implantations.

Advances in cardiac pacing with leadless pacemakers and conduction system pacing

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The field of cardiac pacing has undergone significant evolution with the introduction and adoption of conduction system pacing (CSP) and leadless pacemakers (LLPMs). These innovations provide benefits over conventional pacing methods including avoiding lead related complications and achieving more physiological cardiac activation. This review critically assesses the latest advancements in CSP and LLPMs, including their benefits, challenges, and potential for future growth.

RECENT FINDINGS

CSP, especially of the left bundle branch area, enhances ventricular depolarization and cardiac mechanics. Recent studies show CSP to be favorable over traditional pacing in various patient populations, with an increase in its global adoption. Nevertheless, challenges related to lead placement and long-term maintenance persist. Meanwhile, LLPMs have emerged in response to complications from conventional pacemaker leads. Two main types, Aveir and Micra, have demonstrated improved outcomes and adoption over time. The incorporation of new technologies allows LLPMs to cater to broader patient groups, and their integration with CSP techniques offers exciting potential.

SUMMARY

The advancements in CSP and LLPMs present a transformative shift in cardiac pacing, with evidence pointing towards enhanced clinical outcomes and reduced complications. Future innovations and research are likely to further elevate the clinical impact of these technologies, ensuring improved patient care for those with conduction system disorders.

Conduction system pacing and defibrillation support using a single-chamber defibrillator - A case report

We present a case of a 67-year-old male with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction due to a previous myocardial infarction, slow-conducting atrial fibrillation with an indication of pacemaker implantation, and sustained ventricular tachycardia, requiring defibrillation support in prevention of sudden cardiac death. Current guidelines recommend biventricular over conventional right ventricular pacing for patients with ejection fraction <40 % and atrioventricular conduction disorders in either sinus rhythm or atrial fibrillation, but in patients with a narrow baseline QRS complex, biventricular pacing still induces a form of electrical dyssynchrony. In our case we combined the advantages of conduction system pacing in form of left bundle branch area pacing, in order to prevent further left ventricular deterioration due to newly induced dyssyncrony, and also defibrillation support, using a single-chamber defibrillator with a DF-1/IS-1 connection.

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.

Risk of Atrial Fibrillation Following Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Right Ventricular Pacing and Biventricular Pacing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a relatively novel physiological pacing strategy with better electrocardiogram characteristics and pacing parameters than other pacing strategies. At present, no meta-analysis or systematic review has examined the risk of atrial fibrillation (AF) after LBBP compared to other pacing strategies.

Methods

We searched the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases from inception through September 18, 2022 to identify relevant studies reporting AF incidence rates after LBBP. The incidence of AF following LBBP and that associated with other pacing strategies were extracted and summarized for the meta-analysis. We used odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) as summary estimates.

Results

Five studies with 1144 participants were included. The pooled rate of AF was 3.7% (95% CI, 0.8%-8.0%) in the LBBP group and 15.5% (95% CI: 9.6%-22.4%) in the other pacing strategies (right ventricular pacing [RVP] and biventricular pacing [BVP]). Compared with other pacing strategies, LBBP was associated with a lower AF risk (OR, 0.33; 95% CI: 0.22-0.51, I 2 = 0.0%; p = 0.485). Similar results were observed for LBBP when compared with RVP (OR: 0.33, 95% CI: 0.22-0.51, I 2 = 0.0%, p = 0.641) and BVP (OR: 0.47, 95% CI: 0.01-15.22, I 2 = 60.4%, p = 0.112).

Conclusions

Compared with BVP and RVP, LBBP was associated with a significantly lower risk of AF. However, further large-sample randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm that LBBP is superior to other pacing strategies in reducing AF risk.

Feasibility, safety and effectiveness of mapping system assisted conduction system pacing: a single-center prospective study

To assess pacing and electrophysiological parameters, as well as mid-term outcomes, among patients undergoing His bundle pacing (HBP) guided by KODEX-EPD (a novel mapping system). Consecutive patients undergoing conduction system pacing (CSP) for bradycardia indications were evaluated. Procedural and fluoroscopic times and pacing characteristics were compared between conventional fluoroscopy (the standard group, N = 20 cases) and KODEX-EPD mapping system guided group (the KODEX group, N = 20cases) at CSP implantation and all patients were followed at 6-month. HBP was achieved in all patients (the standard group 20/20 and the KODEX group 20/20). There was no difference in the mean procedure time between the two groups (63.7 ± 9.3 vs. 78.2 ± 25.1 min, p = 0.33). Compared with the standard group, the KODEX group significantly reduced the intraoperative X-ray exposure time (3.8 ± 0.5 vs. 19.3 ± 5.1 min, p < 0.05) and X-ray dose (23.6 ± 5.4 vs. 120.2 ± 38.3 mGy, p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in atrial impedance (643.0 ± 98.8 vs. 591.5 ± 92.1 Ω, p = 0.09), atrial sensing (2.9 ± 0.8 vs. 2.5 ± 0.8 mV, p = 0.08), ventricular sensing (12.8 ± 2.4 vs. 13.3 ± 3.3 mV, p = 0.63),atrial pacing threshold (1.0 ± 0.2 vs. 1.0 ± 0.1 V/0.4 ms, p = 0.81) and ventricular pacing threshold (1.0 ± 0.2 vs. 0.9 ± 0.1 V/0.4 ms, p = 0.63) between two groups, There were statistical differences in ventricular impedance (640.0 ± 80.3 vs. 702.0 ± 86.1 Ω, p < 0.05). There was no statistical significance in pacing parameters between the two groups at 6 months after procedure (p > 0.05). During the 6-months follow-up period, no adverse events occurred in the two groups. It can be concluded that KODEX-EPD can safely guide His bundle branch pacing lead implantation with reduced fluoroscopic time and dose without lengthening the procedure time.

Outcomes of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure: A multicenter experience

BACKGROUND

Whether conduction system pacing (CSP) is an alternative option for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure remains an area of active investigation.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of CSP compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP).

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective study included patients who fulfilled CRT indications and received CSP. Patients with CSP were matched using propensity score matching and compared in a 1:1 ratio to patients who received BiVP. Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Response to CRT was defined as an absolute increase of ≥5% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months post-CRT.

RESULTS

A total of 238 patients were included. Mean age was 69.8 ± 12.5 years, and 66 (27.7%) were female. Sixty-nine patients (29%) had His-bundle pacing, 50 (21%) had left bundle branch area pacing, and 119 (50%) had BiVP. Mean follow-up duration in the CSP and BiVP groups was 269 ± 202 days and 304 ± 262 days, respectively (P = .293). The proportion of CRT responders was greater in the CSP group than in the BiVP group (74% vs 60%, respectively; P = .042). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the time to first heart failure hospitalization (log-rank P = .78) and overall survival (log-rank P = .68) between the CSP and BiVP groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, CSP resulted in greater improvement in LVEF compared to BiVP. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these outcomes and further investigate the different options available for CSP.

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.

Biventricular versus Conduction System Pacing after Atrioventricular Node Ablation in Heart Failure Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Conduction system pacing (CSP) modalities, including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), are increasingly used as alternatives to biventricular (BiV) pacing in heart failure (HF) patients scheduled for pace and ablate strategy. The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes of HF patients with refractory AF who received either BiV pacing or CSP in conjunction with atrio-ventricular node ablation (AVNA). Fifty consecutive patients (male 48%, age 70 years (IQR 9), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 39% (IQR 12)) were retrospectively analysed. Thirteen patients (26%) received BiV pacing, 27 patients (54%) HBP and 10 patients (20%) LBBP. All groups had similar baseline characteristics and acute success rate. While New York Heart. Association (NYHA) class improved in both HBP (p < 0.001) and LBBP (p = 0.008), it did not improve in BiV group (p = 0.096). At follow-up, LVEF increased in HBP (form 39% (IQR 15) to 49% (IQR 16), p < 0.001) and LBBP (from 28% (IQR 13) to 40% (IQR 13), p = 0.041), but did not change in BiV group (p = 0.916). Conduction system pacing modalities showed superior symptomatic and echocardiographic improvement compared to BiV pacing after AVNA. With more stable pacing parameters, LBBP could present a more feasible pacing option compared to HBP.

Lowering the Threshold for Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing

Cardiac pacing remains the mainstay of therapy for conduction system disease and irreversible bradyarrhythmias. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.