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).

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).

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Response Is Equalized in Men and Women by Electrical Optimization: PR Matters

OBJECTIVES

This study hypothesized that the shorter intrinsic PR interval observed in women allows a greater degree of fusion with intrinsic conduction, achieving a shorter QRS interval duration and, thus, a better response.

BACKGROUND

Women benefit more from cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) than men. However, the reason for this difference remains elusive.

METHODS

A cohort of 180 patients included in the BEST (Fusion based optimization in resynchronization therapy [ECG Optimization of CRT: Evaluation of Mid-Term Response]; NCT01439529) study were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were initially randomized to either nonoptimized CRT (NON-OPT group; n = 89) or electrocardiographically optimized CRT based on the fusion-optimized intervals (FOI) method (FOI group; n = 91). Echocardiographic response was defined as a >15% decrease in left ventricular end-systolic volume at the 12-month follow-up.

RESULTS

The basal PR interval was shorter in women as compared to men. In the NON-OPT group, CRT resulted in a shorter paced QRS interval in women than in men (134 ± 21 ms vs. 151 ± 21 ms, respectively; p = 0.003, 95% confidence interval [CI]: -27 to -5.6) and better response in women than in men: 70.4% vs. 46.4%, respectively (odds ratio: 0.37; p = 0.04; 95% CI: 0.14 to 0.97). There were no differences in paced QRS interval duration (126 ± 13 ms vs. 129 ± 17 ms; p = 0.47) or response between women and men in the FOI group (68% vs. 70.5%; odds ratio: 1.12; p = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.41 to 3.07). FOI extended the atrioventricular interval to obtain the best fusion; the atrioventricular intervals tended to require greater extension in men than in women (22 ± 33 ms vs. 8 ± 28 ms, respectively; p = 0.07).

CONCLUSIONS

Women had a shorter PR interval, which was associated with a shorter QRS interval and better response to CRT. The difference in QRS interval duration and response between men and women did not persist when CRT was optimized using fusion with intrinsic conduction (FOI programming).

Optimized single-point left ventricular pacing leads to improved resynchronization compared with multipoint pacing

BACKGROUND

Multipoint pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) activates the left ventricle from two locations, thereby shortening the QRS duration and enabling better resynchronization; however, compared with conventional CRT, MPP reduces battery longevity. On the other hand, electrocardiogram-based optimization using the fusion-optimized intervals (FOI) method achieves more significant reverse remodeling than nominal CRT programming. Our study aimed to determine whether MPP could attain better resynchronization than single-point pacing (SPP) optimized by FOI.

METHODS

This prospective study included 32 consecutive patients who successfully received CRT devices with MPP capabilities. After implantation, the QRS duration was measured during intrinsic rhythm and with three pacing configurations: MPP, SPP-FOI, and MPP-FOI. In 14 patients, biventricular activation times (by electrocardiographic imaging, ECGI) were obtained during intrinsic rhythm and for each pacing configuration to validate the findings. Device battery longevity was estimated at the 45-day follow-up.

RESULTS

The SPP-FOI method achieved greater QRS shortening than MPP (-56 ± 16 vs. -42 ± 17 ms, p < .001). Adding MPP to the best FOI programming did not result in further shortening (MPP-FOI: -58 ± 14 ms, p = .69). Although biventricular activation times did not differ significantly among the three pacing configurations, only the two FOI configurations achieved significant shortening compared with intrinsic rhythm. The estimated battery longevity was longer with SPP than with MPP (8.1 ± 2.3 vs. 6.3 ± 2.0 years, p = .03).

CONCLUSIONS

SPP optimized by FOI resulted in better resynchronization and longer battery duration than MPP.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A New Alternative to Resynchronization Therapy in the 2020 Pacing Armamentarium

His bundle pacing was developed while seeking a physiological alternative to biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy. However, His bundle pacing may not be adequate in all patients. In this scenario, left bundle branch pacing has arisen as a new cardiac resynchronization therapy modality to correct left bundle branch block and restore ventricular synchrony. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).