Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing From a Femoral Approach in a Patient Without Superior Access

Limited venous access and lateral left ventricular scar are impediments to traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy. We present a case where placement of an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator from a femoral approach while using left bundle branch area pacing led to clinical improvement. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Left ventricular scar and the acute hemodynamic effects of multivein and multipolar pacing in cardiac resynchronization

Background

We sought to determine whether presence, amount and distribution of scar impacts the degree of acute hemodynamic response (AHR) with multisite pacing.

Multi-vein pacing (MVP) or multipolar pacing (MPP) with a multi-electrode left ventricular (LV) lead may offer benefits over conventional biventricular pacing in patients with myocardial scar.

Methods

In this multi-center study left bundle branch block patients underwent an hemodynamic pacing study measuring LV dP/dt_max. Patients had cardiac magnetic resonance scar imaging to assess the effect of scar presence, amount and distribution on AHR.

Results

24 patients (QRS 171 ± 20 ms) completed the study (83% male). An ischemic etiology was present in 58% and the mean scar volume was 6.0 ± 7.0%. Overall discounting scar, MPP and MVP showed no significant AHR increase compared to an optimized “best BiV” (BestBiV) site. In a minority of patients (6/24) receiver-operator characteristic analysis of scar volume (cut off 8.48%) predicted a small AHR improvement with MPP (sensitivity 83%, specificity 94%) but not MVP. Patients with scar volume > 8.48% had a MPP-BestBiV of 3 ± 6.3% vs. −6.4 ± 7.7% for those below the cutoff. There was a significant correlation between the difference in AHR and scar volume for MPP-BestBiV (R = 0.49, p = 0.02) but not MVP-BestBiV(R = 0.111, p = 0.62). The multielectrode lead positioned in scar predicted MPP AHR improvement (p = 0.04).

Conclusions

Multisite pacing with MPP and MVP shows no AHR benefit in all-comers compared to optimized BestBiV pacing. There was a minority of patients with significant scar volume in relation to the LV site that exhibited a small AHR improvement with MPP.

(Study identifier NCT01883141)