Left bundle branch pacing set to outshine biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy?

The deleterious effects of long-term right ventricular pacing necessitated the search for alternative pacing sites which could prevent or alleviate pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Until recently, biventricular pacing (BiVP) was the only modality which could mitigate or prevent pacing induced dysfunction. Further, BiVP could resynchronize the baseline electromechanical dssynchrony in heart failure and improve outcomes. However, the high non-response rate of around 20%-30% remains a major limitation. This non-response has been largely attributable to the direct non-physiological stimulation of the left ventricular myocardium bypassing the conduction system. To overcome this limitation, the concept of conduction system pacing (CSP) came up. Despite initial success of the first CSP via His bundle pacing (HBP), certain drawbacks including lead instability and dislodgements, steep learning curve and rapid battery depletion on many occasions prevented its widespread use for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Subsequently, CSP via left bundle branch-area pacing (LBBP) was developed in 2018, which over the last few years has shown efficacy comparable to BiVP-CRT in small observational studies. Further, its safety has also been well established and is largely free of the pitfalls of the HBP-CRT. In the recent metanalysis by Yasmin et al, comprising of 6 studies with 389 participants, LBBP-CRT was superior to BiVP-CRT in terms of QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, cardiac chamber dimensions, lead thresholds, and functional status amongst heart failure patients with left bundle branch block. However, there are important limitations of the study including the small overall numbers, inclusion of only a single small randomized controlled trial (RCT) and a small follow-up duration. Further, the entire study population analyzed was from China which makes generalizability a concern. Despite the concerns, the meta-analysis adds to the growing body of evidence demonstrating the efficacy of LBBP-CRT. At this stage, one must acknowledge that the fact that still our opinions on this technique are largely based on observational data and there is a dire need for larger RCTs to ascertain the position of LBBP-CRT in management of heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging, echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of left bundle branch pacing and biventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) by biventricular pacing (BVP). This study assessed ventricular activation patterns and echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of LBBP and compared this to BVP.

METHODS

Fifty consecutive patients underwent LBBP or BVP for CRT. Ventricular activation mapping was obtained by ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG). Functional and echocardiographic outcomes and hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality after one year from implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization vs BVP (QRS width: 170 ± 16 ms to 128 ± 20 ms vs 174 ± 15 to 144 ± 17 ms, p = 0.002 (LBBP vs BVP); e-DYS 81 ± 17 ms to 0 ± 32 ms vs 77 ± 18 to 16 ± 29 ms, p = 0.016 (LBBP vs BVP)). Improvement in LVEF (from 28 ± 8 to 42 ± 10 percent vs 28 ± 9 to 36 ± 12 percent, LBBP vs BVP, p = 0.078) was similar. Improvement in NYHA function class (from 2.4 to 1.5 and from 2.3 to 1.5 (LBBP vs BVP)), hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality were comparable in both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Ventricular dyssynchrony imaging is an appropriate way to gain a better insight into activation patterns of LBBP and BVP. LBBP resulted in greater resynchronization (e-DYS and QRS duration) with comparable improvement in LVEF, NYHA functional class, hospitalization for heart failure and all-cause mortality at one year of follow up.

Comparisons of long-term clinical outcomes with left bundle branch pacing, left ventricular septal pacing, and biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are referred to as left bundle branch area pacing.

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated whether long-term clinical outcomes differ in patients undergoing LBBP, LVSP, and biventricular pacing (BiVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT).

METHODS

Consecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <50%) undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled if they underwent successful LBBP, LVSP, or BiVP. The primary composite end point was all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and echocardiographic measures of reverse remodeling.

RESULTS

A total of 259 patients (68 LBBP, 38 LVSP, and 153 BiVP) were observed for a mean duration of 28.8 ± 15.8 months. LBBP was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point by 78% compared with both BiVP (7.4% vs 41.2%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.22 [0.08-0.57]; P = .002) and LVSP (7.4% vs 47.4%; aHR, 0.22 [0.08-0.63]; P = .004]. The adjusted risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in LVSP than in BiVP (31.6% vs 7.2%; aHR, 3.19 [1.38-7.39]; P = .007) but comparable between LBBP and BiVP (2.9% vs 7.2%; aHR, 0.33 [0.07-1.52], P = .155). Propensity score adjustment also obtained similar results. LBBP showed a higher rate of echocardiographic response (ΔLVEF ≥10%: 60.0% vs 36.2% vs 16.1%; P < .001) than BiVP or LVSP.

CONCLUSION

LBBP yielded long-term clinical outcomes superior to those of BiVP and LVSP. The role of LVSP for CRT needs to be reevaluated because of its high mortality risk.

Complications of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of procedure-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled 668 consecutive patients (mean age 71.2 ± 10.0 years; 52.2% male; 59.4% with New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure symptoms) with left ventricular ejection fraction 33.4% ± 4.3% who underwent BVP (n = 561) or LBBAP (n = 107) for a class I or II indication for CRT. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 93 matched pairs. The rate and nature of intraprocedural and long-term post-procedural complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups.

RESULTS

During a mean follow-up of 18 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 16 patients: 12 in BVP (12.9%) and 4 in LBBAP (4.3%) (P = .036). Compared with patients who underwent LBBAP, those who underwent BVP showed a lower complication-free survival (P = .032). In multivariate analysis, BVP resulted an independent predictive factor associated with a higher risk of complications (hazard ratio 3.234; P = .042). Complications related to the coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in patients who underwent BVP (50.0% of all complications).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT.

Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and ventricular dyssynchrony, but its benefits are uncertain. In this study, we aimed to evaluate clinical outcomes of CSP vs BVP for cardiac resynchronization in patients with HFrEF. PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane databases were searched for randomized controlled trials comparing CSP to BVP for resynchronization therapy in patients with HFrEF. Heterogeneity was examined with I2 statistics. A random-effects model was used for all outcomes. We included 7 randomized controlled trials with 408 patients, of whom 200 (49%) underwent CSP. Compared to BVP, CSP resulted in a significantly greater reduction in QRS duration (MD -13.34 ms; 95% confidence interval [CI] -24.32 to -2.36, P = .02; I2 = 91%) and New York Heart Association functional class (standardized mean difference [SMD] -0.37; 95% CI -0.69 to -0.05; P = .02; I2 = 41%), and a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (mean difference [MD] 2.06%; 95% CI 0.16 to 3.97; P = .03; I2 = 0%). No statistical difference was noted for left ventricular end-systolic volume (SMD -0.51 mL; 95% CI -1.26 to 0.24; P = .18; I2 = 83%), lead capture threshold (MD -0.08 V; 95% CI -0.42 to 0.27; P = .66; I2 = 66%), and procedure time (MD 5.99 minutes; 95% CI -15.91 to 27.89; P = .59; I2 = 79%). These findings suggest that CSP may have electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and symptomatic benefits over BVP for patients with HFrEF requiring cardiac resynchronization.

Efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy: Select site - cohort study

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is typically attempted with biventricular (BiV) pacing. One-third of patients are nonresponders. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been evaluated as an alternative means.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and clinical response of permanent LBBAP as an alternative to BiV pacing.

METHODS

Of 479 consecutive patients referred with heart failure, 50 with BiV-CRT and 51 with LBBAP-CRT were included in this analysis after study exclusions. Quality-of-Life (QoL) assessments, echocardiographic measurements, and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class were obtained at baseline and at 6-monthly intervals.

RESULTS

There were no differences in baseline characteristics between groups (all P > .05). Clinical outcomes such as left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-systolic volume, QoL, and NYHA class were significantly improved for both pacing groups compared to baseline. The LBBAP-CRT group showed greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction at 6 months (P = .001) and 12 months (P = .021), accompanied by greater reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (P = .007). QRS duration < 120 ms (baseline 160.82 ± 21.35 ms vs 161.08 ± 24.48 ms) was achieved in 30% in the BiV-CRT group vs 71% in the LBBAP-CRT group (P ≤ .001). Improvement in NYHA class (P = .031) and QoL index was greater (P = .014). Reduced heart failure admissions (P = .003) and health care utilization (P < .05) and improved lead performance (P < .001) were observed in the LBBAP-CRT group.

CONCLUSION

LBBAP-CRT is feasible and effective CRT. It results into a meaningful improvement in QoL and reduction in health care utilization. This can be offered as an alternative to BiV-CRT or potentially as first-line therapy.

Left ventricular lead placement in cardiac resynchronization therapy: Current data and potential explanations for the lack of benefit

The present article reviews the literature on image-guided cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) studies. Improved outcome to CRT has been associated with the placement of a left ventricular (LV) lead in the latest activated segment free from scar. The majority of randomized controlled trials investigating guided LV lead implantation did not show superiority over conventional implantation approaches. Several factors may contribute to this paradoxical observation, including inclusion criteria favoring patients with left bundle branch block who already respond well to conventional anatomical LV lead implantation, differences in activation wavefronts during simultaneous right ventricular and LV pacing, incorrect definition of target regions, and limitations in coronary venous anatomy that prevent access to target regions that are detected by imaging. It is imperative that exclusion of patients lacking access to target regions from these studies would lead to larger benefit of image-guided CRT.

Left bundle branch pacing vs biventricular pacing in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel pacing modality of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) that achieves more physiologic native ventricular activation than biventricular pacing (BiVP).

AIM

To explore the validity of electromechanical resynchronization, clinical and echocardiographic response of LBBP-CRT.

METHODS

Systematic review and Meta-analysis were conducted in accordance with the standard guidelines as mentioned in detail in the methodology section.

RESULTS

In our analysis, the success rate of LBBP-CRT was determined to be 91.1%. LBBP-CRT significantly shortened QRS duration, with significant improvement in echocardiographic parameters, including left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter and left ventricular end-systolic diameter in comparison with BiVP-CRT.

CONCLUSION

A significant reduction in New York Heart Association class and B-type natriuretic peptide levels was also observed in the LBBP-CRT group vs BiVP-CRT group. Lastly, the LBBP-CRT cohort had a reduced pacing threshold at follow-up as compared to BiVP-CRT.

Conventional biventricular pacing is still preferred to conduction system pacing for atrioventricular block in patients with reduced ejection fraction and narrow QRS

It is well established that right ventricular pacing is detrimental in patients with reduced cardiac function who require ventricular pacing (VP), and alternatives nowadays are comprised of biventricular pacing (BiVP) and conduction system pacing (CSP). The latter modality is of particular interest in patients with a narrow baseline QRS as it completely avoids, or minimizes, ventricular desynchronization associated with VP. In this article, experts debate whether BiVP or CSP should be used to treat these patients.

Indications for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Congenital Heart Disease

Heart failure in patients with congenital heart disease (CHD) stems from unique causes compared with the elderly. Patients with CHD face structural abnormalities and malformations present from birth, leading to altered cardiac function and potential complications. In contrast, elderly individuals primarily experience heart failure due to age-related changes and underlying cardiovascular conditions. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) can benefit patients with CHD, although it presents numerous challenges. The complexities of CHD anatomy and limited access to appropriate venous sites for lead placement make CRT implantation demanding.

Conduction System Pacing: Have We Finally Found the Holy Grail of Physiological Pacing?

The late fifties are considered a high point in the history of cardiac pacing, since this era is marked by the first pacemaker implantation, which has since evolved into life-saving therapy. Right ventricular apical and biventricular pacing are the classic techniques that are recommended as first-l ine approaches for most indications in current guidelines. However, conduction system pacing has emerged as being able to deliver a more physiological form of pacing and is becoming mainstream practice in a growing number of centres. In this review, we aim to compare traditional pacing methods with conduction system pacing.

Tachycardia Therapy Outcomes of Ischemic Versus Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy on Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: A Propensity Score-matched Analysis

Objective

This investigation aimed to investigate differences between dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) and ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) for tachycardia therapy-related outcomes as well as mortality during follow-up of at least 1 year.

Methods

Seventy-eight patients with DCM (n = 42) and ICM (n = 36) with implantation or upgradation to CRT-D were included in this study and analyzed for incidence of non-sustained ventricular tachycardia (NSVT), non-sustained ventricular fibrillation (NSVF), defibrillator therapies, anti-tachycardia pacing (ATP), and mortality.

Results

DCM was the underlying etiology in 42 (53.84%) and ICM in 36 (46.15%). Time to first therapy was numerically longer in DCM than in ICM (9.5 ± 2.4 vs. 7.1 ± 3.2; P-value = 0.088). DCM patients had significantly higher therapy-free survival and mortality compared with ICM patients (OR (95%CI): 0.238 (0.155-0.424); log-rank P = 0.017) and (OR (95% CI): 0.612 (0.254-0.924); log-rank P = 0.029). ICM (HR (95%CI): 0.529 (0.243-0.925); P-value = 0.014) CAD (HR (95%CI): 0.326 (0.122-0.691): P-value = 0.003), and NSVT (HR (95%CI): 0.703 (0.513-0.849): P-value = 0.005) were demonstrated as independent predictors of the primary endpoint of appropriate therapy in CRT-D and ICM (HR (95%CI): 0.421 (0.321-0.524); P-value = 0.037), chronic kidney disease (CKD; HR (95%CI): 0.289 (0.198-0.380); P-value = 0.013), and CAD (HR (95%CI): 0.786 (0.531-0.967); P-value = 0.003) were predictors of mortality.

Conclusion

The clinical course of ICM and DCM cohorts who were treated with CRT-D differs significantly during follow-up, with increased tachycardia therapy and increased incidence of mortality in ICM patients.

Left bundle branch area pacing vs biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may offer greater physiological benefits than traditional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, there are limited data comparing the efficacy of LBBAP vs BiVP in patients with systolic heart failure (HF).

Objective

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to compare the feasibility and electromechanical and clinical outcomes of both LBBAP and BiVP.

Methods

We conducted a systematic review of studies retrieved from various databases including PubMed, Embase, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) published up to May 22, 2023. The risk ratio (RR) and standardized mean difference (SMD) with corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively.

Results

We included 12 studies with a total of 3004 patients (LBBAP = 1242, BiVP = 1762). Pooled results showed that LBBAP resulted in a significant increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (SMD 0.40, 95% CI 0.25, 0.54, P < .00001), echocardiographic response (RR 1.19, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.29, P < .0001), improvement in New York Heart Association functional class (SMD -0.44, 95% CI -0.65 to -0.23, P < .0001), QRS duration reduction (SMD -0.90, 95% CI -1.14 to -0.66, P < .00001), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter reduction (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.05, P = .02), fewer HF hospitalizations (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.62, 0.85, P < .0001), and improved survival (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58, 0.92, P = .007). In addition, LBBAP was associated with shorter fluoroscopy time (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.42 to -0.47, P < .0001) and lower pacing threshold at implantation (SMD -1.03, 95% CI -1.32 to -0.74, P < .00001) and at 6 months (SMD -1.44, 95% CI -2.11 to -0.77, P < .0001) as compared with BiVP.

Conclusion

Compared with BiVP, LBBAP was associated with better electromechanical and clinical outcomes, including left ventricular ejection fraction, QRS duration, echocardiographic response, New York Heart Association functional class, HF hospitalization, and all-cause mortality in patients with systolic HF.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy non-responder to responder conversion rate in the MORE-CRT MPP trial

AIMS

To assess the impact of MultiPoint™ Pacing (MPP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) non-responders after 6 months of standard biventricular pacing (BiVP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

The trial enrolled 5850 patients who planned to receive a CRT device. The echocardiography core laboratory assessed CRT response before implant and after 6 months of BiVP; non-response to BiVP was defined as <15% relative reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). Echocardiographic non-responders were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive MPP (541 patients) or continued BiVP (570 patients) for an additional 6 months and evaluated the conversion rate to the echocardiographic response. The characteristics of both groups at randomization were comparable. The percentage of non-responder patients who became responders to CRT therapy was 29.4% in the MPP arm and 30.4% in the BIVP arm (P = 0.743). In patients with ≥30 mm spacing between the two left ventricular pacing sites (MPP-AS), identified during the first phase as a potential beneficial subgroup, no significant difference in the conversion rate was observed.

CONCLUSION

Our trial shows that ∼30% of patients, who do not respond to CRT in the first 6 months, experience significant reverse remodelling in the following 6 months. This finding suggests that CRT benefit may be delayed or slowly incremental in a relevant proportion of patients and that the percentage of CRT responders may be higher than what has been described in short-/middle-term studies. MultiPoint™ Pacing does not improve CRT response in non-responders to BiVP, even with MPP-AS.

Significance of effective cardiac resynchronization therapy pacing for clinical responses: An analysis based on the effective cardiac resynchronization therapy algorithm

BACKGROUND

High percent ventricular pacing maximizes cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. An effective CRT algorithm classifies each left ventricular (LV) pace as effective or ineffective on the basis of the detection of QS or QS-r morphology on the electrogram; however, the relationship between percent effective CRT pacing (%e-CRT) and responses is unclear.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to clarify the association between %e-CRT and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

Of the 136 consecutive CRT patients, 49 using the adaptive and effective CRT algorithm with percent ventricular pacing > 90% were evaluated. The primary and secondary outcomes were heart failure (HF) hospitalization and prevalence of CRT responders, defined as patients with an improvement in LV ejection fraction of ≥10% or a reduction in LV end-systolic volume of ≥15% after CRT device implantation, respectively.

RESULTS

We divided the patients into the effective group (n = 25) and the less effective group (n = 24) by the median value of %e-CRT (97.4% [93.7%-98.3%]). During the median follow-up period of 507 days (interquartile range 335-730 days), the effective group had a significantly lower risk of HF hospitalization than the less effective group as revealed by Kaplan-Meier analysis (log-rank, P = .016). Univariate analysis revealed %e-CRT ≥ 97.4% (hazard ratio 0.12; 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.95; P = .045) as a predictor of HF hospitalization. The effective group had a higher prevalence of CRT responders than the less effective group (23 [92%] vs 9 [38%]; P < .001). Univariate analysis revealed that %e-CRT ≥ 97.4% (odds ratio 19.20; 95% confidence interval 3.63-101.00; P < .001) was a predictor of CRT response.

CONCLUSION

High %e-CRT is associated with high CRT responder prevalence and low HF hospitalization risk.

Mechanically induced electrical storm as a complication of cardiac resynchronization therapy: A case report

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been shown to improve both the functional status and mortality of heart failure patients with left bundle branch block. Multiple recent studies suggest several mechanisms for proarrhythmia associated with CRT device.

CASE SUMMARY

A 51-year-old male with symptomatic non-ischemic cardiomyopathy and no previous history of ventricular arrhythmias underwent placement of a biventricular cardioverter-defibrillator. The patient developed sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT) soon after implantation. The VT recurred despite reprogramming to right ventricular only pacing. The electrical storm resolved only after a subsequent discharge from the defibrillator caused inadvertent dislodgement of the coronary sinus lead. No recurrent VT occurred throughout 10-years follow up after urgent coronary sinus lead revision.

DISCUSSION

We describe the first reported case of mechanically induced electrical storm due to the physical presence of the CS lead in a patient with a new CRT-D device. It is important to recognize mechanical proarrhythmia as a potential mechanism of electrical storm, as it may be intractable to device reprogramming. Urgent coronary sinus lead revision should be considered. Further studies on this mechanism of proarrhythmia are needed.

His-Purkinje system pacing versus biventricular pacing in clinical efficacy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP), including his-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP), imitates the natural conduction of the heart as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, the feasibility and efficacy of HPSP were currently only evidenced by studies with a limited sample size, so this study aimed to provide a comprehensive assessment through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

METHODS

In order to compare the clinical outcomes associated with HPSP and BVP in patients for CRT, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science database were searched from inception to April 10, 2023. Clinical outcomes of interest including QRS duration (QRSd), left ventricular (LV) function and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, pacing threshold, echocardiographic and clinical response, hospitalization rate of HF and all-cause mortality were also extracted and summarized for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 13 studies (ten observational studies and three randomized studies) involving 1,121 patients were finally included. The patients were followed up for 6-27 months. Compared with BVP, CRT patients treated by HPSP presented shorter QRSd [mean difference (MD): -26.23 ms, 95% confidence interval (CI): -34.54 to -17.92, P < 0.001, I² = 91%], greater LV functional improvement with increased left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (MD: 6.01, 95% CI: 4.81 to 7.22, P < 0.001, I² = 0%), decreased left ventricular end-diastolic dimension (LVEDD) (MD: -2.91, 95% CI: -4.86 to -0.95, P = 0.004, I² = 35%), and more improved NYHA functional classification (MD: -0.45, 95% CI: -0.67 to -0.23, P < 0.001, I² = 70%). In addition, HPSP was more likely to have higher echocardiographic [odds ratio (OR): 2.76, 95% CI: 1.74 to 4.39, P < 0.001, I² = 0%], clinical (OR: 2.10, 95% CI: 1.16 to 3.80, P = 0.01, I² = 0%) and super clinical (OR: 3.17, 95% CI: 2.09 to 4.79, P < 0.001, I² = 0%) responses than BVP, and a lower hospitalization rate of HF (OR: 0.34, 95% CI: 0.22 to 0.51, P < 0.001, I² = 0%), while presented no difference (OR: 0.68, 95% CI: 0.44 to 1.06, P = 0.09, I² = 0%) in all-cause mortality compared with BVP. With threshold change taking into account, BVP was less stable than LBBaP (MD: -0.12 V, 95% CI: -0.22 to -0.03, P = 0.01, I² = 57%), but had no difference with HBP (MD: 0.11 V, 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.31, P = 0.28, I² = 0%).

CONCLUSION

The present findings suggested that HPSP was associated with greater improvement of cardiac function in patients with indication for CRT and was a potential alternative to BVP to achieve physiological pacing through native his-purkinje system.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: present and future

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, who remain symptomatic despite optimal medical therapy. Despite the long-standing clinical evidence, as well as the familiarity of cardiac electrophysiologists with the implantation technique, CRT via BVP cannot be achieved or may result ineffective in up to one-third of the patients. Therefore, new alternative techniques, such as conduction system pacing and left ventricular pacing, are emerging as potential alternatives to this technique, not only in case of BVP failure, but also as a stand-alone first choice due to several potential advantages over traditional CRT. Specifically, due to its procedural characteristics, left bundle branch area pacing appears to be the most convincing technique, showing comparable efficacy outcomes when compared with traditional CRT, not increasing short-term device-related complications, as well as improving procedural times. However, transvenous leads remain a major limitation of all these pacing modalities. To overcome this limit, a leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing has been developed as an additional tool to achieve a left endocardial activation, although being still associated with non-negligible pitfalls, limiting its current use in clinical practice. This article focuses on the current state and latest progresses in cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: electrical treatment targets and mechanisms of action

INTRODUCTION

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been developed as a treatment for patients with conduction system dysfunction and impairment of ventricular performance. The aim is to restore more physiological cardiac activation and thereby improve cardiac function, symptoms, and outcomes.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, we discuss potential electrical treatment targets for patients with heart failure and how these electrical treatment targets may determine the optimal pacing approach for delivering CRT.

EXPERT OPINION

The most well-established method for delivering CRT is biventricular pacing (BVP). BVP improves symptoms and reduces mortality in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, patients continue to suffer from heart failure symptoms and decompensations despite receiving BVP. There may be scope to deliver more effective CRT since BVP does not restore physiological ventricular activation. Furthermore, the results with BVP in patients with non-LBBB conduction system disease have been generally disappointing. Alternative pacing approaches to BVP are now available, including conduction system pacing and left ventricular endocardial pacing. These newer pacing approaches offer exciting potential to not only offer an alternative to coronary sinus lead implantation in the case of implant failure but to potentially deliver more effective treatment in LBBB and maybe even extend the indications for CRT beyond LBBB.

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.

Left bundle branch pacing as an alternative to biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronisation therapy

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel physiological pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for the delivery of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). This study assessed the feasibility and outcomes of LBBP in comparison to BVP.

METHODS

LBBP was attempted in 40 consecutive patients as the first-line method for delivering CRT. To evaluate LBBP versus BVP, 40 patients with identical inclusion criteria who received BVP were compared with the LBBP group. Acute success rate, complications, functional and echocardiographic outcomes as well as hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality 6 months after implantation were evaluated.

RESULTS

LBBP was successfully performed in 31 (78%) patients and resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 166 ± 16 to 123 ± 18 ms, p < 0.001), improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; from 28 ± 8 to 43 ± 12%, p < 0.001) and New York Heart Association functional class (from 2.8 ± 0.5 to 1.6 ± 0.6, p < 0.001) at 6 months. No LBBP-related complications occurred. Compared to BVP, LBBP resulted in a greater reduction in QRS duration (44 ± 17 vs 15 ± 26 ms, p < 0.001) with comparable absolute improvement in LVEF (15.2 ± 11.7 vs 9.6 ± 12.1%, p = 0.088). Hospitalisation for heart failure and all-cause mortality were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP is feasible and was safe in 78% of patients with favourable electrical resynchronisation and functional improvement and may serve as an alternative to BVP.

Upgrading right ventricular pacemakers to biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Guidelines recommend patients undergoing a first pacemaker implant who have even mild left ventricular (LV) impairment should receive biventricular or conduction system pacing (CSP). There is no corresponding recommendation for patients who already have a pacemaker. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing device upgrades. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Six RCTs (randomizing 161 patients) and 47 observational studies (2644 patients) assessing the efficacy of upgrade to biventricular pacing were eligible for analysis. Eight observational studies recruiting 217 patients of CSP upgrade were also eligible. Fourteen additional studies contributed data on complications (25 412 patients). Randomized controlled trials of biventricular pacing upgrade showed LVEF improvement of +8.4% from 35.5% and observational studies: +8.4% from 25.7%. Observational studies of left bundle branch area pacing upgrade showed +11.1% improvement from 39.0% and observational studies of His bundle pacing upgrade showed +12.7% improvement from 36.0%. New York Heart Association class decreased by -0.4, -0.8, -1.0, and -1.2, respectively. Randomized controlled trials of biventricular upgrade found improvement in Minnesota Heart Failure Score (-6.9 points) and peak oxygen uptake (+1.1 mL/kg/min). This was also seen in observational studies of biventricular upgrades (-19.67 points and +2.63 mL/kg/min, respectively). In studies of the biventricular upgrade, complication rates averaged 2% for pneumothorax, 1.4% for tamponade, and 3.7% for infection over 24 months of mean follow-up. Lead-related complications occurred in 3.3% of biventricular upgrades and 1.8% of CSP upgrades. Randomized controlled trials show significant physiological and symptomatic benefits of upgrading pacemakers to biventricular pacing. Observational studies show similar effects between biventricular pacing upgrade and CSP upgrade.

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: an acute electrical and haemodynamic within-patient comparison of left bundle branch area, His bundle, and biventricular pacing

AIMS

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP).

METHODS AND RESULTS

Patients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP -35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP -19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (-46 ± 15 ms, -36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP -43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP -45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP -13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8).

CONCLUSION

HBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy on Morbidity and Mortality

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the morbidity and mortality associated with LBBAP versus BVP in patients undergoing CRT implantation.

METHODS

Consecutive patients who received CRT from two high-volume implantation centers were retrospectively recruited. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death and heart failure hospitalization, and the secondary endpoint was all-cause death.

RESULTS

A total of 491 patients receiving CRT (154 via LBBAP and 337 via BVP) were included, with a median follow-up of 31 months. The primary endpoint was reached by 21 (13.6%) patients in the LBBAP group, as compared with 74 (22.0%) patients in the BVP group [hazard ratio (HR) 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.43-1.14, P = 0.15]. There were 10 (6.5%) deaths in the LBBAP group, as compared with 31 (9.2%) in the BVP group (HR 0.91, 95% CI 0.44-1.86, P = 0.79). No significant difference was observed in the risk of either the primary or secondary endpoint between LBBAP and BVP after multivariate Cox regression (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.45-1.23, P = 0.24, and HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.36-1.67, P = 0.51, respectively) or propensity score matching (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41-1.29, P = 0.28, and HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.29-1.65, P = 0.40, respectively).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP was associated with a comparable effect on morbidity and mortality relative to BVP in patients with indications for CRT.

Chronically altered ventricular activation causes pro-arrhythmic cardiac electrical remodelling in the chronic AV block dog model

AIMS

Altered ventricular activation (AVA) causes intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (MD) and impedes contraction, promoting pro-arrhythmic electrical remodelling in the chronic atrioventricular block (CAVB) dog. We aimed to study arrhythmogenic and electromechanical outcomes of different degrees of AVA.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Following atrioventricular block, AVA was established through idioventricular rhythm (IVR; n = 29), right ventricular apex (RVA; n = 12) pacing or biventricular pacing [cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT); n = 10]. After ≥3 weeks of bradycardic remodelling, Torsade de Pointes arrhythmia (TdP) inducibility, defined as ≥3 TdP/10 min, was tested with specific IKr-blocker dofetilide (25 μg/kg/5 min). Mechanical dyssynchrony was assessed by echocardiography as time-to-peak (TTP) of left ventricular (LV) free-wall minus septum (ΔTTP). Electrical intraventricular dyssynchrony was assessed as slope of regression line correlating intraventricular LV activation time (AT) and activation recovery interval (ARI). Under sinus rhythm, contraction occurred synchronous (ΔTTP: -8.6 ± 28.9 ms), and latest activated regions seemingly had slightly longer repolarization (AT-ARI slope: -0.4). Acute AV block increased MD in all groups, but following ≥3 weeks of remodelling IVR animals became significantly more TdP inducible (19/29 IVR vs. 5/12 RVA and 2/10 CRT, both P < 0.05 vs. IVR). After chronic AVA, intraventricular MD was lowest in CRT animals (ΔTTP: -8.5 ± 31.2 vs. 55.80 ± 20.0 and 82.7 ± 106.2 ms in CRT, IVR, and RVA, respectively, P < 0.05 RVA vs. CRT). Although dofetilide steepened negative AT-ARI slope in all groups, this heterogeneity in dofetilide-induced ARI prolongation seemed least pronounced in CRT animals (slope to -0.8, -3.2 and -4.5 in CRT, IVR and RVA, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Severity of intraventricular MD affects the extent of electrical remodelling and pro-arrhythmic outcome in the CAVB dog model.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and bundle branch block or indication for pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a safe and more physiological alternative to BVP.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT.

METHODS

This observational study included consecutive patients with LVEF ≤35% and class I or II indications for CRT who underwent successful BVP or CSP at 2 major health care systems. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included subgroup analysis in left bundle branch block as well as individual endpoints of death and HFH.

RESULTS

A total of 477 patients (32% female) met inclusion criteria (BVP 219; CSP 258 [HBP 87, LBBAP 171]). Mean age was 72 ± 12 years, and mean LVEF was 26% ± 6%. Comorbidities included hypertension 70%, diabetes mellitus 45%, and coronary artery disease 52%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower than BVP (133 ± 21 ms vs 153 ± 24 ms; P <.001). LVEF improved in both groups during mean follow-up of 27 ± 12 months and was greater after CSP compared to BVP (39.7% ± 13% vs 33.1% ± 12%; P <.001). Primary outcome of death or HFH was significantly lower with CSP vs BVP (28.3% vs 38.4%; hazard ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval 1.082-2.087; P = .013).

CONCLUSION

CSP improved clinical outcomes compared to BVP in this large cohort of patients with indications for CRT.

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.

Anatomy of the coronary sinus with regard to cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation

Knowledge of the coronary sinus (CS) anatomy is crucial for implantation of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Obstacles to CS entry, such as the Eustachian ridge and Thebesian valve, as well as within the CS, such as Vieussen’s valve and the vein of Marshall, are important to understand and differentiate during implantation or to identify earlier by imaging. Anatomic knowledge is mandatory to select the most suitable side branch for lead implantation. Modern tools and techniques almost always enable other anatomic problems, such as tortuous, small, short, or overly straight side branches, to also be overcome.

What Have We Learned in the Last 20 Years About CRT Non-Responders?

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has become well established in the treatment of heart failure, the management of patients who do not respond after CRT remains a key challenge. This review will summarize what we have learned about non-responders over the last 20 years and discuss methods for optimizing response, including the introduction of novel therapies.

optimized biventricular pacing with adaptive algorithm in heart failure with left bundle branch block: a prospective, multi-centre, observational study

AIMS

The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB).

METHODS AND RESULTS

One hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P < 0.001). Higher absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and △LVEF was also achieved in LBBP-CRT than BVP-aCRT at 6-month (47.58 ± 12.02% vs. 41.24 ± 10.56%, P = 0.008; 18.52 ± 13.19% vs. 12.89 ± 9.73%, P = 0.020) and 1-year follow-up (49.10 ± 10.43% vs. 43.62 ± 11.33%, P = 0.021; 20.90 ± 11.80% vs. 15.20 ± 9.98%, P = 0.015, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in response rate between two groups while higher super-response rate was observed in LBBP-CRT as compared to BVP-aCRT at 6 months (53.06% vs. 36.59%, P = 0.016) and 12 months (61.22% vs. 39.22%, P = 0.028) during follow-up. The pacing threshold was lower in LBBP-CRT at implant and during 1-year follow-up (both P < 0.001). Procedure-related complications and adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different in two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.

Long-term outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing versus biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and complete left bundle branch block

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has developed in an effort to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes between LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BIVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB). Consecutive patients with HF and CLBBB requiring CRT received either LBBAP or BIVP were recruited at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from February 2018 to May 2019. We assessed their implant parameters, electrocardiogram (ECG), clinical outcomes at implant and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Forty-one patients recruited including 21 for LBBAP and 20 for BIVP. Mean follow-up duration was 23.71 ± 4.44 months. LBBAP produced lower pacing thresholds, shorter procedure time and fluoroscopy duration compared to BIVP. The QRS duration was significantly narrower after LBBAP than BIVP (129.29 ± 31.46 vs. 156.85 ± 26.37 ms, p = 0.005). Notably, both LBBAP and BIVP significantly improved LVEF, LVEDD, NYHA class, and BNP compared with baseline. However, LBBAP significantly lowered BNP compared with BIVP (416.69 ± 411.39 vs. 96.07 ± 788.71 pg/ml, p = 0.007) from baseline to 24-month follow-up. Moreover, patients who received LBBAP exhibited lower number of hospitalizations than those in the BIVP group (p = 0.019). In addition, we found that patients with moderately prolonged left ventricular activation time (LVAT) and QRS notching in limb leads in baseline ECG respond better to LBBAP for CLBBB correction. LBBAP might be a relative safe and effective resynchronization therapy and as a supplement to BIVP for patients with HF and CLBBB.

Junctional AV ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (JAVA-CRT): results of a multicenter randomized clinical trial pilot program

Introduction

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves outcomes in sinus rhythm, but the data in atrial fibrillation (AF) is limited. Atrio-ventricular junctional ablation (AVJA) has been proposed as a remedy. The objective was to test if AVJA results in LV end-systolic volume (ESV) reduction ≥ 15% from baseline to 6 months.

Methods

The trial was a prospective multicenter randomized trial in 26 patients with permanent AF who were randomized 1:1 to CRT-D with or without AVJA.

Results

LVESV improved similarly by at least 15% in 5/10 (50%) in the CRT-D-only arm and in 6/12 (50%) in the AVJA + CRT-D arm (OR = 1.00 [0.14, 7.21], p = 1.00). In the CRT-D-only arm, the median 6-month improvement in LVEF was 9.2%, not different from the AVJA + CRT-D arm, 8.2%. When both groups were combined, a significant increase in LVEF was observed (25.4% at baseline vs 36.2% at 6 months, p = 0.002). NYHA class from baseline to 6 months for all patients combined improved 1 class in 15 of 24 (62.5%), whereas 9 remained in the same class and 0 degraded to a worse class.

Conclusion

In patients with permanent AF, reduced LVEF, and broad QRS who were eligible for CRT, there was insufficient evidence that AVJA improved echocardiographic or clinical outcomes; the results should be interpreted in light of a smaller than planned sample size. CRT, however, seemed to be effective in the combined study cohort overall, suggesting that CRT can be reasonably deployed in patients with AF.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02946853.

Pacing therapy for atrioventricular dromotropathy: a combined computational-experimental-clinical study

AIMS

Investigate haemodynamic effects, and their mechanisms, of restoring atrioventricular (AV)-coupling using pacemaker therapy in normal and failing hearts in a combined computational-experimental-clinical study.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Computer simulations were performed in the CircAdapt model of the normal and failing human heart and circulation. Experiments were performed in a porcine model of AV dromotropathy. In a proof-of-principle clinical study, left ventricular (LV) pressure and volume were measured in 22 heart failure (HF) patients (LV ejection fraction <35%) with prolonged PR interval (>230 ms) and narrow or non-left bundle branch block QRS complex. Computer simulations and animal studies in normal hearts showed that restoring of AV-coupling with unchanged ventricular activation sequence significantly increased LV filling, mean arterial pressure, and cardiac output by 10-15%. In computer simulations of failing hearts and in HF patients, reducing PR interval by biventricular (BiV) pacing (patients: from 300 ± 61 to 137 ± 30 ms) resulted in significant increases in LV stroke volume and stroke work (patients: 34 ± 40% and 26 ± 31%, respectively). However, worsening of ventricular dyssynchrony by using right ventricular (RV) pacing abrogated the benefit of restoring AV-coupling. In model simulations, animals and patients, the increase of LV filling and associated improvement of LV pump function coincided with both larger mitral inflow (E- and A-wave area) and reduction of diastolic mitral regurgitation.

CONCLUSION

Restoration of AV-coupling by BiV pacing in normal and failing hearts with prolonged AV conduction leads to considerable haemodynamic improvement. These results indicate that BiV or physiological pacing, but not RV pacing, may improve cardiac function in patients with HF and prolonged PR interval.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for patients requiring ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and RVP among patients undergoing pacemaker implantation METHODS: This observational registry included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for bradycardia indications between April 2018 and October 2020. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), or upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with a prespecified burden of ventricular pacing and individual outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 703 patients met inclusion criteria (321 LBBAP and 382 RVP). QRS duration during LBBAP was similar to baseline (121 ± 23 ms vs 117 ± 30 ms; P = .302) and was narrower compared to RVP (121 ± 23 ms vs 156 ± 27 ms; P <.001). The primary composite outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (10.0%) compared to RVP (23.3%) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95%T confidence interval [CI] 0.306-0.695; P <.001). Among patients with ventricular pacing burden >20%, LBBAP was associated with significant reduction in the primary outcome compared to RVP (8.4% vs 26.1%; HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.187-0.540; P <.001). LBBAP was also associated with significant reduction in mortality (7.8% vs 15%; HR 0.59; P = .03) and HFH (3.7% vs 10.5%; HR 0.38; P = .004).

CONCLUSION

LBBAP resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared to RVP. Higher burden of ventricular pacing (>20%) was the primary driver of these outcome differences.

Left bundle branch-optimized cardiac resynchronization therapy (LOT-CRT): Results from an international LBBAP collaborative study group

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) based on the conventional biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT) technique sometimes results in broad QRS complex and suboptimal response.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of CRT based on left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP, in lieu of the right ventricular lead) combined with coronary venous left ventricular pacing in an international multicenter study.

METHODS

LBBAP-optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) was attempted in nonconsecutive patients with CRT indications. Addition of the LBBA (or coronary venous) lead was at the discretion of the implanting physician, who was guided by suboptimal paced QRS complex, and/or on clinical grounds.

RESULTS

LOT-CRT was successful in 91 of 112 patients (81%). The baseline characteristics were as follows: mean age 70 ± 11 years, female 22 (20%), left ventricular ejection fraction 28.7% ± 9.8%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter 62 ± 9 mm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level 5821 ± 8193 pg/mL, left bundle branch block 47 (42%), nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay 25 (22%), right ventricular pacing 26 (23%), and right bundle branch block 14 (12%). The procedure characteristics were as follows: mean fluoroscopy time 27.3 ± 22 minutes, LBBAP capture threshold 0.8 ± 0.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and R-wave amplitude 10 mV. LOT-CRT resulted in significantly greater narrowing of QRS complex from 182 ± 25 ms at baseline to 144 ± 22 ms (P < .0001) than did BiV-CRT (170 ± 30 ms; P < .0001) and LBBAP (162 ± 23 ms; P < .0001). At follow-up of ≥3 months, the ejection fraction improved to 37% ± 12%, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter decreased to 59 ± 9 mm, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide level decreased to 2514 ± 3537 pg/mL, pacing parameters were stable, and clinical improvement was noted in 76% of patients (New York Heart Association class 2.9 vs 1.9).

CONCLUSION

LOT-CRT is feasible and safe and provides greater electrical resynchronization as compared with BiV-CRT and could be an alternative, especially when only suboptimal electrical resynchronization is obtained with BiV-CRT. Randomized controlled trials comparing LOT-CRT and BiV-CRT are needed.

Effectiveness of multipoint cardiac resynchronizing therapy in heart failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is an important validated technique for patients with dyssynchrony and heart failure. However, the response rate to conventional resynchronization is approximately 50%; therefore, new techniques and schedules have emerged. This study aimed to evaluate the different clinical and echocardiographic variables of conventional versus multipoint cardiac resynchronization therapy.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHOD

A systematic review was conducted of randomized clinical trials in the PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases on cardiac resynchronization intervention with multipoint stimulation clinical and echocardiographic outcomes evaluated before and 3 months after the intervention.

RESULTS

Three studies (N = 139) were ultimately selected, and 100% of patients had a New York Heart Association functional class of II-IV, QRS > 120 ms, and a left ventricular ejection fraction < 35%. Significantly greater improvement was observed in the functional class of patients who underwent multipoint versus conventional therapy. The final systolic volume and ejection fraction improved in the multipoint group, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

The literature lacks sufficient randomized controlled studies to enable conclusions regarding cardiac resynchronization therapy responses using different strategies. Moreover, the improvement in functional class in the multipoint pacing group involved few patients and had slight statistical relevance.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronisation

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a technique of pacing that involves implantation of permanent pacing leads along different sites of the cardiac conduction system and includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing. There is an emerging role for CSP to achieve cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and inter-ventricular dyssynchrony. In this article, the authors review these strategies for resynchronisation and the available data on the use of CSP in overcoming dyssynchrony.

Small decreases in biventricular pacing percentages are associated with multiple metrics of worsening heart failure as measured from a cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator

BACKGROUND

Lower BiVentricular (BiV) pacing percentages have been associated with significantly worse survival in patients with chronic heart failure (HF). However, the pathophysiology behind this observation has not been further delineated. This analysis evaluated whether small incremental decreases in BiV pacing percentages were associated with worse measures, related to HF physiology using individual sensor trends and the HeartLogic composite index.

METHODS

Sensor data was obtained from 900 ambulatory HF patients with implanted CRT devices. The percent of cardiac cycles with BiV pacing was assessed for periods (median = 7.3 days) between data downloads (median = 55 periods/patient).

RESULTS

The third heart sound (S3), respiration rate, RSBI, and night-time heart rate were significantly elevated with sub-optimal pacing (<98%), while the first heart sound (S1), thoracic impedance, and activity were significantly lower. All sensor changes were in the direction associated with worsening HF. While IN the HeartLogic alert state (threshold above an Index of 16) the odds of optimal BiV pacing (≥98%) were less than when OUT of the HeartLogic alert state for a given subject (OR: 0.655; 95% CI: 0.626-0.686; p < 0.0001). The percent BiV pacing was reduced and the HeartLogic Index was increased in the periods surrounding HFhospitalizations.

CONCLUSION

Lower BiV pacing percent is associated with multiple sensor changes indicative of worsening HF, and patients in HeartLogic alert are more likely to have suboptimal BiV pacing. Collectively, these data provide strong evidence that even small decreases in BiV percent pacing can lead to worsening HF.

Spanish Pacemaker Registry. 17th Official Report of the Section on Cardiac Pacing of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (2019)

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This report describes Spanish cardiac pacing activity during 2019: quantities and types of devices and demographic and clinical factors.

METHODS

The analysis is based on data obtained from the European Pacemaker Patient Identification Card, data submitted to the online platform cardiodispositivos.es, and supplier-reported data on the total number of implanted pacemakers.

RESULTS

Information was received on 15 833 procedures from 102 implantation centers, representing 39% of the estimated total activity. The implantation rates of conventional and resynchronization pacemakers were 832 and 32 units per million population, respectively. A total of 431 leadless pacemakers were implanted. Most implantations were performed in elderly patients (mean age, 78.7 years). Most electrodes were bipolar and with active fixation and 34.1% were magnetic resonance imaging-compatible. Atrioventricular block was the most common electrocardiographic abnormality. Dual-chamber sequential pacing predominated; nonetheless, up to 20% of patients in sinus rhythm received a single-chamber ventricular pacemaker, mainly those older than 80 years of age and women. Remote monitoring capability was present in 41% of cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers and in 14.8% of conventional pacemakers.

CONCLUSIONS

Consumption of pacing generators increased by 1.6%, mainly due to a 15.1% increase in cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers. Sequential pacing predominates; its use is influenced by age and sex. Remote monitoring increased by 20.6% in cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers and continues to be scarce in conventional pacemakers.

Biventricular pacing during cardiac magnetic resonance imaging

AIMS

We aimed to assess the effect of cardiac resynchronization on left ventricular (LV) function, volumes, geometry, and mechanics in order to demonstrate reverse remodelling using cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR) with resynchronization on.

METHODS AND RESULTS

New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class II-III patients on optimal medical therapy with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35%, and complete LBBB with broad QRS (>150 ms) were prospectively recruited. Cardiac magnetic resonance examination was performed at baseline and at 6-month follow-up, applying both biventricular and AOO pacing. The following data were measured: conventional CMR parameters, remodelling indices, global longitudinal, circumferential, radial strain, global dyssynchrony [mechanical dispersion (MD) defined as the standard deviation of time to peak longitudinal/circumferential strain in 16 LV segments], and regional dyssynchrony (maximum differences in time between peak septal and lateral transversal displacement). Thirteen patients (64 ± 7 years, 38% male) were enrolled. Comparing the baseline and follow-up CMR parameters measured during biventricular pacing, significant increase in LVEF, and decrease in LV end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVi) and LV end-systolic volume index (LVESVi) were found. Left ventricular remodelling indices, global longitudinal, circumferential, and radial strain values showed significant improvement. Circumferential MD decreased (20.5 ± 5.5 vs. 13.4 ± 3.4, P < 0.001), while longitudinal MD did not change. Regional dyssynchrony drastically improved (362 ± 96 vs. 104 ± 66 ms, P < 0.001). Applying AOO pacing resulted in an immediate deterioration in LVEF, LVESVi, circumferential strain, global and regional dyssynchrony.

CONCLUSION

Cardiac magnetic resonance imaging during biventricular pacing is feasible and enables a more precise quantification of LV function, morphology, and mechanics. As a result, it may contribute to a better understanding of the effects of resynchronization therapy and might improve responder rate in the future.

Clinical outcome of left ventricular multipoint pacing versus conventional biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an effective treatment for selected patients with systolic heart failure. Unlike conventional biventricular pacing (BIP), the left ventricular multipoint pacing (MPP) can increase the number of left ventricular pacing sites via a quadripolar lead positioned in the coronary sinus. This synthetic study was conducted to integratively and quantitatively evaluate the clinical outcome of MPP in comparison with BIP. We systematically searched the databases of EMBASE, Ovid medline, and Cochrane Library through May 2018 for studies comparing the clinical outcome of MPP with BIP in the patients who accepted CRT. Hospitalization for reason of heart failure, left ventricular eject fraction (LVEF), CRT response, all-cause morbidity, and cardiovascular death rate was collected for meta-analysis. A total of 11 studies with 29,606 participants were included in this meta-analysis. Compared with BIP group, MPP decreased heart failure hospitalization (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.33 to 0.50; P < 0.00001), improved LVEF (mean difference, 4.97; 95% CI, 3.11 to 6.83; P < 0.00001), increased CRT response (OR, 3.64; 95% CI, 1.68 to 7.87; P = 0.001), and decreased all-cause morbidity (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.26-0.66; P = 0.0002) and cardiovascular death rate (OR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.11-0.40; P < 0.00001). The published literature demonstrates that MPP was more effective than BIP in the heart failure patients who accepted cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Spanish Pacemaker Registry. 16th Official Report of the Spanish Society of Cardiology Working Group on Cardiac Pacing (2018)

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

This report describes the result of the analysis of the implanted pacemakers reported to the Spanish Pacemaker Registry in 2018.

METHODS

The analysis is based on the information provided by the European Pacemaker Identification Card and supplier-reported data on the overall number of implanted pacemakers.

RESULTS

Information was received from 90 hospitals, with a total of 12 148 cards, representing 31% of the estimated activity. Use of conventional and resynchronization pacemakers was 825 and 77 units per million people, respectively. The mean age of the patients receiving an implant was 78.3 years, and 54% of the devices were implanted in people aged> 80 years. A total of 77.1% were first implants and 21.6% corresponded to generator exchanges. Bicameral sequential pacing was the most frequent pacing mode but was less frequently used in patients aged> 80 years and in women. Single chamber VVI/R pacing was used in 28% of patients with sick sinus syndrome and in 24.7% of those with atrioventricular block, despite being in sinus rhythm.

CONCLUSIONS

The total consumption of pacemaker generators in Spain increased by 1.2% compared with 2017, mainly due to an 8.7% increase in cardiac resynchronization therapy with pacemaker generators. Selection of pacing mode was directly influenced by age and sex.

Atrial fibrillation incidence and impact of biventricular pacing on long-term outcome in patients with heart failure treated with cardiac resynchronization therapy

Background

In patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with an unfavorable outcome and may cause loss of biventricular pacing (BivP). An effective delivery of BivP of more than 98% of all ventricular beats has been shown to be a major determinant of CRT-success.

Methods

At a Swedish tertiary referral center, data was retrospectively obtained from patient registers, medical records and preoperative electrocardiograms. Data regarding AF and BivP during the first year of follow-up was assessed from CRT-device interrogations. No intra-cardiac electrograms were studied. Kaplan-Meier curves and Cox-regression analyses adjusted for age, etiology of heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction, left bundle branch block and NYHA class were performed to assess the impact of AF and BivP on the risk of death or heart transplantation (HTx) at 10-years of follow-up.

Results

Preoperative AF-history was found in 54% of the 379 included patients and was associated with, but did not independently predict death or HTx. The one-year incidence of new device-detected AF was 22% but not associated with poorer prognosis. At one-year, AF-history and BivP≤98%, was associated with a higher risk of death or HTx compared to patients without AF (HR 1.9, 95%CI 1.2–3.0, p = 0.005) whereas AF and BivP> 98% was not (HR 1.4, 95%CI 0.9–2.3, p = 0.14).

Conclusions

In CRT-recipients, AF-history is common and associated with poor outcome. AF-history does not independently predict mortality and is probably only a marker of a more severe underlying disease. BivP≤98% during first-year of CRT-treatment independently predicts poor outcome thus further supporting the use of 98% threshold of BivP, which should be attained to maximize the benefits of CRT.

Quadripolar versus bipolar leads in cardiac resynchronization therapy: An analysis of the National Cardiovascular Data Registry

BACKGROUND

The introduction of quadripolar (QP) cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) leads aimed to improve procedural and clinical outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

The National Cardiovascular Data Registry was analyzed to characterize the use as well as the procedural and clinical outcomes of QP leads in comparison with unipolar and bipolar (BP) leads.

METHODS

We evaluated data on 175,684 procedures reported between September 1, 2010, and December 31, 2015. Clinical outcomes were analyzed using Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data.

RESULTS

Among all CRT device implants, there was a drop in reported lead placement failure from 6.04% to 5.21% (P < .0001 for trend) and a drop in the reported diaphragmatic stimulation rates from 0.07% to 0.01% (P < .007 for trend) between the last quarters of 2010 and 2015. No significant difference in procedural complication rates between QP and BP leads occurred (1.34% and 1.39%, respectively; P = .50). Among patients linked to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services claims data, no statistically significant difference in the combined primary outcome of death, congestive heart failure admission, device malfunction, and reoperation between BP and QP leads was observed (34.15 and 34.19 events per 100 patient-years, respectively; P = .89).

CONCLUSION

Since the introduction of QP leads, there was a reduction in CRT lead placement failure rates and a reduction in diaphragmatic stimulation rates. However, no statistically significant difference in long-term clinical outcomes between BP and QP leads was observed in elderly patients undergoing CRT implantation.

Multisite pacing via a quadripolar lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is challenging. Up to 40% of patients are non-responder. Multisite pacing via a quadripolar lead, also called multipoint/multipole pacing (MPP), is a debated alternative. In this review, we summarize evidence in the literature, tips and pitfalls related to MPP programming, and the different algorithms of MPP in different manufacturers.