His potential injury as the end point of screwing by a continuous recording technique in His bundle pacing: A case report

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) engaged electrical activation of both ventricles by stimulating the His-Purkinje network, which could avoid marked ventricles dyssynchrony. The lead was given three to five clockwise rotations at the site with the His potential to anchor the interventricular septum. In 2018, the Multicenter His Bundle Pacing Collaborative Working Group recommended that the His bundle capture threshold should be lower than 2.5 V/1 ms in non-pacing-dependent patients, and pacing-dependent patients should have a lower adjacent ventricular capture threshold as self-backup. Therefore, to avoid safety issues such as loss of capture caused by increased threshold, we believe that more stringent criteria should be adopted in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). In previous studies, the connection cable needed to be disconnected during the screwing. When the procedure was finished, the performer found that the patients with His bundle injury could obtain a lower threshold than those without His bundle injury. Although no studies of new bundle branch block (BBB) or AVB by the acute His bundle injury was reported. However, It is worrying that the damage of His bundle seems random during the procedure. How to balance avoiding severe injury with a lower capture threshold? At present, we report a case of light His injury and lower His capture threshold under continuous intracardiac electrocardiogram monitoring.

Spontaneous Sinus Rhythm Restoration in Patients With Refractory, Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Who Underwent Conduction System Pacing and Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Ablate and pace (A&P) with conduction system pacing (CSP) improves outcomes in patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). Data on spontaneous sinus rhythm restoration (SSRR) in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to assess the incidence and the predictors of SSRR in a population of patients with permanent AF who underwent A&P with CSP. Prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic permanent AF (of documented duration >6 months) and uncontrolled, drug-refractory high ventricular rate, who underwent A&P with CSP. The incidence and predictors of SSRR were prospectively assessed. A total of 107 patients (79.0 ± 9.1 years, 33.6% male, 74.8% with New York Heart Association class ≥III, 56.1% with ejection fraction <40%) were enrolled: 40 received His' bundle pacing, 67 left bundle branch area pacing. During a median follow-up of 12 months SSRR was observed in 14 patients (13.1%), occurring a median of 3 months after A&P (interquartile range 1 to 6; range 0 to 17). Multivariable analysis identified a duration of permanent AF <12 months (hazard ratio 7.7, p = 0.040) and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 (hazard ratio 14.8, p = 0.008) as independent predictors of SSRR. In patients with coexistence of both predictors the incidence of SSRR was of 41.4%. In a population of patients with symptomatic, permanent AF, treated with A&P with CSP, SSRR was observed in 13% of patients during follow-up. A duration of permanent AF <12 months and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 were independent predictors of this phenomenon.

A Comparative Assessment of Myocardial Work Performance during Spontaneous Rhythm, His Bundle Pacing, and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Insights from the EMPATHY Study

BACKGROUND

Physiological pacing has gained significant interest due to its potential to achieve optimal hemodynamic response. This study aimed to assess left ventricular performance in terms of electrical parameters, specifically QRS duration and mechanical performance, evaluated as myocardial work. We compared His Bundle Pacing (HBP) and Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) to evaluate their effects.

METHODS

Twenty-four patients with class I or IIa indications for pacing were enrolled in this study, with twelve patients undergoing HBP implantation and another twelve undergoing LBBAP implantation. A comprehensive analysis of myocardial work was conducted.

RESULTS

Our findings indicate that there were no major differences in terms of spontaneous and HBP activation in myocardial work, except for global wasted work (217 mmHg% vs. 283 mmHg%; p 0.016) and global work efficiency (87 mmHg% vs. 82 mmHg%; p 0.049). No significant differences were observed in myocardial work between spontaneous activation and LBBAP. Similarly, no significant differences in myocardial work were found between HBP and LBBAP.

CONCLUSIONS

Both pacing modalities provide physiological ventricular activation without significant differences when compared to each other. Moreover, there were no significant differences in QRS duration between HBP and LBBAP. However, LBBAP demonstrated advantages in terms of feasibility, as it achieved better lead electrical parameters compared to HBP (threshold@0.4 ms 0.6 V vs. 1 V; p = 0.045-sensing 9.4 mV vs. 2.4 mV; p < 0.001). Additionally, LBBAP required less fluoroscopy time (6 min vs. 13 min; p = 0.010) and procedural time (81 min vs. 125 min; p = 0.004) compared to HBP.

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

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

Left bundle branch pacing preserved left ventricular myocardial work in patients with bradycardia

Background

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. Left ventricular (LV) myocardial work (MW) incorporates afterload and LV global longitudinal strain to estimate global and segmental myocardial contractility. However, the effect of LBBP on LV MW remains unknown. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of LBBP on LV MW in patients receiving pacemaker for bradyarrhythmia.

Methods

We prospectively enrolled 70 bradycardia patients with normal LV systolic function receiving LBBP (n = 46) and non-selective His-bundle pacing (NS-HBP) (n = 24). For comparative analysis, patients receiving right ventricular pacing (RVP) (n = 16) and control subjects (n = 10) were enrolled. Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography was performed. The LV pressure-strain loop was non-invasively constructed to assess global LV MW.

Results

After 6-month follow-up, LBBP group (with >40% ventricular pacing during 6 months) had shorter peak strain dispersion (PSD) compared with RVP group, and higher LV global longitudinal strain compared with RVP group and NS-HBP group, but had no difference in left intraventricular mechanical dyssynchrony, including septal-to-posterior wall motion delay and PSD, compared with NS-HBP group. During ventricular pacing, LBBP group had higher global MW index (GWI) (2,189 ± 527 vs. 1,493 ± 799 mmHg%, P = 0.002), higher global constructive work (GCW) (2,921 ± 771 vs. 2,203 ± 866 mmHg%, P = 0.009), lower global wasted work (GWW) (211 ± 161 vs. 484 ± 281 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher global MW efficiency (GWE) (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 80.9 ± 8.3%, P < 0.001) compared with RVP group, and had lower GWW (211 ± 161 vs. 406 ± 234 mmHg%, P < 0.001) and higher GWE (91.4 ± 5.0 vs. 86.4 ± 8.1%, P < 0.001) compared with NS-HBP group.

Conclusions

In this study we found that in patients with mid-term (6-month) high ventricular pacing burden (>40%), LBBP preserved more LV MW compared with NS-HBP and RVP. Further studies are warranted to assess the association between LV MW and long-term clinical outcomes in LBBP with high ventricular pacing burden.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy for patients with heart failure and nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay

The efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) is well established with Class I or IIa recommendation according to 2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and CRT, whereas non-LBBB morphology is less recommended. There is insufficient evidence that proves patients with NICD could benefit from CRT. As patients with NICD are characterized by heterogeneity, the effect of CRT on these patients is still controversial. Although the proportion of NICD in the population is lower than that of LBBB patients, it is still worth investigating the effects of CRT on patients with NICD in an era of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP).

The role of conduction system pacing in patients with atrial fibrillation

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a promising novel delivery method for Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy (CRT), providing an alternative to conventional biventricular epicardial (BiV) pacing in indicated patients. Despite increasing popularity and widespread uptake, CSP has rarely been specifically examined in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), a cohort which forms a significant proportion of the heart failure (HF) population. In this review, we first examine the mechanistic evidence for the importance of sinus rhythm (SR) in CSP by allowing adjustment of atrioventricular delays (AVD) to achieve the optimal electrical response, and thus, whether the efficacy of CSP may be significantly attenuated compared to conventional BiV pacing in the presence of AF. We next evaluate the largest clinical body of evidence in this field, related to patients receiving CSP following atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) for AF. Finally, we discuss how future research may be designed to address the vital question of how effective CSP in AF patients is, and the potential hurdles we may face in delivering such studies.

Conduction system pacing improves the outcomes on patients with high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSP in patients with a high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with HFmrEF.

Methods

Patients who underwent CSP for HFmrEF and ventricular pacing >40% were consecutively enrolled from January 2018 to May 2021. All participants were followed up at least 12 months. Clinical data including cardiac performance and lead outcomes were compared before and after the procedure. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured using the biplane Simpson's method. HFmrEF was defined as heart failure with the LVEF ranging from 41%-49%.

Results

CSP was successfully performed in 64 cases (96.97%), which included 16 cases of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and 48 cases of His bundle pacing (HBP). After a mean of 23.12 ± 8.17 months follow-up, NYHA classification (P < 0.001), LVEF (42.45 ± 1.84% vs. 49.97 ± 3.57%, P < 0.001) and left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (55.59 ± 6.17 mm vs. 51.66 ± 3.48 mm, P < 0.001) improved significantly. During follow-up, more than half (39/64,60.9%) of patients returned to normal LVEF and LVEDD with complete reverse remodeling. The pacing threshold in LBBP was lower (0.90 ± 0.27 V@0.4 ms vs. 1.61 ± 0.71 V@0.4 ms, P < 0.001) than that in HBP. No perforation, electrode dislodging, thrombosis or infection was observed during follow-up.

Conclusions

CSP could improve the clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF and a high percentage of ventricular pacing. LBBP might be a better choice because of its feasibility and safety, especially in patients with infranodal atrioventricular block.

Improved Outcomes of Conduction System Pacing in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Conduction system pacing (CSP) - His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) - are emerging alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure. However, evidence is largely limited to small and observational studies. We conducted a meta-analysis including a total of 15 randomized control trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs that compare CSP (HBP & LBBAP) with BVP in patients with CRT indications. We assessed the mean differences in QRS duration (QRSd), pacing threshold, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and New York Heart Association (NYHA) class score. CSP resulted in a pooled mean QRSd improvement of -20.3 ms (95% CI -26.1 - -14.5, p<0.05, I²=87.1%) versus BVP. For LVEF, a weighted mean increase of 5.2% (95% CI 3.5-6.9, p<0.05, I²=55.6) was observed following CSP versus BVP. The mean NYHA score was reduced by -0.40 (95% CI -0.6 - -0.2, p<0.05, I²=61.7) post-CSP versus BVP. Subgroup analysis of outcomes by LBBAP and HBP demonstrated statistically significant weighted mean improvements from both CSP modalities for QRSd and LVEF compared to BVP. LBBAP resulted in NYHA improvement compared to BVP without differences between CSP subgroups. LBBAP is associated with a significantly lowered mean pacing threshold of -0.51V (95% CI -0.68 - -0.38) whilst HBP had increased the mean threshold (0.62V, 95% CI -0.03 - 1.26) compared to BVP, however, this was associated with significant heterogeneity. Overall, both CSP techniques are feasible and effective CRT alternatives for heart failure. Further RCTs are needed to establish long-term efficacy and safety.

Conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: State of the art, current controversies, and future perspectives

Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the established treatment to perform cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, BVP is an unnatural pacing modality still conditioned by the high percentage of non-responders and coronary sinus anatomy. Conduction system pacing (CSP)-His bundle pacing (HBP) and Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)- upcomes as the physiological alternative to BVP in the quest for the optimal CRT. CSP showed promising results in terms of better electro-mechanical ventricular synchronization compared to BVP. However, only a few randomized control trials are currently available, and technical challenges, along with the lack of information on long-term clinical outcomes, limit the establishment of a primary role for CSP over conventional BVP in CRT candidates. This review provides a comprehensive literature revision of potential applications of CSP for CRT in diverse clinical scenarios, underlining the current controversies and prospects of this technique.

His bundle pacing versus right ventricular pacing: A comparative study

BACKGROUND

Pacing is the most effective and dependable method for treating complete atrioventricular block (AVB).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to investigate the use of His bundle pacing (HBP) in patients with atrioventricular block.

METHODS

Patients who underwent HBP or right ventricular pacing (RVP) were enrolled and divided into two groups: the HBP group and the RVP group, respectively. We compared baseline clinical data, fluoroscopy duration, operation duration, pacing electrode parameters during the operation or follow-up, baseline QRS duration, and pacing QRS duration.

RESULTS

HBP was attempted in 48 patients and was successful in 34 patients who were included in the HBP group. In addition, 30 RVP patients were included in the RVP group. Fluoroscopy duration and operation duration were significantly longer in the HBP group compared to the RVP group. Compared to the RVP group, the HBP group had a higher pacing threshold, a lower R wave amplitude, and a shorter pacing QRS duration. At 6 months of follow-up, the pacing threshold remained higher, the R wave amplitude was significantly lower, and the end-diastolic diameter of the left ventricle was smaller in the HBP group.

CONCLUSION

HBP was safe and effective for atrioventricular block despite the longer fluoroscopy and operation duration in the HBP group when compared to the RVP group.

His-Purkinje system pacing reduced tricuspid regurgitation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery

Background & objective

Tricuspid regurgitation after left-sided valve surgery was a common and difficult problem. Atrial fibrillation was considered to be an important etiology of tricuspid regurgitation. His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) was a physiological pacing method, which could prevent and treat heart failure and might reduce tricuspid regurgitation. Our study aimed to investigate the effect of HPSP on tricuspid regurgitation in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery.

Methods

This study was a retrospective study. The 3-year patient review focused on those who underwent permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation of HPSP after mitral valve and/or aortic valve replacement from Jan 1st, 2019 to Jan 1st, 2022. HPSP included His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Clinical data collected included electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, ultrasonic cardiogram parameters and chest x-ray at implantation and 3-month follow up. Univariate and multivariate linear regression analysis of tricuspid regurgitation velocity were performed.

Results

A total of 44 patients was retrospectively reviewed. Eight patients who had undergone implantation of HPSP after left-sided heart valve replacement were enrolled in the study. All patients had persistent atrial fibrillation. Three of them received HBP and five underwent LBBP. At 3-month follow-up, the tricuspid regurgitation grade was significantly lower than that before implantation (P = 0.007). The tricuspid regurgitation velocity significantly decreased (317 ± 74 cm/s vs. 261 ± 52 cm/s, P = 0.022) and tricuspid valve pressure gradient (PG) reduced (42 ± 21 mmHg vs. 28 ± 10 mmHg, P = 0.040). The cardiothoracic ratio of patients was significantly lower than that before implantation (0.61 ± 0.08 vs. 0.64 ± 0.09, P = 0.017). The NYHA classification of patients also improved (P = 0.013). In multivariate liner regression analysis, the pacing ratio (β = 0.736, P = 0.037) was an independent determinant of tricuspid regurgitation velocity variation.

Conclusion

HPSP might reduce tricuspid regurgitation and improve cardiac function in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation after left-sided valve surgery.

His bundle combined with deep septal left bundle branch area pacing for atrial fibrillation prior to atrioventricular node ablation

Background

To mitigate the risk of dyssynchrony-induced cardiomyopathy, international guidelines advocate His bundle pacing (HBP) with a ventricular backup lead prior to atrioventricular node ablation in treatment-refractory atrial fibrillation and normal left ventricular ejection fraction. As a result of concerns with long-term pacing parameters associated with HBP, this case series reports an adopted strategy of HBP combined with deep septal left bundle branch area pacing (dsLBBAP) in this patient cohort, enabling intrapatient comparison of the two pacing methods.

Methods and Results

Eight patients aged 72 ± 10 years (left ventricular ejection fraction 53 ± 4%) underwent successful combined HBP and dsLBBAP implant prior to AV node ablation. Intrinsic QRS duration was 118 ± 46 ms. When compared to dsLBBAP, HBP had lower sensed ventricular amplitude (2.4 ± 1.1 vs. 15 ± 5.3 V, p = .001) and lower lead impedance (522 ± 57 vs. 814 ± 171ohms, p = .02), but shorter paced QRS duration (101 ± 20 vs. 119 ± 17 ms, p = .02). HBP pacing threshold was 1.0 ± 0.6 V at 1 ms pulse width, and dsLBBAP pacing threshold was 0.5 ± 0.2 V at 0.4 ms pulse width. Five patients underwent cardiac CT showing adequate dsLBBAP ventricular septal penetration (8.6 ± 1.3 mm depth, 2.4 ± 0.5 mm distance from left ventricular septal wall). No complications occurred during a mean follow-up duration of 121 ± 92 days.

Conclusions

Combined HBP and dsLBBAP pacing is a feasible approach as a pace and ablate strategy for atrial fibrillation refractory to medical therapy.

The hemodynamic effect of simulated atrial fibrillation on left ventricular function

INTRODUCTION

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained arrhythmia in humans. The onset of the arrhythmia can significantly impair cardiac function. This hemodynamic deterioration has been explained by several mechanisms such as the loss of atrial contraction, shortening of ventricular filling, or heart rhythm irregularity. This study sought to evaluate the relative hemodynamic contribution of each of these components during in vivo simulated human AF.

METHODS

Twelve patients undergoing catheter ablation for paroxysmal AF were paced simultaneously from the proximal coronary sinus and the His bundle region according to prescribed sequences of irregular R-R intervals with the average rate of 90 and 130 bpm, which were extracted from the database of digital ECG recordings of AF from other patients. The simulated AF was compared to regular atrial pacing with spontaneous atrioventricular conduction and regular simultaneous atrioventricular pacing at the same heart rate. Beat-by-beat left atrial and left ventricular pressures, including LV dP/dT and Tau index were assessed by direct invasive measurement; beat-by-beat stroke volume and cardiac output (index) were assessed by simultaneous pulse-wave doppler intracardiac echocardiography.

RESULTS

Simulated AF led to significant impairment of left ventricular systolic and diastolic function. Both loss of atrial contraction and heart rate irregularity significantly contributed to hemodynamic impairment. This effect was pronounced with increasing heart rate.

CONCLUSION

Our findings strengthen the rationale for therapeutic strategies aiming at rhythm control and heart rate regularization in patients with AF.

Comparison between conduction system pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy in right bundle branch block patients

A significant number of right bundle branch block (RBBB) patients receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), despite lack of evidence for benefit in this patient group. His bundle (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel CRT delivery methods, but their effect on RBBB remains understudied. We aim to compare pacing-induced electrical synchrony during conventional CRT, HBP, and LBP in RBBB patients with different conduction disturbances, and to investigate whether alternative ways of delivering LBP improve response to pacing. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart geometries each including a His-Purkinje system with proximal right bundle branch block (RBBB). We simulated RBBB combined with left anterior and posterior fascicular blocks (LAFB and LPFB). Additionally, RBBB was simulated in the presence of slow conduction velocity (CV) in the myocardium, left ventricular (LV) or right ventricular (RV) His-Purkinje system, and whole His-Purkinje system. Electrical synchrony was measured by the shortest interval to activate 90% of the ventricles (BIVAT-90). Compared to baseline, HBP significantly improved activation times for RBBB alone (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 42.6 ± 3.8 ms, p < 0.01), with LAFB (69.5 ± 5.0 ms vs. 58.1 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. 62.9 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with slow myocardial CV (119.4 ± 11.4 ms vs. 97.2 ± 10.0 ms, p < 0.01) or slow CV in the whole His-Purkinje system (102.3 ± 7.0 ms vs. 75.5 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). LBP was only effective in RBBB cases if combined with anodal capture of the RV septum myocardium (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 48.2 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). CRT significantly reduced activation times in RBBB in the presence of severely slow RV His-Purkinje CV (95.1 ± 7.9 ms vs. 84.3 ± 9.3 ms, p < 0.01) and LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. CRT: 72.9 ± 8.6 ms, p < 0.01). Both CRT and HBP were ineffective with severely slow CV in the LV His-Purkinje system. HBP is effective in RBBB patients with otherwise healthy myocardium and Purkinje system, while CRT and LBP are ineffective. Response to LBP improves when LBP is combined with RV septum anodal capture. CRT is better than HBP only in patients with severely slow CV in the RV His-Purkinje system, while CV slowing of the whole His-Purkinje system and the myocardium favor HBP over CRT.

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.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background

His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological pacing strategy, which aims to capture the His bundle-Purkinje system and synchronously activate the ventricles. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a newly discovered physiological pacing technique similar to HBP. We conducted this meta-analysis to compare the pacing parameters and clinical results between HBP and LBBP.

Methods

We systematically retrieved studies using the PubMed, Embase database, and Cochrane Library. Mean difference (MD) and relative risk (RR) with their 95% confidence intervals [CIs] were used to measure the outcomes. A random-effect model was used when studies were of high heterogeneity.

Results

A total of seven studies containing 867 individuals were included. Compared with HBP, LBBP was associated with higher implant success rates (RR: 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05–1.18; I² = 60%, P = 0.0003), lower capture threshold at implantation (V/0.5 ms) (MD: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.35–0.90, I² = 89%, P < 0.0001) and capture threshold at follow-up (V/0.5 ms) (MD: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.34–1.18, I² = 93%, P = 0.0004), and larger sensed R wave amplitude (mV) at implantation (MD: 7.23, 95% CI: 5.29–9.16, P < 0.0001) and sensed R wave amplitude (mV) at follow-up (MD: 7.53, 95% CI: 6.85–8.22, P < 0.0001). In LBBP recipients, greater QRS wave complex reduction was found in the paced QRS duration at follow-up compared with HBP recipients at follow-up (MD: 6.12, 95% CI: 1.23–11.01, I² = 0%, P = 0.01). No statistical differences were found in procedure duration, fluoroscopy time, native left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF), LVEF improvement, native QRS duration, and QRS reduction from the native QRS duration vs. paced QRS duration at implantation.

Conclusion

Current evidence suggests that pacing characteristics are better in LBBP compared with HBP. Further prospective studies are needed to validate the clinical advantages of LBBP.

His Bundle pacing for congenital complete AV block: An attempt to fix a broken heart?

Congenital complete atrioventricular block (CCAVB) is usually due to failure of atrioventricular nodal conduction with preservation of the His‐Purkinje system. Most patients with CCAVB ultimately require pacemaker therapy to restore physiologic heart rates, dealing with the detrimental effects of chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing on cardiac structure and function. The ideal stimulation pattern aims to mimic the normal conduction to restore electromechanical coupling, preventing the harmful effects of lack of atrioventricular and inter‐intraventricular synchrony. This can be done through conduction system pacing. Using His bundle pacing (HBP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy in two complete congenital atrioventricular block patients, we have reported better exercise tolerance and echocardiographic improvements related to reversible left ventricular dysfunction that can be corrected by restoration of the normal activation pathway via the His‐Purkinje network.

Conduction System Pacing for Post Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Patients: Comparison With Right Ventricular Pacing

Introduction: For patients who develop atrioventricular block (AVB) following transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR), right ventricular pacing (RVP) may be associated with adverse outcomes. We assessed the feasibility of conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients who developed AVB following TAVR and compared the procedural and clinical outcomes with RVP. Methods: Consecutive patients who developed AVB following TAVR were prospectively enrolled, and were implanted with RVP or CSP. Procedural and clinical outcomes were compared among different pacing modalities. Results: A total of 60 patients were enrolled, including 10 who were implanted with His bundle pacing (HBP), 20 with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and 30 with RVP. The HBP group had significantly lower implant success rate, higher capture threshold, and lower R-wave amplitude than the LBBP and RVP groups (p < 0.01, respectively). The RVP group had a significantly longer paced QRS duration (153.5 ± 6.8 ms, p < 0.01) than the other two groups (HBP: 121.8 ± 8.6 ms; LBBP: 120.2 ± 10.6 ms). During a mean follow-up of 15.0 ± 9.1 months, the LBBP group had significantly higher left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (54.9 ± 6.7% vs. 48.9 ± 9.1%, p < 0.05) and shorter left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (49.7 ± 5.6 mm vs. 55.0 ± 7.7 mm, p < 0.05) than the RVP group. While the HBP group showed trends of higher LVEF (p = 0.016) and shorter LVEDD (p = 0.017) than the RVP group. Four patients in the RVP group died-three deaths were due to progressive heart failure and one was due to non-cardiac reasons. One death in the LBBP group was due to the non-cardiac reasons. Conclusions: CSP achieved shorter paced QRS duration and better cardiac structure and function in post-TAVR patients than RVP. LBBP had a higher implant success rate and better pacing parameters than HBP.

Conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing: Reduced repolarization heterogeneity in addition to improved depolarization

INTRODUCTION

His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left-bundle-area pacing (LBAP) are conduction system pacing (CSP) modalities increasingly used as alternatives to conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). While effects of CSP on ventricular depolarization have been reported, effects on ventricular repolarization have not.

METHODS

QRS duration (QRSd) and validated ECG parameters of ventricular repolarization associated with arrhythmic risk (T-peak-to-T-end_Transmural , T-peak-to-T-end_Total , T-peak dispersion, QTc, QTc dispersion) were analyzed post-implant in 107 patients: 60 with CSP (HBP: n = 35, LBAP: n = 25) and 47 with BiVP. T-wave memory resolution and QTc shortening were analyzed on ECGs obtained ≥25 days post-implant. Twenty blinded measurements were obtained by both authors to assess Interobserver variability.

RESULTS

Although QRSd was shorter with HBP versus LBAP (119 ± 7 ms vs. 132 ± 9 ms, p = .02), there were no significant differences in any repolarization parameters between these methods of CSP. However, when comparing CSP (HBP + LBAP) to BiVP, both QRSd (125 ± 5 ms vs. 147 ± 7 ms, p < .0001) and repolarization parameters (T-peak-to-T-end_Transmural : 83 ± 5 ms vs. 107 ± 8 ms; T-peak-to-T-end_Total : 110 ± 7 ms vs. 137 ± 10 ms; QTc: 470 ± 12 ms vs. 506 ± 12 ms; all p ≤ .0001) were significantly shorter with CSP. Improved T-peak-to-T-end values were unrelated to pre-implant QRSd or LV function. Interobserver variability was 4.6 ± 1.9 ms. Frontal QRS-T angle narrowing (132° to 104°, p = .001) and QTc shortening (483 ± 13 ms to 464 ± 12 ms, p = .008) were seen only with CSP.

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to improved depolarization, CSP reduced repolarization heterogeneity and provided greater T-wave memory resolution as compared to BiVP. Both modalities of CSP (HBP + LBAP) resulted in comparably reduced repolarization heterogeneity regardless of baseline QRSd and LV function. These observations may confer lower arrhythmogenic risk and warrant further study.

Is His-optimized superior to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy in improving heart failure? Results from a propensity-matched study

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP), alone or optimized in association with coronary sinus pacing (HBP+LV) has recently been proposed as an alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, there is lack of controlled studies that assessed clinical outcome.

METHODS

We did a single-center, propensity-score matched, case-control study of comparison of HBP and HBP+LV versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure (HF) and standard indications for CRT. The study group patients were consecutively enrolled in the year 2019. The control group patients were selected, by propensity score matching, among those CRT implantations performed in the years 2015-2018.

RESULTS

There were 27 patients in each group. In the active group, 12 (44%) patients received HBP alone and 12 (44%) patients HBP+LV pacing. HBP failed in three (11%) patients. In the control group, conventional CRT was achieved in 26 (96%) patients and failed in one. Paced QRS width was shorter in the active than in the control group (128 ± 18 vs. 148 ± 27 ms, p = .004). During a mean of 9.6 months of follow-up, a composite clinical outcome of death, hospitalization for HF or worsening HF occurred in three (11%) in the active group and in four (15%) in the control group, p = .58. No difference was also observed with softer endpoints: NYHA class (1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.1 ± 0.7), subjective improvement (74% vs. 74%) and LV ejection fraction (40.7% vs. 40.7%).

CONCLUSION

Compared with conventional CRT, a shorter QRS width can be obtained with HBP alone or in association with coronary sinus pacing but we were unable to show a better clinical outcome. There is urgent need for large, randomized trials.

His bundle pacing therapy for patients with chronic heart failure: A protocol for meta-analysis based on prospective studies

INTRODUCTION

A considerable amount of studies have been published with the results of clinical benefit from his bundle pacing (HBP) for chronic heart failure (CHF) patients and these researches led a uncertain conclusion for clinics. Thus, we will conduct a meta-analysis to evaluate the effect of his bundle pacing therapy for chronic heart failure.

METHODS

Pubmed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Chinese online databases including Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Biology Medicine disc, Chinese Scientifific Journals Database (VIP), and Wanfang Database will be searched from these databases construction to the end of November, 2020. The STATA 13.0 will be used for data synthesis and meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The outcome measures included QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, pacing threshold, New York Heart Association (NYHA), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, left ventricular end-systolic diameter, mitral regurgitation, tricuspid regurgitation, and BNP will be analyzed and synthesized.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis will evaluate the effect of his bundle pacing therapy for chronic heart failure.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

INPLASY202110109.

Development of New-Onset or Progressive Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Permanent HIS Bundle Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing: Results From the RUSH HBP Registry

Background

Conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with an increased incidence of atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to compare the occurrence of new‐onset AF and assessed AF disease progression during long‐term follow‐up between His bundle pacing (HBP) and RVP.

Methods and Results

We included patients undergoing initial dual‐chamber pacemaker implants at Rush University Medical Center between January 1, 2016, and June 30, 2019. A total of 360 patients were evaluated, and 225 patients (HBP, n=105; RVP, n=120) were included in the study. Among the 148 patients (HBP, n=72; RVP, n=76) with no history of AF, HBP demonstrated a lower risk of new‐onset AF (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.53; 95% CI, 0.28–0.99; P=0.046) compared with traditional RVP. This benefit was observed with His or RVP burden exceeding 20% (HR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.13–0.64; P=0.002), ≥40% (HR, 0.31; P=0.007), ≥60% (HR, 0.35; P=0.015), and ≥80% (HR, 0.40; P=0.038). There was no difference with His or RV pacing burden <20% (HR, 0.613; 95% CI, 0.213–1.864; P=0.404). In patients with a prior history of AF, there was no difference in AF progression (P=0.715); however, in a subgroup of patients with a pacing burden ≥40%, HBP demonstrated a trend toward a lower risk of AF progression (HR, 0.19; 95% CI, 0.03–1.16; P=0.072).

Conclusions

HBP demonstrated a lower risk of new‐onset AF compared with RVP, which was primarily observed at a higher pacing burden.

Treatment of atrial fibrillation with third-degree atrioventricular block by pacing His bundle and left bundle branch: Case report

INTRODUCTION

Substantial advances in cardiac pacing technology have been developed in the past decades. However, efforts to improve pacing technology to achieve physiological electrical activity, such as with cardiac resynchronization therapy, are underway. Permanent His bundle pacing, which directly stimulates the His-Purkinje network and electrically activates both ventricles, simulates physiological electric activity in the heart, and has been considered an ideal pacing strategy to treat arrhythmias. For patients with atrial fibrillation complicated by third-degree atrioventricular block (AVB), permanent His bundle pacing is a better option than conventional right ventricular apical or septal pacing, the latter of which may be associated with risks, such as heart failure. However, His bundle pacing exhibits some shortcomings, including elevated pacing threshold, dislocation, and abnormal sensing.

CASE PRESENTATION

A 69-year-old female patient who had atrial fibrillation (AF) complicated by third-degree AVB and who was treated with permanent His bundle pacing combined with left bundle branch pacing.

DIAGNOSIS

AF complicated by third-degree AVB.

INTERVENTIONS

We used the left bundle branch as a backup pacing site to overcome any shortcomings related to permanent His bundle pacing.

OUTCOMES

The patient recovered well without any events.

CONCLUSION

We selected His bundle pacing as the primary pacing, but also used left bundle branch pacing as a backup approach. If His bundle pacing results in an increased sensing threshold, pacing threshold changes, or dislocations, left bundle branch pacing can compensate for dysfunction of permanent deficiencies in His bundle pacing, preserving physiological pacing.