Immediate clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing vs conventional right ventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) is a new physiological pacing strategy that produces comparable clinical effects to His bundle pacing (HBP).

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to investigate the immediate clinical outcomes of LBBaP vs RVP.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From April 2018 to September 2018, we included 44 patients under continuous pacemaker implantation. Patients were randomly divided into the LBBaP group and conventional RVP group. Compared to the RVP group, the LBBaP group displayed significantly increased operative (90.10 ± 19.68 minutes vs 61.57 ± 6.62 minutes, P < .001) and X-ray exposure times (15.55 ± 5.62 minutes vs 4.67 ± 2.06 minutes, P < .001). The lead threshold of the LBBaP group was increased (0.68 ± 0.20 mV vs 0.51 ± 0.0 mV, P = .001), while the R-wave amplitude and ventricular impedance did not significantly differ between the two groups. The conventional RVP procedure significantly widened the QRS complex (93.62 ± 8.28 ms vs 135.19 ± 12.21 ms, P = .001), whereas the LBBaP had no effect on QRS complex (130.13 ± 43.30 ms vs 112.63 ± 12.14 ms, P = .904). Furthermore, the LBBaP procedure significantly narrowed the QRS complex in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) (168.43 ± 38.870 ms vs 119.86 ± 6.69 ms, P = .019).

CONCLUSION

LBBaP is a new physiological, safe and effective pacing procedure with a high overall success rate. Compared to conventional RVP, LBBaP can correct LBBB, thereby improving cardiac electrical dyssynchrony.

Medium-term effects of septal and apical pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients: a double-blind prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

Pacing the right ventricle is established practice, but there remains controversy as to the optimal site to preserve hemodynamic function.

AIMS

To evaluate clinical and hemodynamic differences between apical and septal pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients.

METHODS

Patients receiving their first pacemaker for advanced atrioventricular block, with the atria in sinus rhythm, were randomized to receive apical (Group A) or septal (Group S) ventricular leads. After implant, with the device programmed VVI 70 beats/min fixed rate, patients underwent a 6-minute walk test and a transthoracic echocardiogram. Then, DDDR was programmed at nominal settings. The same tests were performed at 6 months and 12 months follow-up. If ventricular pacing was less than 98%, the patient was excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 142 patients were included in the study. During the study year, 71 (50%) were excluded for not fulfilling the condition of 98% ventricular pacing. Groups A and S had 34 and 37 patients, respectively. Age and gender were similar in the groups. At implant, QRS duration was significantly greater in Group A (158 ms) than Group S (146 ms; P = 0.018), and the QRS axis was different: -74.5° in Group A and 1° in Group S (P < 0.001). At 1 year, the 6-minute walk improved significantly in both groups: Group A 15% (P = 0.048) and Group S 24% (P = 0.001). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased from 0.57 to 0.61 (P = 0.008) in Group S, without significant change in Group A.

CONCLUSIONS

After 1 year, pacemaker-dependent patients with septal ventricular leads have better clinical and functional (LVEF) outcome.

Long-Term Impact of Right Ventricular Pacing on Left Ventricular Systolic Function in Pacemaker Recipients With Preserved Ejection Fraction: Results From a Large Single-Center Registry

Background

There is limited evidence of long‐term impact of right ventricular pacing on left ventricular (LV) systolic function in pacemaker recipients with preserved LV ejection fraction (LVEF). The objective of the study was to evaluate the outcome and echocardiographic course of baseline preserved LVEF in a large cohort of pacemaker recipients with respect to pacing indication and degree of right ventricular pacing.

Methods and Results

We enrolled 991 patients (73±10 years, 54% male) with baseline normal (>55%) LVEF (n=791) or mildly reduced (41–55%) LVEF (n=200) who had paired echocardiographic data on LV systolic function recorded at implantation and last follow‐up. According to pacing indication, patients were divided into atrioventricular block group A (n=500) and sinus node disease group B (n=491). Main outcome measures were all‐cause mortality and deterioration of LV function ≥2 LVEF categories at last follow‐up. Patients were followed for an average of 44 months. Death from any cause occurred in 166 (17%), and deterioration of LV function ≥2 LVEF categories in 56 (6%) patients. There was no significant difference in outcome between group A and group B either in patients with normal LVEF or in those with mildly reduced LVEF. Mean percentage of right ventricular pacing was not predictive of outcome.

Conclusions

In a large cohort of pacemaker recipients with predominantly normal LVEF, clinically relevant LV dysfunction develops rather infrequently. No significant difference in all‐cause mortality and development of severe LV dysfunction is observed between patients with atrioventricular block and sinus node disease. Accordingly, de novo biventricular pacing cannot be recommended for patients with preserved LVEF.

Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in pacemaker-dependent patients is lower with leadless pacemakers compared to transvenous pacemakers

Introduction

Frequent right AQ4ventricular pacing (≥40%) with a transvenous pacemaker (TVP) is associated with the risk of pacing‐induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have distinct physical and mechanical differences from TVP. The risk of PICM with LP is not known. To identify incidence, predictors, and long‐term outcomes of PICM in LP and TVP patients.

Methods

The study comprised all pacemaker‐dependent patients with LP or TVP who had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) of ≥50 from 2014 to 2019. The incidence of PICM (≥10% LVEF drop) was assessed with an echocardiogram. Predictors for PICM were identified using multivariate analysis. Long‐term outcomes after cardiac resynchronization (CRT) were assessed in both groups.

Results

A total of 131 patients with TVP and 67 with LP comprised the study. All patients in the TVP group and the majority in the LP group underwent atrioventricular node ablation. The mean follow‐up duration in TVP and LP groups was 592 ± 549 and 817 ± 600 days, respectively. A total of 18 (13.7%) patients in TVP and 2 (3%) in LP developed PICM after a median duration of 254 (interquartile range: 470) days. The incidence of PICM was significantly higher with TVP compared with LP (p = .02). TVP as pacing modality was a positive (odds ratio [OR]: 1.07) while age was negative (OR: 0.94) predictor for PICM on multivariable analysis. Both patients in LP and all except two in the TVP group responded to CRT.

Conclusion

Incidence of PICM is significantly lower with LP compared with TVP in pacemaker‐dependent patients. Age and TVP as pacing modality were predictors for PICM.

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.

Clinical Outcomes in Patients With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing vs. Right Ventricular Pacing for Atrioventricular Block

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing modality with stable pacing parameters and a narrow-paced QRS duration. We compared heart failure (HF) hospitalization events and echocardiographic measures between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB).

Methods and Results: This multicenter observational study prospectively recruited consecutive AVB patients requiring ventricular pacing in five centers if they received LBBAP or RVP and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) >50%. Data on electrocardiogram, pacing parameters, echocardiographic measurements, device complications, and clinical outcomes were collected at baseline and during follow-up. The primary outcome was first episode hospitalization for HF or upgrade to biventricular pacing. LBBAP was successful in 235 of 246 patients (95.5%), while 120 patients received RVP. During a mean of 11.4 ± 2.7 months of follow-up, the ventricular pacing burden was comparable (83.9 ± 35.1 vs. 85.7 ± 30.0%), while the mean LVEF differed significantly (62.6 ± 4.6 vs. 57.8 ± 11.4%) between the LBBAP and RVP groups. Patients with LBBAP had significantly lower occurrences of HF hospitalization and upgrading to biventricular pacing than patients with RVP (2.6 vs. 10.8%, P <0.001), and differences in primary outcome between LBBAP and RVP were mainly observed in patients with ventricular pacing >40% or with baseline LVEF <60%. The primary outcome was independently associated with LBBAP (adjusted HR 0.14, 95% CI: 0.04–0.55), previous myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 6.82, 95% CI: 1.23–37.5), and baseline LVEF (adjusted HR 0.91, 95% CI: 0.86–0.96).

Conclusion: Permanent LBBAP might reduce the risk of HF hospitalization or upgrade to biventricular pacing compared with RVP in AVB patients requiring a high burden of ventricular pacing.

Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03851315; URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn; Unique Identifier: ChiCTR2100043296.

Clinical Outcomes Of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared To His Bundle Pacing

BACKGROUND

His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiologic form of pacing and has been associated with reduced risk for heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and mortality compared to right ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a safe and effective alternative option for patients needing ventricular pacing.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between LBBAP and HBP among a large cohort of patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation.

METHODS

This observational registry included consecutive patients with AV block/AV node ablation who underwent de novo permanent pacemaker implantations with successful LBBAP or HBP between April 2018 to October 2020. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death from any cause or HFH. Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with prespecified ventricular pacing burden and individual outcomes.

RESULTS

The study population included 359 patients who met the inclusion criteria (163 in the HBP and 196 in the LBBAP group). Paced QRSd during LBBAP was similar to HBP (125 ± 20.2 vs 126 ± 23.5 ms, p=0.643). There were no statistically significant differences in the primary composite outcome in LBBAP (17.3%) compared to HBP (24.5%) (HR 1.15, CI 0.72-1.82, p = 0.552). Secondary outcomes of death (10 vs 17%; HR 1.3, CI 0.73-2.33, p=0.38) and HFH (10 vs 12%; HR 1.02,CI 0.54-1.94, p=0.94) were not different among both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical outcomes of death or HFH in LBBAP when compared to HBP. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Comparison of Procedure and Fluoroscopy Time Between Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Right Ventricular Pacing for Bradycardia: The Learning Curve for the Novel Pacing Strategy

Background: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiological pacing approach.

Objective: To assess learning curve for LBBAP and compare the procedure and fluoroscopy time between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP).

Methods: Consecutive bradycardia patients who underwent LBBAP or RVP were prospectively recruited from June 2018 to June 2020. The procedure and fluoroscopy time for ventricular lead placement, pacing parameters, and periprocedural complications were recorded. Restricted cubic splines were used to fit learning curves for LBBAP.

Results: Left bundle branch area pacing was successful in 376 of 406 (92.6%) patients while 313 patients received RVP. Learning curve for LBBAP illustrated initial (1–50 cases), improved (51–150 cases), and stable stages (151–406 cases) with gradually increased success rates (88.0 vs. 90.0 vs. 94.5%, P = 0.106), steeply decreased median procedure (26.5 vs. 14.0 vs. 9.0min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (16.0 vs. 6.0 vs. 4.0min, P < 0.001), and shortened stimulus to left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT; 78.7 vs. 78.1 vs. 71.2 ms, P < 0.001). LBBAP at the stable stage showed longer but close median procedure (9.0 vs. 6.9min, P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy time (4.0 vs. 2.8min, P < 0.001) compared with RVP.

Conclusion: The procedure and fluoroscopy time of LBBAP could be reduced significantly with increasing procedure volume and close to that of RVP for an experienced operator.

Impact of Physiologic Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing Among Patients With Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Greater Than 35%: A Systematic Review for the 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether physiologic pacing by either cardiac biventricular pacing (BiVP) or His bundle pacing (HisBP) may prevent adverse structural and functional consequences known to occur among some patients who receive right ventricular pacing (RVP).

AIM

Our analysis sought to review existing literature to determine if BiVP and/or HisBP might prevent adverse remodeling and be associated with structural, functional, and clinical advantages compared with RVP among patients without severe left ventricular dysfunction (>35%) who required permanent pacing because of heart block.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (through PubMed) and Embase to identify randomized trials and observational studies comparing the effects of BiVP or HisBP versus RVP on measurements of left ventricular dimensions, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure functional classification, quality of life, 6-minute walk, hospitalizations, and mortality. Data from studies that met the appropriate population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest were abstracted for meta-analysis. Studies that reported pooled outcomes among patients with LVEF both above and below 35% could not be included in the meta-analysis because of strict relationships with industry procedures that preclude retrieval of industry-retained unpublished data on the subset of patients with preserved left ventricular function.

RESULTS

Evidence from 8 studies, including a total of 679 patients meeting the prespecified criteria for inclusion, was identified. Results were compared for BiVP versus RVP, HisBP versus RVP, and BiVP+HisBP versus RVP. Among patients who received physiologic pacing with either BiVP or HisBP, the LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were significantly lower (mean duration of follow-up: 1.64 years; -2.77 mL [95% CI -4.37 to -1.1 mL]; P=0.001; and -7.09 mL [95% CI -11.27 to -2.91; P=0.0009) and LVEF remained preserved or increased (mean duration of follow-up: 1.57 years; 5.328% [95% CI: 2.86%-7.8%; P<0.0001). Data on clinical impact such as functional status and quality of life were not definitive. Data on hospitalizations were unavailable. There was no effect on mortality. Several studies stratified results by LVEF and found that patients with LVEF >35% but ≤52% were more likely to receive benefit from physiologic pacing. Patients with chronic atrial fibrillation who underwent atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implant demonstrated clear improvement in LVEF with BiVP or HisBP versus RVP.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with LVEF >35%, the LVEF remained preserved or increased with either BiVP or HisBP compared with RVP. However, patient-centered clinical outcome improvement appears to be limited primarily to patients who have chronic atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response rates and have undergone atrioventricular node ablation.

Efficacy of upgrading to left bundle branch pacing in patients with heart failure after right ventricular pacing

BACKGROUND

Chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing is associated with an increased incidence of heart failure and mortality. Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing could produce near-physiological electrical activation and mechanical synchrony. We aimed to report the effects of upgrading to LBB pacing in heart failure patients after chronic RV pacing.

METHODS

The indications included pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in Group 1 and heart failure after RV pacing with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50% in Group 2. LBB pacing was achieved by penetrating the pacing lead to the subendocardium of left-sided interventricular septum through the venous access. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was measured from the pacing stimulus to the ascending peak of lead V5 or V6. All patients underwent clinical and echocardiographic evaluations before and after upgrading.

RESULTS

Totally 27 patients (13 in Group 1 and 14 in Group 2) were consecutively enrolled. The mean follow-up time after upgrade was 10.4 ± 6.1 months. Paced QRS duration was significantly shortened from 174.1 ± 15.8 milliseconds to 116.6 ± 11.7 milliseconds (p < .0001). The mean LVAT was 83.2 ± 11.7 milliseconds. LVEF increased from 40.3 ± 5.2% before upgrading to 48.1 ± 9.5% at follow-up in patients with PICM. Serum N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide levels decreased and New York Heart Association classification improved in both groups. No upgrade-related complications were observed.

CONCLUSIONS

Upgrading to LBB pacing was feasible and effective with improved cardiac function in heart failure patients with both reduced and preserved LVEF after RV pacing.

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.

Remote past left ventricular function before chronic right ventricular pacing predicts responses to cardiac resynchronization therapy upgrade

BACKGROUND

This study examined factors that could predict response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade in patients who developed heart failure (HF) after long-term right ventricular (RV) pacing.

METHODS

Twenty-five consecutive patients who received CRT upgrade for long-term RV pacing (RVP) were enrolled in this study. None of these patients were eligible for CRT at the moment of starting RVP. After 5.7 ± 4.0 years chronic RVP, these 25 patients developed HF symptoms and received CRT upgrade. Echocardiography was conducted at the moment of CRT upgrade and 6 months after CRT. Remote past left ventricular ejection fraction (RP-LVEF) at the moment of starting RVP was retrospectively obtained from the echocardiographic and cardiac catherization reports. Responders were defined as a reduction in LV end-systolic volume (LVESV) ≥ 15%. Their clinical and echocardiographic parameters were analyzed and compared.

RESULTS

Responders had significant higher RP-LVEF as compared to nonresponders (53.6 ± 16.5% vs 31.4 ± 11.6%, P = 0.002). RP-LVEF correlated with reduction in LVESV after CRT upgrade (P < 0.001). RP-LVEF ≥ 43.5% as a cutoff value predicted response to CRT upgrade with an area under the receiver-operating curve of 0.87, a sensitivity of 78%, and a specificity of 100%. Intrinsic QRS width, septal-posterior wall motion delay, or tissue Doppler-derived dyssynchrony indexes did not predict responses to CRT upgrade.

CONCLUSION

In long-term RVP patients who developed HF and received CRT upgrade, RP-LVEF ≥ 43.5% predicts good response. Conventional dyssynchrony indexes do not predict responses to CRT upgrade in these patients.

The downside of right ventricular apical pacing

The right ventricular (RV) apex has been the standard pacing site since the development of implantable pacemaker technology. Although RV pacing was initially only utilized for the treatment of severe bradyarrhythmias usually due to complete heart block, today the indications for and implantation of RV pacing devices is dramatically larger. Recently, the adverse effects of chronic RV apical pacing have been described including an increased risk of heart failure and death. This review details the detrimental effects of RV apical pacing and their shared hemodynamic pathophysiology. In particular, the role of RV apical pacing induced ventricular dyssynchrony is highlighted with a specific focus on differential outcome based upon QRS morphology at implant.

Clinical Outcomes in Conduction System Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing in Bradycardia

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) provides more physiological ventricular activation than right ventricular pacing (RVP).

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes in patients receiving CSP and RVP.

METHODS

Consecutive patients with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia from 2016 to 2021 in 2 centers were prospectively followed for the primary composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, upgrade to biventricular pacing, or all-cause mortality, stratified by ventricular pacing burden (Vp) .

RESULTS

Among 860 patients (mean age 74 ± 11 years, 48% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 628 received RVP and 231 received CSP (95 His-bundle pacing, 136 left bundle branch pacing). The primary outcome occurred in 217 (25%) patients, more commonly in patients with RVP than CSP (30% vs 13%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, CSP was independently associated with 47% reduction of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.29-0.97; P = 0.04) and HF hospitalization alone (AHR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.95; P = 0.04), among only patients with Vp >20%. The incidence of the primary outcome was highest among RVP with Vp >20% and lowest in CSP with Vp >20% (35% vs 10%, P < 0.001). Compared with RVP with Vp >20%, both CSP with Vp >20% (AHR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91; P = 0.02) and all patients with Vp ≤20% (AHR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.54-0.99; P = 0.04) were independently associated with reduced primary outcome, driven primarily by reductions in HF hospitalizations (P < 0.05). Event-free survival was similar between CSP with Vp >20% and those needing ≤20% Vp.

CONCLUSIONS

CSP significantly reduced adverse clinical outcomes for bradycardic patients requiring ventricular pacing and should be the preferred pacing modality of choice.

Clinical characteristics and predictors of super-response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: a combination of predictive factors

BACKGROUND

Patients with greater improvement of cardiac function after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation are identified as "super-responders." However, it remains unclear which kind of preimplant assessments could accurately predict outcomes after CRT. Thus, we aimed to examine the essential predicting factors for super-response to CRT, and to construct an accurate predictable model.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed the CRT patients who underwent implantation at Nagoya University Hospital. Super-responders are defined as those who show a relative reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume ≥30% after 6 months of CRT.

RESULTS

Eighty patients (mean age, 67.8 ± 10.2 years) were included. Twenty-two patients received upgrading procedure to CRT implantation. Six months after the implantation, 29 patients (36%) were super-responders. Multiple logistic regression analysis shows that consistent right ventricular pacing with a previous device (odds ratio [OR] 7.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.52-34.9; P = 0.013), lack of prior history of ventricular arrhythmia (OR 5.32, 95% CI 1.52-18.6; P = 0.009), and smaller left atrial diameter (LAD) (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.86-0.98; P = 0.014) are independent predictors for CRT super-responders. The use of a combination of these predictive factors could increase the certainty with which a greater response to CRT is predicted and the presence of such a combination could improve prognosis.

CONCLUSION

Greater response to biventricular pacing occurs more frequently in patients with consistent right ventricular pacing, lack of prior history of ventricular arrhythmia, and smaller LAD. An association between patient background characteristics and a super-response to CRT was also identified.

Complications and prognosis of patients undergoing apical or septal right ventricular pacing

Objectives

Optimal right ventricular lead placement remains controversial. Large studies investigating the safety and long-term prognosis of apical and septal right ventricular lead placement have been lacking.

Methods

Consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker insertion for high-degree atrioventricular block at Edinburgh Heart Centre were investigated. Periprocedural 30-day complications were defined (infection/bleeding/pneumothorax/tamponade/lead displacement). Long-term clinical outcomes were obtained from the General Register of Scotland and electronic medical records. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause mortality, new heart failure, hospitalisation for a major cardiovascular event, as per the CArdiac REsynchronization in Heart Failure trial. Secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality, new heart failure and their composite.

Results

820 patients were included, 204 (25%) paced from the septum and 616 (75%) from the apex. All baseline variables were similar with the exception of age (septal: 73.2±1.1 vs apical: 76.9±0.5 years, p<0.001). Procedure duration (58±23 vs 55±25 min, p=0.3), complication rates (18 (8.8) vs 46 (7.5)%, p=0.5) and postimplant QRS duration (152 (23) vs 154 (27) ms, p=0.4) were similar. After 1041 days (IQR 564), 278 patients met the primary endpoint, with no difference between the septal and apical groups in unadjusted (HR 0.86 (95% CIs 0.64 to 1.15)) or multivariable analysis correcting for age, gender and comorbidity (HR 0.97 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.30)). Similarly, no differences were observed in the secondary endpoints.

Conclusions

This large real-world cohort of patients undergoing right ventricular lead placement in the septum or apex demonstrated no difference in procedural complications nor long-term clinical outcomes. Both pacing strategies appear reasonable in routine practice.

Very Low Ventricular Pacing Rates Can Be Achieved Safely in a Heterogeneous Pacemaker Population and Provide Clinical Benefits: The CANadian Multi-Centre Randomised Study-Spontaneous AtrioVEntricular Conduction pReservation (CAN-SAVE R) Trial

BACKGROUND

It is well recognized that right ventricular apical pacing can have deleterious effects on ventricular function. We performed a head-to-head comparison of the SafeR pacing algorithm versus DDD pacing with a long atrioventricular delay in a heterogeneous population of patients with dual-chamber pacemakers.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In a multicenter prospective double-blinded randomized trial conducted at 10 centers in Canada, 373 patients, age 71±11 years, with indications for dual chamber DC pacemakers were randomized 1:1 to SafeR or DDD pacing with a long atrioventricular delay (250 ms). The primary objective was twofold: (1) reduction in the proportion of ventricular paced beats at 1 year; and (2) impact on atrial fibrillation burden at 3 years, defined as the ratio between cumulative duration of mode-switches divided by follow-up time. Statistical significance of both co-primary end points was required for the trial to be considered positive. At 1 year of follow-up, the median proportion of ventricular-paced beats was 4.0% with DDD versus 0% with SafeR (P<0.001). At 3 years of follow-up, the atrial fibrillation burden was not significantly reduced with SafeR versus DDD (median 0.00%, interquartile range [0.00% to 0.23%] versus median 0.01%, interquartile range [0.00% to 0.44%], respectively, P=0.178]), despite a persistent reduction in the median proportion of ventricular-paced beats (10% with DDD compared to 0% with SafeR).

CONCLUSIONS

A ventricular-paced rate <1% was safely achieved with SafeR in a population with a wide spectrum of indications for dual-chamber pacing. However, the lower percentage of ventricular pacing did not translate into a significant reduction in atrial fibrillation burden.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ Unique identifier: NCT01219621.

Left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation requiring ventricular pacing

PURPOSE

This study aims to assess whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) can result in favorable clinical and echocardiographic outcomes among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF).

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with PeAF if they required ventricular pacing and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 35%. During the same period, two experienced operators performed LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP). All-cause death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) were routinely followed after procedure. The primary outcome was the composite endpoints of all-cause death or HFH.

RESULTS

LBBAP was successful in 49 of 52 patients (94.2%), whereas 44 patients received RVP. During a mean follow-up of 13.9 ± 7.0 months, LBBAP group presented with higher ventricular pacing percentage (80% vs. 50.9%, p = .04) and narrower paced QRS duration (117.2 ± 18.8 ms vs. 151.8 ± 13.7 ms, p < .001) than RVP group. The primary endpoint was slightly reduced in LBBAP group than RVP without reaching statistical significance (7.7% vs. 11.4%, p = .48). Compared with baseline, we observed significant changes in LVEF (+0.7% vs. -2.2%, p = .007) and left atrial diameter (-1.63 mm vs. +1.23 mm, p = .011) between LBBAP and RVP.

CONCLUSION

Our results indicate possible effect of LBBAP on reverse remodeling of left atrium and a trend towards favorable clinical outcomes in patients with PeAF requiring high burden of ventricular pacing when compared with RVP.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing: A systematic review and network meta-analysis in bradycardia and conduction disorders

BACKGROUND

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) has emerged as an effective alternative to overcome the limitations of right ventricular pacing (RVP) via physiological left ventricular activation, but there remains a paucity of comparative information for His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP).

METHODS

A Bayesian random-effects network analysis was conducted to compare the relative effects of HBP, LBBP, and RVP in patients with bradycardia and conduction disorders. PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were systematically searched from database inception until September 21, 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight studies involving 4160 patients were included in this meta-analysis. LBBP significantly improved success rate, pacing threshold, pacing impedance, and R-wave amplitude compared with HBP. LBBP also demonstrated a nonsignificant trend towards superior outcomes of lead complications, heart failure hospitalization, atrial fibrillation, and all-cause death. However, HBP was associated with significantly shorter paced QRS duration relative to LBBP. Despite higher success rates, shorter procedure/fluoroscopy duration, and fewer lead complications, patients receiving RVP were more likely to experience reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, longer paced QRS duration, and higher rates of heart failure hospitalization than those receiving HPCSP. No statistical differences were observed in the remaining outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis demonstrates the efficacy and safety of HPCSP for the treatment of bradycardia and conduction disorders, with differences in pacing parameters, electrophysiology characteristics, and clinical outcomes between HBP and LBBP. Larger-scale, long-term comparative studies are warranted for further verification.

Assessment of ventricular pacing in the setting of an institutional improvement program: insights into physiological pacing

Background

Excessive ventricular pacing is known to be detrimental. The purpose of this study was to assess ventricular pacing in the setting of an institutional improvement program in order to decrease unnecessary pacing.

Method

This cross-sectional single-center study performed in a university hospital assessed 80 consecutive patients attending for a cardiac electronic device (pacemaker or cardioverter defibrillator) check. Forty percent of ventricular pacing was set as the cutoff level beyond which pacing was considered excessive.

Results

Three patients were excluded. Forty-six (59.7%) patients (group 1) had more than 40% ventricular pacing and 31 (40.3%) patients (group 2) showed ventricular pacing less than 41%. In group 1, corrective action was successful in 27 (58.7%) patients, but 19 (41.3%) continued to have ventricular pacing over 40% and were discussed accordingly. An improvement program was established at the institution in order to decrease unnecessary ventricular pacing.

Conclusion

Unnecessary ventricular pacing was encountered in many of the patients in this study, corrective actions were performed, and an institutional improvement project was set up as a consequence.

Atrioventricular Interval Extension Is Highly Efficient in Preventing Unnecessary Right Ventricular Pacing in Sinus Node Disease: A Randomized Cross-Over Study Versus Dual- to Atrial Single-Chamber Mode Switch

OBJECTIVES

This study sought to compare the Intrinsic Rhythm Support (IRSplus) and Ventricular Pace Suppress (VpS) in terms of right ventricular pacing percentage (VP %), mean atrioventricular interval (MAVI), atrial fibrillation, and cardiac volumes.

BACKGROUND

Modern pacemakers are provided with algorithms for reducing unnecessary ventricular pacing. These may be classified as: periodic search for intrinsic atrioventricular (AV) conduction prolonging the AV delay accordingly; or DDD-ADI mode switch. The IRSplus and VpS algorithms belong to the former and latter classes, respectively.

METHODS

Patients with sick sinus dysfunction without evidence of II/III degree AV block were 1:1 randomized to 6-month periods of either IRSplus or VpS, and then crossed over. Subsequent follow-ups were at the 12th month after randomization for device data retrieving, and at the 18th month with the same device programming for echocardiographic assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 230 patients (62% males, median age 75 years [interquartile range: 69 to 79 years]) were enrolled. At a linear mixed-model analysis with order of treatment and investigational sites as nested random effects, differences in VP% and MAVI reached statistical significance: VP% was 1% (0% to 11%) during IRSplus and 3% (0% to 26%) during VpS (p = 0.029); MAVI was 225 ms (198 to 253 ms) during IRSplus and 214 ms (188 to 240 ms) during VpS (p = 0.014). No differences were observed in atrial fibrillation burden and incidence, ejection fraction, and cardiac volumes.

CONCLUSIONS

Both IRSplus and VpS algorithms ensured VP% ≤3% in most patients with sinus node dysfunction and preserved AV conduction. The IRSplus was slightly more efficient in reducing VP% at the expense of a small MAVI increase, with statistical but clinically insignificant differences. (Ventricular Pace Suppression Versus Intrinsic Rhythm Support Study; NCT01528657).

Intraventricular flow patterns during right ventricular apical pacing

Objectives

To assess differences in blood flow momentum (BFM) and kinetic energy (KE) dissipation in a model of cardiac dyssynchrony induced by electrical right ventricular apical (RVA) stimulation compared with spontaneous sinus rhythm.

Methods

We cross-sectionally enrolled 12 consecutive patients (mean age 74±8 years, 60% male, mean left ventricular ejection fraction 58%±6 %), within 48 hours from pacemaker (PMK) implantation. Inclusion criteria were: age>18 years, no PMK-dependency, sinus rhythm with a spontaneous narrow QRS at the ECG, preserved ejection fraction (>50%) and a low percentage of PMK-stimulation (<20%). All the participants underwent a complete echocardiographic evaluation, including left ventricular strain analysis and particle image velocimetry.

Results

Compared with sinus rhythm, BFM shifted from 27±3.3 to 34±7.6° (p=0.016), while RVA-pacing was characterised by a 35% of increment in KE dissipation, during diastole (p=0.043) and 32% during systole (p=0.016). In the same conditions, left ventricle global longitudinal strain (LV GLS) significantly decreased from 17±3.3 to 11%±2.8% (p=0.004) during RVA-stimulation. At the multivariable analysis, BFM and diastolic KE dissipation were significantly associated with LV GLS deterioration (Beta Coeff.=0.54, 95% CI 0.07 to 1.00, p=0.034 and Beta Coeff.=0.29, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.57, p=0.049, respectively).

Conclusions

In RVA-stimulation, BFM impairment and KE dissipation were found to be significantly associated with LV GLS deterioration, when controlling for potential confounders. Such changes may favour the onset of cardiac remodelling and sustain heart failure.

Risk of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with High-Degree Atrioventricular Block-Impact of Right Ventricular Lead Position Confirmed by Computed Tomography

Prospective studies applying fluoroscopy for assessment of right ventricular (RV) lead position have failed to show clear benefits from RV septal pacing. We investigated the impact of different RV lead positions verified by computed tomography (CT) on the risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). We retrospectively included 153 patients who underwent routine fluoroscopy-guided pacemaker implantation between March 2012 and May 2020. All patients had normal pre-implant left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Patients attended a follow-up visit including contrast-enhanced cardiac CT and transthoracic echocardiography. Patients were classified as septal or non-septal based on CT analysis. The primary endpoint was PICM (LVEF < 50% with ≥10% decrease after implantation). Based on CT, 48 (31.4%) leads were septal and 105 (68.6%) were non-septal. Over a median follow-up of 3.1 years, 16 patients (33.3%) in the septal group developed PICM compared to 31 (29.5%) in the non-septal group (p = 0.6). Overall, 13.1% deteriorated to LVEF ≤ 40%, 5.9% were upgraded to cardiac resynchronization therapy device, and 14.4% developed new-onset atrial fibrillation, with no significant differences between the groups. This study demonstrated a high risk of PICM despite normal pre-implant left ventricular systolic function with no significant difference between CT-verified RV septal or non-septal lead position.

Medium- and Long-Term Lead Stability and Echocardiographic Outcomes of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing

The long-term lead stability and echocardiographic outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are not fully understood. This study aimed to observe the mid-long-term clinical impact of LBBAP compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Consecutive bradycardia patients undergoing LBBAP or RVP were enrolled. Pacing and electrophysiological characteristics, echocardiographic measurements, and procedural complications were prospectively recorded at baseline and follow-up. LBBAP was successful in 376 of 406 patients (92.6%), while 313 patients received RVP. During a mean follow-up of 13.6 ± 7.8 months, LBBAP presented with similar pacing parameters and complications to RVP, except a significantly narrower paced QRS duration (115.7 ± 12.3 ms vs. 148.0 ± 18.0 ms, p < 0.001). In 228 patients with ventricular pacing burden >40%, LBBAP at last follow-up resulted in decreased left atrial diameter (LAD) (40.1 ± 8.5 mm vs. 38.5 ± 8.0 mm, p < 0.001) while RVP produced decreased left ventricular ejection fraction (62.7 ± 4.8% vs. 60.5 ± 6.9%, p < 0.001) when compared to baseline. After adjusting for age, the presence of atrial fibrillation, and other clinical factors, LBBAP was still associated with a decrease in LAD (-1.601, 95% CI -3.094--0.109, p = 0.036). We conclude that LBBAP might result in more preserved echocardiographic outcomes than RVP.

Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch pacing in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been widely accepted as a traditional pacing strategy, but long-term RVP has detrimental impact on ventricular synchrony. However, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) that evolved from His-bundle pacing could maintain ventricular synchrony and overcome its clinical deficiencies such as difficulty of lead implantation, His bundle damage, and high and unstable thresholds. This analysis aimed to appraise the clinical safety and efficacy of LBBP.

METHODS

The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 2020 were searched for studies comparing LBBP and RVP.

RESULTS

Seven trials with 451 patients (221 patients underwent LBBP and 230 patients underwent RVP) were included in the analysis. Pooled analyses verified that the paced QRS duration (QRSd) and left ventricular mechanical synchronization parameters of the LBBP capture were similar with the native-conduction mode (P > .7),but LBBP showed shorter QRS duration (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -33.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -40.44 to -26.19, P < .001), better left ventricular mechanical synchrony (standard mean differences: -1.5; 95% CI: -1.85 to -1.14, P < .001) compared with RVP. No significant differences in Pacing threshold (WMD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.09, P < .001), R wave amplitude (WMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -1.12 to 1.19, P = .95) were noted between LBBP and RVP. Ventricular impedance of LBBP was higher than that of RVP originally (WMD: 19.34; 95% CI: 3.13-35.56, P = .02), and there was no difference between the 2 groups after follow-up (WMD: 11.78; 95% CI: -24.48 to 48.04, P = .52). And follow-up pacing threshold of LBBP kept stability (WMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.25, P = .36). However, no statistical difference existed in ejection fraction between the 2 groups (WMD: 1.41; 95% CI: -1.72 to 4.54, P = .38).

CONCLUSIONS

The safety and efficacy of LBBP was firstly verified by meta-analysis to date. LBBP markedly preserve ventricular electrical and mechanical synchrony compared with RVP. Meanwhile, LBBP had stable and excellent pacing parameters. However, LBBP could not be significant difference in ejection fraction between RVP during short- term follow-up.