His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy vs Biventricular Pacing: HOT-CRT Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) using His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the feasibility and clinical efficacy of HOT-CRT (His-Purkinje conduction system pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy) with BVP in patients with heart failure, reduced ejection fraction, and indication for CRT. METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, controlled trial of HOT-CRT and BVP in patients with LVEF <50% and indications for CRT. If HPCSP resulted in incomplete electrical resynchronization, a coronary sinus (CS) lead was added. The primary outcome was the change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months. The primary safety endpoint was freedom from major complications. RESULTS: A total of 100 patients (female 31%, aged 70 ± 12 years, LVEF 31.5% ± 9.0%) were randomized. HOT-CRT was successful in 48 of 50 (96%) and BVP-CRT in 41 of 50 (82%) patients (P = 0.03). QRS duration significantly decreased from 164 ± 26 ms to 137 ± 20 ms with HOT-CRT and 166 ± 28 ms to 141 ± 19 ms with BVP. Fluoroscopy results (18.8 ± 12.4 min vs 23.8 ± 12.4 min, P = 0.05) and procedure duration (119 ± 42 min vs 114 ± 36 min, P = 0.5) were similar. The primary outcome of change in LVEF at 6 months was greater in HOT-CRT than in BVP (12.4% ± 7.3% vs 8.0% ± 10.1%, P = 0.02). The primary safety endpoint was similar (98% vs 94%, P = 0.62). Echocardiographic response of improvement in LVEF >5% occurred in 80% vs 61% (P = 0.06). Complications occurred in 3 (6%) in HOT-CRT vs 10 (20%) in BVP (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: HPCSP-guided CRT resulted in greater change in LVEF compared with BVP. Randomized clinical trials with long-term follow-up are necessary. (His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Optimized Trial of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [HOT-CRT]; NCT04561778).

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.

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.

Permanent His-bundle pacing is feasible, safe, and superior to right ventricular pacing in routine clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with heart failure and increased mortality. His-bundle pacing (HBP) is more physiological but requires a mapping catheter or a backup right ventricular lead and is technically challenging. OBJECTIVE: We sought to assess the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of permanent HBP in an unselected population as compared to RVP. METHODS: All patients requiring pacemaker implantation routinely underwent attempt at permanent HBP using the Select Secure (model 3830) pacing lead in the year 2011 delivered through a fixed-shaped catheter (C315 HIS) at one hospital and RVP at the second hospital. Patients were followed from implantation, 2 weeks, 2 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Fluoroscopy time (FT), pacing threshold (PTh), complications, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality were compared. RESULTS: HBP was attempted in 94 consecutive patients, while 98 patients underwent RVP. HBP was successful in 75 patients (80%). FT was similar (12.7 ± 8 minutes vs 10 ± 14 minutes; median 9.1 vs 6.4 minutes; P = .14) and PTh was higher in the HBP group than in the RVP group (1.35 ± 0.9 V vs 0.6 ± 0.5 V at 0.5 ms; P < .001) and remained stable over a 2-year follow-up period. In patients with >40% ventricular pacing (>60% of patients), heart failure hospitalization was significantly reduced in the HBP group than in the RVP group (2% vs 15%; P = .02). There was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups (13% in the HBP group vs 18% in the RVP group; P = .45). CONCLUSION: Permanent HBP without a mapping catheter or a backup right ventricular lead was successfully achieved in 80% of patients. PTh was higher and FT was comparable to those of the RVP group. Clinical outcomes were better in the HBP group than in the RVP group.

Cardiac tamponade as complication of active-fixation atrial lead perforations: proposed mechanism and management algorithm.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac tamponade is a rare complication after implantation of dual chamber pacemaker or defibrillator systems. Its pathophysiology and optimal management are not currently well established. METHODS: Three cases of cardiac tamponade following successful implantation of transvenous dual chamber pacemakers with active-fixation atrial leads were identified. RESULTS: All three patients with post-implant cardiac tamponade were suspected to have the same etiology of bleeding into the pericardial space. This was due to protrusion of the helix of the active-fixation atrial pacing lead through the atrial wall with subsequent abrasion of visceral pericardial layer and bleeding from the atrium through the perforation. In two patients, the perforation sites were visualized and repaired during open thoracotomy in the operating room. The third patient underwent lead repositioning under fluoroscopic guidance in the electrophysiology laboratory. CONCLUSION: Based on the reviewed cases, we describe the pathophysiology of, and recommend a safe conservative algorithm for, the management of cardiac tamponade after successful transvenous lead implantation. Percutaneous pericardiocentesis with placement of the pericardial drain followed by lead repositioning under fluoroscopic guidance with surgical backup appears to be safe and effective.