Cost-Effectiveness Ratio Analysis of LBBaP Versus BVP in Heart Failure Patients With LBBB.

BACKGROUND: For the initial treatment strategy for patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) indications, whether to choose left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) or biventricular pacing (BVP) remains controversial. We aimed to investigate the cost-effectiveness ratio (CER) of LBBaP and BVP in heart failure (HF) patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). METHODS: This observational study included HF patients with LBBB who underwent successful LBBaP or BVP. The primary outcomes were echocardiographic response (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] increase ≥5%), LVEF improvement, hospitalization costs, and CER (CER = cost/echocardiographic response rate). Secondary outcomes included other echocardiographic parameters, New York Heart Association (NYHA), N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), pacemaker parameters, complications, ventricular arrhythmia (VA) events, HF hospitalization (HFH), and all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 130 patients (85 LBBaP and 45 BVP) were included (65.6 ± 10.0 years, 70.77% men). The median follow-up period was 16(12,30), months. Compared with BVP, the LBBaP group showed a greater increase in LVEF (20.2% ± 11.8% vs. 10.5% ± 13.9%; p < 0.001), higher echocardiographic response rate (86.1% vs. 57.8%; p < 0.001), and lower hospitalization costs [$9707.7 (7751.2, 18,088.5) vs. $20,046.1 (18,840.1, 22,447.3); p < 0.0001]. The CER was 112.7 and 346.8 in LBBaP and BVP, respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER = △cost/△echocardiographic response rate) was $-365.3/per 1% increase in effectiveness. LBBaP improved cardiac function more significantly than BVP. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: LBBaP-CRT is more cost-effective than BVP, offering greater LVEF improvement, higher echocardiographic response rates, lower hospitalization costs, and more significantly improved cardiac function. These findings need large randomized clinical trials for further confirmation.

The association between paced left ventricular activation time and cardiac reverse remodeling in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block.

INTRODUCTION: The association between paced LVAT and cardiac structure and function at baseline, as well as whether longer LVAT is associated with worse cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with heart failure (HF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB) has not been well investigated. The purpose of this study is to investigate the association between paced LVAT and baseline echocardiographic parameters and cardiac reverse remodeling at follow-up. METHODS: Patients with HF and LBBB receiving successful left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) from June 2018 to April 2023 were enrolled and grouped based on paced LVAT. NT-proBNP and echocardiographic parameters were recorded during routine follow-up. The relationships between paced LVAT and echocardiographic parameters at baseline and follow-up were analyzed. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients were enrolled (48 males, aged 65 ± 9.8, mean LVEF 32.1 ± 7.5%, mean LVEDD 63.0 ± 8.5 mm, median NT-proBNP 1057[513-3158] pg/mL). The paced QRSd was significantly decreased (177 ± 17.9 vs. 134 ± 18.5, p < .001) and median paced LVAT was 80[72-88] ms. After a median follow-up of 12[9-29] months, LVEF increased to 52.1 ± 11.2%, LVEDD decreased to 52.6 ± 8.8 mm, and NT-proBNP decreased to 215[73-532]pg/mL. Patients were grouped based on paced LVAT: LVAT < 80 ms (n = 39); 80 ≤ LVAT < 90 ms (n = 24); LVAT ≥ 90 ms (n = 20). Patients with longer LVAT had larger LVEDD and lower LVEF (LVEDDbaseline: p < .001; LVEFbaseline: p = .001). The difference in LVEF6M was statistically significant among groups (p < .001) and patients with longer LVAT had lower LVEF6M, while the difference in LVEF1Y was not seen (p = .090). There was no significant correlation between ΔLVEF6M-baseline, ΔLVEF1Y-6M and LVAT respectively (ΔLVEF6M-baseline: p = .261, r = -.126; ΔLVEF1Y-6M: p = .085, r = .218). CONCLUSION: Long paced LVAT was associated with worse echocardiographic parameters at baseline, but did not affect the cardiac reverse remodeling in patients with HF and LBBB. Those with longer LVAT required longer time to recover.

A novel method combining gated SPECT and vectorcardiography to guide left ventricular lead placement to improve response to cardiac resynchronization therapy: A proof of concept study.

BACKGROUND: The segment of the latest mechanical contraction (LMC) does not always overlap with the site of the latest electrical activation (LEA). By integrating both mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, this proof-of-concept study aimed to propose a new method for recommending left ventricular (LV) lead placements, with the goal of enhancing response to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: The LMC segment was determined by single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) phase analysis. The LEA site was detected by vectorcardiogram. The recommended segments for LV lead placement were as follows: (1) the LMC viable segments that overlapped with the LEA site; (2) the LMC viable segments adjacent to the LEA site; (3) If no segment met either of the above, the LV lateral wall was recommended. The response was defined as ≥15% reduction in left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) 6-months after CRT. Patients with LV lead located in the recommended site were assigned to the recommended group, and those located in the non-recommended site were assigned to the non-recommended group. RESULTS: The cohort comprised of 76 patients, including 54 (71.1%) in the recommended group and 22 (28.9%) in the non-recommended group. Among the recommended group, 74.1% of the patients responded to CRT, while 36.4% in the non-recommended group were responders (P = .002). Compared to pacing at the non-recommended segments, pacing at the recommended segments showed an independent association with an increased response by univariate and multivariable analysis (odds ratio 5.00, 95% confidence interval 1.73-14.44, P = .003; odds ratio 7.33, 95% confidence interval 1.53-35.14, P = .013). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that pacing at the recommended LV lead position demonstrated a better long-term prognosis. CONCLUSION: Our findings indicate that pacing at the recommended segments, by integrating of mechanical and electrical dyssynchrony, is significantly associated with an improved CRT response and better long-term prognosis.

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

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are referred to as left bundle branch area pacing. OBJECTIVE: This study investigated whether long-term clinical outcomes differ in patients undergoing LBBP, LVSP, and biventricular pacing (BiVP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: Consecutive patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF <50%) undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled if they underwent successful LBBP, LVSP, or BiVP. The primary composite end point was all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Secondary end points included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, and echocardiographic measures of reverse remodeling. RESULTS: A total of 259 patients (68 LBBP, 38 LVSP, and 153 BiVP) were observed for a mean duration of 28.8 ± 15.8 months. LBBP was associated with a significantly reduced risk of the primary end point by 78% compared with both BiVP (7.4% vs 41.2%; adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 0.22 [0.08-0.57]; P = .002) and LVSP (7.4% vs 47.4%; aHR, 0.22 [0.08-0.63]; P = .004]. The adjusted risk of all-cause mortality was significantly higher in LVSP than in BiVP (31.6% vs 7.2%; aHR, 3.19 [1.38-7.39]; P = .007) but comparable between LBBP and BiVP (2.9% vs 7.2%; aHR, 0.33 [0.07-1.52], P = .155). Propensity score adjustment also obtained similar results. LBBP showed a higher rate of echocardiographic response (ΔLVEF ≥10%: 60.0% vs 36.2% vs 16.1%; P < .001) than BiVP or LVSP. CONCLUSION: LBBP yielded long-term clinical outcomes superior to those of BiVP and LVSP. The role of LVSP for CRT needs to be reevaluated because of its high mortality risk.

A new method of modeling the multi-stage decision-making process of CRT using machine learning with uncertainty quantification.

Aims: Current machine learning-based (ML) models usually attempt to utilize all available patient data to predict patient outcomes while ignoring the associated cost and time for data acquisition. The purpose of this study is to create a multi-stage machine learning model to predict cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response for heart failure (HF) patients. This model exploits uncertainty quantification to recommend additional collection of single-photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) variables if baseline clinical variables and features from electrocardiogram (ECG) are not sufficient. Methods: 218 patients who underwent rest-gated SPECT MPI were enrolled in this study. CRT response was defined as an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 5% at a 6±1 month follow-up. A multi-stage ML model was created by combining two ensemble models: Ensemble 1 was trained with clinical variables and ECG; Ensemble 2 included Ensemble 1 plus SPECT MPI features. Uncertainty quantification from Ensemble 1 allowed for multi-stage decision-making to determine if the acquisition of SPECT data for a patient is necessary. The performance of the multi-stage model was compared with that of Ensemble models 1 and 2. Results: The response rate for CRT was 55.5% (n = 121) with overall male gender 61.0% (n = 133), an average age of 62.0±11.8, and LVEF of 27.7±11.0. The multi-stage model performed similarly to Ensemble 2 (which utilized the additional SPECT data) with AUC of 0.75 vs. 0.77, accuracy of 0.71 vs. 0.69, sensitivity of 0.70 vs. 0.72, and specificity 0.72 vs. 0.65, respectively. However, the multi-stage model only required SPECT MPI data for 52.7% of the patients across all folds. Conclusions: By using rule-based logic stemming from uncertainty quantification, the multi-stage model was able to reduce the need for additional SPECT MPI data acquisition without sacrificing performance.

Sex-Specific Outcomes of LBBAP Versus Biventricular Pacing: Results From I-CLAS.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) has been associated with greater clinical improvement in women than men. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be an alternative form of CRT. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate sex-specific outcomes for death and heart failure events in a large, international, multicenter, cohort of patients undergoing CRT with BVP or LBBAP. METHODS: In this international study of 1,778 patients (575 female and 1203 male), sex-specific survival analysis was performed to compare the effect of LBBAP-CRT relative to BVP-CRT on the combined endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and secondary endpoints of HFH only, and death alone. RESULTS: Female patients were more likely to have nonischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block (LBBB) and less likely to have hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease than were male patients. Overall, female patients had a better result with LBBAP compared with BVP than did male patients, with a significant 36% reduction in death or HFH (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.97; P = 0.03) and a significant 60% reduction in HFH alone (HR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.69, P < 0.01). Women had a greater reduction in death or HFH among those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (HR: 0.45 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.79; P < 0.01) and LBBB (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.87; P < 0.01). Sex-specific echocardiographic outcomes were better in women than in men. CONCLUSIONS: Women obtained significantly greater reductions in the combined endpoint of death or HFH (primarily driven by reduction in HFH) with LBBAP compared with BVP among patients requiring CRT than did men.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP. METHODS: The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model. RESULTS: Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.

Early left bundle branch pacing in heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) achieves resynchrony and improves cardiac function in heart failure (HF) patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF) by correcting left bundle branch block (LBBB). Few data on the efficacy of early LBBP in HF with mildly reduced EF (HFmrEF) and LBBB have been reported. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to explore the efficacy of early LBBP in patients with HFmrEF and LBBB. METHODS: Consecutive patients with HFmrEF (left ventricular EF [LVEF] 35%-50%) and LBBB were prospectively enrolled to receive LBBP (Early-LBBP group) plus guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) or GDMT alone (GDMT group). Study outcomes included changes in LVEF, LV end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, and N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), and clinical events (HF rehospitalization or syncope). Subgroup analysis compared efficacy of LBBP between patients with LBBB only without comorbidities or late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) (LBBB-Only group) and patients with either comorbidities or LGE (LBBB-Combined group). RESULTS: Fifty-four patients were enrolled and analyzed (37 Early-LBBP group; 15 GDMT group). LBBP achieved greater improvement in LVEF (+14.75% ± 7.37% vs -2.42% ± 2.84%; P <.001), reduction of LVEDD (-7.51 ± 5.40 mm vs -0.87 ± 4.36 mm; P <.001) and NYHA classification (-0.84 ± 0.76 vs -0.13 ± 0.74; P = .004), and similar reduction of NT-proBNP (-408.83 ± 920.29 pg/mL vs -229.05 ± 1579.17 pg/mL; P = .610) at 6 months. Early LBBP showed significantly reduced clinical events (0.0% vs 40.0%; P <.001) after 20.68 ± 13.55 months of follow-up. Subgroup analysis showed patients in the LBBB-Only group benefited more from LBBP with regard to LVEF improvement and LVEDD reduction than the LBBB-Combined group. CONCLUSION: Early LBBP with GDMT demonstrated greater improvement of cardiac function and reduced clinical events than GDMT alone in patients with HFmrEF and LBBB.

Bmal1 downregulation leads to diabetic cardiomyopathy by promoting Bcl2/IP3R-mediated mitochondrial Ca2+ overload.

Brain and muscle arnt-like protein 1 (Bmal1) is a crucial transcription factor, regulating circadian rhythm and involved in multiple heart diseases. However, it is unknown whether Bmal1 promotes diabetic cardiomyopathy (DCM) pathogenesis. The objective of this investigation was to ascertain the vital role of Bmal1 in the progression of DCM. Mice with T2D and H9c2 cardiomyoblasts exposed to high glucose and palmitic acid (HGHP) were used. Cardiomyocyte-specific knockout mouse of Bmal1 (CKB) was also generated, and cardiac Bmal1 was overexpressed in type 2 diabetes (T2D) mice using an adeno-associated virus. Bmal1 gene recombinant adenovirus was used to either knockdown or overexpress in H9c2 cardiomyoblasts. Bmal1 expression was significantly altered in diabetic mice hearts. Bmal1 downregulation in CKB and T2D mice heart accelerated cardiac hypertrophy and diastolic dysfunction, while Bmal1 overexpression ameliorated these pathological changes in DCM mice. Furthermore, DCM mice had significant mitochondrial ultrastructural defects, reactive oxygen species accumulation, and apoptosis, which could be alleviated by overexpressing Bmal1. In H9c2 cardiomyoblasts, genetic downregulation of Bmal1 or HGHP markedly decreased the binding of Bcl2 to IP3R, thus increasing Ca2+ release to mitochondria through mitochondria-associated endoplasmic reticulum membranes. Importantly, chromatin immunoprecipitation revealed Bmal1 could bind directly to the Bcl2 gene promoter region. Bmal1 overexpression augmented the Bmal1/Bcl2 binding, enhancing the inhibition of Bcl2 on IP3R activity, thus alleviating mitochondrial Ca2+ overload and subsequent cell apoptosis. These results show that Bmal1 is involved in the DCM development through Bcl2/IP3R-mediated mitochondria Ca2+ overload. Therapy targeting the circadian clock (Bmal1) can treat DCM.

Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: This observational study included patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included endpoints of death, HFH, and echocardiographic changes. RESULTS: A total of 1,778 patients met inclusion criteria: 981 BVP, 797 LBBAP. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% ± 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 ± 19 ms vs 161 ± 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 ± 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% ± 6% to 41% ± 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% ± 7% to 37% ± 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% ± 12% vs 10% ± 12%; P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, the primary outcome was significantly reduced with LBBAP compared with BVP (20.8% vs 28%; HR: 1.495; 95% CI: 1.213-1.842; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.

Clinical use conditions of lead deployment and simulated lead fracture rate in left bundle branch area pacing.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is achieved by advancing the lead tip deep in the septum. Most LBBAP implants are performed using the Medtronic SelectSecure™ MRI SecureScan™ Model 3830 featuring a unique 4 Fr fixed helix lumenless design. Details of lead use conditions and long-term reliability have not been reported. This study was designed to quantify the mechanical use conditions for the 3830 lead during and after LBBAP implant, and to evaluate reliability using bench testing and simulation. METHODS: Fifty bradycardia patients with implantation of the 3830 lead for LBBAP were enrolled. Use conditions of lead deployment at implantation were collected and computed tomography (CT) scans were performed at 3-month follow-up. Curvature amplitude along the pacing lead was determined with CT images. Fatigue bending was performed using accelerated testing in a more severe environment than routine clinical use conditions. Conductor fracture rate in a simulated patient population was estimated based on clinical use conditions and fatigue test results. RESULTS: The number of attempts to place the 3830 lead for LBBAP was 2.1 ± 1.3 (range: 1-7) with 13 ± 6 lead rotations at the final attempt. Extreme implant conditions were simulated in bench testing with 5 applications of 20 turns followed by up to 400 million bending cycles. Reliability modeling predicted a 10-year fracture rate of 0.02%. CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP implants require more lead rotations than standard pacing implants and result in unique lead bending. Application of simulated LBBAP use conditions to the 3830 lead in an accelerated in-vitro model does not produce excess conductor fractures. IMAGE-LBBP Study ID of ClinicalTrial.GOV: NCT04119323.

Prospective randomized comparison between upgraded '2C3L' vs. PVI approach for catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation: PROMPT-AF trial design.

BACKGROUND: In randomized studies, the strategy of pulmonary vein antral isolation (PVI) plus linear ablation has failed to increase success rates for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) ablation when compared with PVI alone. Peri-mitral reentry related atrial tachycardia due to incomplete linear block is an important cause of clinical failures of a first ablation procedure. Ethanol infusion (EI) into the vein of Marshall (EI-VOM) has been demonstrated to facilitate a durable mitral isthmus linear lesion. OBJECTIVE: This trial is designed to compare arrhythmia-free survival between PVI and an ablation strategy termed upgraded '2C3L' for the ablation of PeAF. STUDY DESIGN: The PROMPT-AF study (clinicaltrials.gov 04497376) is a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial using a 1:1 parallel-control approach. Patients (n = 498) undergoing their first catheter ablation of PeAF will be randomized to either the upgraded '2C3L' arm or PVI arm in a 1:1 fashion. The upgraded '2C3L' technique is a fixed ablation approach consisting of EI-VOM, bilateral circumferential PVI, and 3 linear ablation lesion sets across the mitral isthmus, left atrial roof, and cavotricuspid isthmus. The follow-up duration is 12 months. The primary end point is freedom from atrial arrhythmias of >30 seconds, without antiarrhythmic drugs, in 12 months after the index ablation procedure (excluding a blanking period of 3 months). CONCLUSIONS: The PROMPT-AF study will evaluate the efficacy of the fixed '2C3L' approach in conjunction with EI-VOM, compared with PVI alone, in patients with PeAF undergoing de novo ablation.

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads.

BACKGROUND: Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

A method using deep learning to discover new predictors from left-ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony for CRT response.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that the conventional parameters characterizing left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (LVMD) measured on gated SPECT myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) have their own statistical limitations in predicting cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. The purpose of this study is to discover new predictors from the polarmaps of LVMD by deep learning to help select heart failure patients with a high likelihood of response to CRT. METHODS: One hundred and fifty-seven patients who underwent rest gated SPECT MPI were enrolled in this study. CRT response was defined as an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 5% at 6 [Formula: see text] 1 month follow up. The autoencoder (AE) technique, an unsupervised deep learning method, was applied to the polarmaps of LVMD to extract new predictors characterizing LVMD. Pearson correlation analysis was used to explain the relationships between new predictors and existing clinical parameters. Patients from the IAEA VISION-CRT trial were used for an external validation. Heatmaps were used to interpret the AE-extracted feature. RESULTS: Complete data were obtained in 130 patients, and 68.5% of them were classified as CRT responders. After variable selection by feature importance ranking and correlation analysis, one AE-extracted LVMD predictor was included in the statistical analysis. This new AE-extracted LVMD predictor showed statistical significance in the univariate (OR 2.00, P = .026) and multivariate (OR 1.11, P = .021) analyses, respectively. Moreover, the new AE-extracted LVMD predictor not only had incremental value over PBW and significant clinical variables, including QRS duration and left ventricular end-systolic volume (AUC 0.74 vs 0.72, LH 7.33, P = .007), but also showed encouraging predictive value in the 165 patients from the IAEA VISION-CRT trial (P < .1). The heatmaps for calculation of the AE-extracted predictor showed higher weights on the anterior, lateral, and inferior myocardial walls, which are recommended as LV pacing sites in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: AE techniques have significant value in the discovery of new clinical predictors. The new AE-extracted LVMD predictor extracted from the baseline gated SPECT MPI has the potential to improve the prediction of CRT response.

Randomized Trial of Left Bundle Branch vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is the most rapidly growing conduction system pacing technique that is capable of correcting intrinsic left bundle branch block (LBBB). As such, it is potentially an optimal alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiVP). OBJECTIVES: The authors sought to compare the efficacy of LBBP-CRT with BiVP-CRT in patients with heart failure and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). METHODS: This is a prospective, randomized trial of patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB with 6-month preplanned follow-up. Crossovers were allowed if LBBP or BiVP were unsuccessful. The primary endpoint was the difference in LVEF improvement between 2 groups. The secondary endpoints included changes in echocardiographic measurements, N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute walk distance, QRS duration, and CRT response. RESULTS: The study included 40 consecutive patients (20 males, mean age 63.7 years, LVEF 29.7% ± 5.6%). Crossovers occurred in 10% of LBBP-CRT and 20% of BiVP-CRT. All patients completed follow-up. Intention-to-treat analysis showed significantly higher LVEF improvement at 6 months after LBBP-CRT than BiVP-CRT (mean difference: 5.6%; 95% CI: 0.3-10.9; P = 0.039). LBBP-CRT also appeared to have greater reductions in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-24.97 mL; 95% CI: -49.58 to -0.36 mL) and NT-proBNP (-1,071.80 pg/mL; 95% CI: -2,099.40 to -44.20 pg/mL), and comparable changes in New York Heart Association functional class, 6-minute walk distance, QRS duration, and rates of CRT response compared with BiVP-CRT. CONCLUSIONS: LBBP-CRT demonstrated greater LVEF improvement than BiVP-CRT in heart failure patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB. (Left Bundle Branch Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy [LBBP-RESYNC]; NCT04110431).

New criterion to determine left bundle branch capture on the basis of individualized His bundle or right ventricular septal pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is an emerging physiological pacing modality. How to differentiate LBBP from left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) remains challenging. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to develop a new personalized intraoperative criterion to confirm left bundle branch (LBB) capture in patients with or without heart failure (HF). METHODS: Patients were enrolled if 12-lead surface electrocardiograms of LBBP, LVSP, temporary His bundle pacing (HBP), and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) were recorded during the procedure, with the leads placed in the basal midseptal region. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was measured during different pacing modalities. ΔLVAT1 was defined as the difference in LVAT between HBP and LBBP/LVSP. ΔLVAT2 was estimated by the difference in LVAT between RVSP and LBBP/LVSP. ΔLVAT1% and ΔLVAT2% were calculated as the percent reduction of ΔLVAT1 and ΔLVAT2, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 105 consecutive patients were included, of whom 80 (76.2%) had normal cardiac function (65 LBBP and 15 LVSP) and 25 had HF. Patients with LBBP showed significantly shorter LVAT than did those with LVSP. In patients with normal cardiac function, a cutoff value of ΔLVAT1 > 12.5 ms showed 73.9% sensitivity and 93.3% specificity to confirm LBB capture. In patients with HF, a cutoff value of ΔLVAT1% > 9.8% exhibited great accuracy for LBB capture (sensitivity 92.0%; specificity 92.3%). The optimal value of ΔLVAT2% for differentiating LBBP from LVSP was 21.2%. CONCLUSION: Temporary HBP and RVSP can serve as references to confirm LBB capture in an individualized fashion in patients with or without HF.

Mid- to Long-Term Clinical and Echocardiographic Effects of Post-procedural Permanent Pacemaker Implantation After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Aims: To date, the prognostic effects of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) remain controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the mid- (1 year) to long-term (> 1 year) clinical and echocardiographic effects of post-procedural PPI in patients after TAVR. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were systematically searched from the establishment of databases up to 1 December 2021. Studies comparing clinical and echocardiographic outcomes between patients with and without post-TAVR PPI of ≥ 1-year follow-up were collected for further meta-analysis. Results: A total of 39 studies comprising of 83,082 patients were included in this meta-analysis. At mid-term follow-up (1 year), the pooled results demonstrated a higher risk of all-cause mortality in patients with post-procedural PPI than those without following TAVR (relative risk (RR), 1.17; 95% CI, 1.10-1.24; P < 0.00001). No significant differences were observed in cardiovascular mortality (RR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.71-1.03; P = 0.10) or heart failure rehospitalization (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.58-1.44; P = 0.69) at 1-year follow-up. At long-term follow-up (> 1 year), post-TAVR PPI had negative effects on all-cause mortality (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.28; P < 0.0001) and heart failure rehospitalization (RR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.18-1.71; P = 0.0002). There was no difference in long-term cardiovascular mortality between the two groups (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.97-1.36; P = 0.11). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was not significantly different at baseline (mean difference, 1.40; 95% CI, -0.13-2.93; P = 0.07), but was significantly lower in the PPI group at 1-year follow-up (mean difference, -3.57; 95% CI, -4.88 to -2.26; P < 0.00001). Conclusion: Our meta-analysis provides evidence that post-TAVR PPI has negative clinical and echocardiographic effects on patients at mid- to long-term follow-up. Further studies are urgently needed to explore the cause of these complications and optimize the treatment and management of patients requiring permanent pacing after TAVR. Systematic Review Registration: [https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021289935], identifier [CRD42021289935].

His-bundle pacing vs biventricular pacing following atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and reduced ejection fraction: A multicenter, randomized, crossover study-The ALTERNATIVE-AF trial.

BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) combined with biventricular pacing (BVP) improves outcomes in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), adequate rate control, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). His-bundle pacing (HBP) delivers physiological ventricular activation and is a promising alternative to BVP. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this trial was to compare HBP with BVP following AVNA. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, randomized crossover trial, we recruited patients with persistent AF and reduced LVEF (≤40%). All patients underwent AVNA and received both HBP and BVP. Patients were randomized to either HBP or BVP for 9 months (phase 1), then were switched to the alternative pacing modality for the next 9 months (phase 2). The primary endpoint was change in LVEF. RESULTS: Fifty patients (age 64.3 ± 10.3 years; ventricular rate 93.1 ± 19.9 bpm; 72% male) were enrolled. Thirty-eight patients completed the 2 phases and were included in the crossover analysis. A significant improvement in LVEF was observed with HBP compared to BVP (phase 1: ΔLVEFHBP 21.3% and ΔLVEFBVP 16.7%; phase 2: ΔLVEFHBP 3.5% and ΔLVEFBVP -2.4%; Pgeneralizedadditivemodel = 0.015). Significant improvements in left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, New York Heart Association functional class, and B-type natriuretic peptide level were observed with both pacing modalities compared with baseline, whereas no significant differences were observed between HBP and BVP. CONCLUSION: HBP delivers a modest but significant improvement in LVEF in patients with persistent AF, impaired ventricular function, and narrow QRS duration post-AVNA compared with BVP. Larger long-term trials are required to confirm the additional improvements in function with HBP.

A Mild Dyssynchronous Contraction Pattern Detected by SPECT Myocardial Perfusion Imaging Predicts Super-Response to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Background: Using single photon emission computed tomography myocardial perfusion imaging (SPECT MPI) with phase analysis (PA), we aimed to identify the predictive value of a new contraction pattern in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) response. Methods: Left ventricular mechanical dyssynchrony (LVMD) was evaluated using SPECT MPI with PA in non-ischemic dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) indicated for CRT. CRT super-response was defined as LV ejection fraction (EF) ≥50% or an absolute increase of LVEF >15%. The LV contraction was categorized as the mild dyssynchronous pattern when the phase standard deviation (PSD) ≤ 40.3° and phase histogram bandwidth (PBW) ≤ 111.9°, otherwise it was defined as severe dyssynchronous pattern which was further characterized as U-shaped, heterogeneous or homogenous pattern. Results: The final cohort comprised 74 patients, including 32 (43.2%) in mild dyssynchronous group, 17 (23%) in U-shaped group, 19 (25.7%) in heterogeneous group, and 6 (8.1%) in homogenous group. The mild dyssynchronous group had lower PSD and PBW than U-shaped, heterogeneous, and homogenous groups (P < 0.0001). Compared to patients with the heterogeneous pattern, the odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for CRT super-response were 10.182(2.43-42.663), 12.8(2.545-64.372), and 2.667(0.327-21.773) for patients with mild dyssynchronous, U-shaped, and homogenous pattern, respectively. After multivariable adjustment, mild dyssynchronous group remained associated with increased CRT super-response (adjusted OR 5.709, 95% CI 1.152-28.293). Kaplan-Meier curves showed that mild dyssynchronous group demonstrated a better long-term prognosis. Conclusions: The mild dyssynchronous pattern in patients with DCM is associated with an increased CRT super-response and better long-term prognosis.

Synthetic Extracellular Volume in Cardiac Magnetic Resonance Without Blood Sampling: a Reliable Tool to Replace Conventional Extracellular Volume.

BACKGROUND: The calculation of extracellular volume (ECV) in cardiac magnetic resonance requires hematocrit, limiting its applicability in clinical practice. Based on the linear relationship between hematocrit and blood T1 relaxivity, a synthetic ECV could be estimated without a blood sample. We aim to develop and test regression models for synthetic ECV without blood sampling in 1.5-T and 3.0-T scanners. METHODS: A total of 1101 subjects who underwent cardiac magnetic resonance scanning with native and postcontrast T1 mapping and venous hematocrit within 24 hours were retrospectively enrolled. Subjects were randomly split into derivation (n=550) and validation (n=551) subgroups for each scanner. Different regression models were derived controlling for sex, field strength, and left ventricle/right ventricle blood pool and validated in the validation group. We performed additional validation analyses in subgroups of patients with histological validation (n=17), amyloidosis (n=29), anemia (n=185), and reduced ejection fraction (n=322). RESULTS: In the derivation group, 8 specific models and 2 common estimate models were derived. In the validation group, using specific models, synthetic ECV had high agreement with conventional ECV (R2, 0.87; P<0.0001 and R2, 0.88, P<0.0001; -0.16% and -0.10%, left ventricle and right ventricle model, respectively). Common models also performed well (R2, 0.88; P<0.0001 and R2, 0.89, P<0.0001; -0.21% and -0.18%, left ventricle and right ventricle model, respectively). Histological validation demonstrated equal performance of synthetic and measured ECV. Synthetic ECV as calculated by the common model showed a bias in the anemia cohort significantly reduced by the specific model (-2.45 to -1.28, right ventricle common and specific model, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Synthetic ECV provided a promising way to calculate ECV without blood sampling. Specific models could provide the most accurate value, while common models could be more suitable in routine clinical practice because of their simplicity while maintaining adequate accuracy.