Safety and performance of conduction system pacing: real-world experience from a Product Surveillance Registry.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has been used as an alternative for pacemaker indicated patients requiring ventricular pacing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this analysis was to characterize the safety and performance of HBP and LBBAP among patients enrolled in the Medtronic Product Surveillance Registry (PSR). METHODS: This observational analysis included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations for HBP or LBBAP with a Model 3830 lead between January 2019 and December 2023 in the Medtronic PSR. The primary outcomes were lead-related complications and pacing capture threshold (PCT). Baseline characteristics, R-wave amplitude, impedance, and all-cause mortality were summarized. RESULTS: A total of 2342 patients were included across 77 centers (mean age 74, 38.9% female). Of the patients implanted with a 3830 lead for CSP, 64.1% had LBBAP placement (n=1502) and 35.9% had HBP placement (n=840). The most commonly reported indications for CSP were sinus node dysfunction (67.0%) and AV block (57.2%). LBBAP had lower pacing thresholds, higher R-wave sensing and higher impedance (all p<0.001) through 30 months. At 36 months post-implant, the lead complication rate for LBBAP and HBP was 2.5% and 6.3%, respectively with no difference in all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: In a multi-center cohort of LBBAP and HBP patients treated with the catheter-delivered 3830 lead, lead-related complication rates were low and electrical parameters were stable through 30 months.

Retrograde Conduction in Left Bundle Branch Block: Insights From Left Bundle Branch Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing is a well-established therapy for patients with heart failure (HF), left bundle branch block (LBBB) and left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the retrograde conduction properties of the left bundle branch in patients with nonischemic cardiomyopathy and LBBB during LBBP and its clinical implications. METHODS: Patients undergoing successful LBBP for nonischemic cardiomyopathy with LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% and LBBB were included. Continuous recording of His potential was performed using a quadripolar catheter. Unidirectional block was defined as retrograde His bundle activation during LBBP with stimulus to His potential (SH) duration less than or equal to antegrade HV interval and bidirectional block as VH dissociation or SH duration greater than HV interval. HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were documented. RESULTS: A total of 165 patients were included. The mean follow-up duration was 21.8 ± 13.1 months. Bidirectional block (group I) was observed in 82% (n = 136), and these patients were noted to have advanced HF stage and prolonged baseline QRS duration. Unidirectional block (group II) with intact retrograde conduction was observed in 18% (n = 29) and was associated with narrow paced QRS duration and higher LVEF during follow-up. Super-response (LVEF ≥50%) was observed in 54.4% (n = 74) in group I compared with 73.3% (n = 22) in group II (P = 0.03). The OR for LVEF normalization was 4.1 (95% CI: 1.26-13.97; P = 0.02), with unidirectional block compared with bidirectional block in patients with LBBB and LV dysfunction. Adverse clinical outcomes as measured by a composite of HF hospitalization, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality were significantly higher in group I compared with group II (12.5% vs 0%; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Bidirectional block in LBBB was characterized by advanced HF symptoms, while unidirectional block was associated with better clinical outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy by LBBP.

Current role of Conduction System Pacing in Patients Requiring Permanent Pacing.

His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) are novel methods of pacing directly pacing the cardiac conduction system. HBP while developed more than two decades ago, only recently moved into the clinical mainstream. In contrast to conventional cardiac pacing, conduction system pacing including HBP and LBBP utilizes the native electrical system of the heart to rapidly disseminate the electrical impulse and generate a more synchronous ventricular contraction. Widespread adoption of conduction system pacing has resulted in a wealth of observational data, registries, and some early randomized controlled clinical trials. While much remains to be learned about conduction system pacing and its role in electrophysiology, data available thus far is very promising. In this review of conduction system pacing, the authors review the emergence of conduction system pacing and its contemporary role in patients requiring permanent cardiac pacing.

Strength-duration curves for left bundle branch area pacing.

BACKGROUND: Despite growing clinical use of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), data regarding the fundamentals of this pacing modality, including chronaxie and rheobase, are scarce. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to calculate strength-duration curves with chronaxie and rheobase values for LBBP and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), and to analyze battery current drain and presence of selective LBBP at very short pulse duration (PD). METHODS: A group of 141 patients with permanent LBBP were studied. LBBP and LVSP capture thresholds were assessed at 6 different PDs to calculate the strength-duration curves. Battery current drain at these PDs and presence of selective LBBP were determined. For comparison of strength-duration curves between His-bundle pacing (HBP) and LBBP, source data from our previous work based on 127 patients with HBP were obtained. RESULTS: The chronaxies for LBBP and LVSP were very similar (0.38 vs 0.39 ms), and the rheobases were identical (0.27 V). The chronaxie for LBBP was lower than for HBP (0.38 vs 0.53 ms; P <.001), whereas rheobases were similar (0.27 vs 0.26 V). A narrow zone of selective capture was present in 19% and 41% of patients at PD of 0.06 and 0.03 ms, respectively. When pacing with the safety margin of +1 V, the lowest battery current drain was achieved with PD of 0.2 ms. CONCLUSION: The obtained strength-duration curves for LBBP and LVSP provide insights to optimal programming of left bundle branch area pacing devices with regard to PD, voltage amplitude, battery longevity, and selective capture.

Left bundle branch area pacing using a stylet-driven, retractable-helix lead: Short-term results from a prospective multicenter IDE trial (the BIO-CONDUCT study).

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has swiftly emerged as a safe and effective alternative to right ventricular pacing. Limited data exist on the use of retractable-helix, stylet-driven leads for LBBAP. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to prospectively evaluate the performance and safety of a stylet-driven pacing lead in a rigorously controlled multicenter trial to support US market application. METHODS: A multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized trial enrolled patients with standard pacing indications. Implant procedure and lead data, including threshold, sensing, impedance, and capture type, were collected through 3 months. Primary end points were freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious complications through 3 months and LBBAP implant success according to prespecified criteria. A blinded clinical events committee adjudicated all potential end point complications. RESULTS: A total of 186 patients were included from 14 US sites. LBBAP implants were successful in 95.7% (178 of 186; 95% confidence interval 91.7%-98.1%; P < .0001 for comparison to the performance goal of 88%). Through the 3-month follow-up visit, 3 patients (1.7%) experienced a serious LBBAP complication (all lead dislodgments), resulting in a LBBAP lead-related complication-free rate of 98.3%. A total of 13 patients (7.8%) experienced any system- or procedure-related complication. The mean threshold was 0.89 V at 0.4 ms, the sensing value was 10.8 mV, and impedance was 608 Ω. CONCLUSION: The short-term results from this prospective trial demonstrate both high implant success and freedom from LBBAP lead-related complications using this stylet-driven retractable helix lead. This trial supports the safety, use, and effectiveness of stylet-driven leads for performing contemporary physiologic pacing.

Result of the left bundle branch area pacing data collection registry, an international multicenter study of conduction system pacing with a Tendril STS 2088 stylet-driven lead.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area (LBBA) pacing (LBBAP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option in patients indicated for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LBBAP in patients implanted with a Tendril 2088 stylet-driven lead. METHODS: The international retrospective data collection registry included 11 sites from 5 countries globally. Patients with attempted implants of the Tendril lead in the LBBA were followed for at least 6 months post the implant attempt. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse events and the composite of LBBA capture threshold of ≤2.0 V and R-wave amplitudes ≥5 mV (or ≥value at implant), respectively. RESULTS: Of 221 patients with attempted implants of the Tendril 2088 lead in the LBBA, 91.4% (202/221) had successful implants for LBBAP. Regardless of the LBBAP implant success, all patients were followed for at least 6 months (8.7 ± 7.3 months). Baseline characteristics: 44% female, 84% ≥65 years old, 34% coronary artery disease, and 86% of primary indications for pacemaker implant. Both primary safety and effectiveness endpoints were met (freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse device effects of 99.5% and electrical performance composite success rate of 93%). The capture thresholds in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms and 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms. The rate of patients with capture threshold rise ≥1 V was 1.5% through 6 months. The R-wave amplitudes in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 9.3 ± 3.2 mV and 10.6 ± 3.0 mV. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter study demonstrates that the stylet-driven Tendril™ STS 2088 lead is safe and effective for LBBAP with high success and low complication rates.

Transvenous extraction of conduction system pacing leads: An international multicenter (TECSPAM) study.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) by His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is incorporated into Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for the management of bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Despite increasing adoption with both lumenless leads and stylet-driven leads, concerns regarding the feasibility and safety of the extraction of CSP leads remain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to report on the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of the extraction of CSP leads. METHODS: Patients undergoing the extraction of CSP leads from 10 international centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data regarding indications, lead location, lead type, extraction tools, procedural success, complications, and reimplantation in the conduction system were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 341 patients (age 69 ± 15 years; female 34%; cardiomyopathy 46%; lead dwell time 22 ± 26 months) underwent the extraction of 224 His bundle pacing and 117 LBBAP leads (lumenless leads 321; stylet-driven leads 20). Complete procedural success was achieved in 338 (99%), while clinical success was 100% with retained distal fragments in 3 patients (1%). Among patients with a lead dwell time of >6 months (6-193 months; n = 226), manual extraction was successful in 198 (87%), mechanical tools in 22 (10%), and laser in 6 (3%). Femoral tools were necessary in 3 patients. Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (2.1%). CSP reimplantation was successful in 233 of 244 patients attempted (95%). CONCLUSION: The overall success rates of the extraction of CSP leads were very high (although the LBBAP lead dwell time was <3 years), with a low need for extraction tools and minimal complication. Reimplantation in the conduction system is feasible and safe.

Cryoballoon cardioneuroablation: New electrophysiological insights.

Background: Cardioneuroablation (CNA) targeting ganglionated plexi has shown promise in treating vasovagal syncope. Only radiofrequency ablation has been used to achieve this goal thus far. Objective: The purpose of this study was to investigate the utility of cryoballoon ablation (CBA) of the pulmonary veins (PVs) as a potential simplified approach to CNA. Methods: We report our observations of autonomic modulation in a series of 17 patients undergoing CBA for atrial fibrillation and our early experience using CBA of the PVs in 3 patients with malignant vagal syncope. In 17 patients undergoing CBA of AF, sinus cycle length was recorded intraprocedurally after ablation of individual PVs. Results: The most pronounced shortening of the sinus cycle length was observed after isolation of the right upper PV, which was ablated last. Reduced sinus node recovery time and atrioventricular (AV) nodal effective refractory period were observed after CBA. Resting heart rate was elevated by 6-7 bpm after CBA and persisted during 12-month follow-up. CBA of the PVs was performed in 3 patients with recurrent vagal syncope mediated by sinus arrest (n = 2) and AV block (n = 1). In all patients, isolation of the right upper PV resulted in marked shortening of sinus cycle length. During follow-up of 178 ± 43 days (134-219 days), CNA resulted in abolition of pauses, bradycardia-related symptoms, and syncope in all patients. Conclusion: CBA of the PVs (particularly the right upper PV) may be a predictable anatomic CNA approach in patients with refractory vagal syncope due to sinus arrest and/or AV block and may warrant systematic investigation as a tool to perform CNA.

Left bundle branch area pacing using a lumenless lead: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for delivering physiological pacing, data are largely limited to single-center reports. The aim of this analysis was to systematically assess the safety and efficacy of LBBAP with the Model 3830 lead among primarily bradycardia patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP using the SelectSecure Model 3830 lumenless lead. Rates and means were estimated using random- and mixed-effects models. Of 3395 articles, 53 met inclusion criteria, representing 6061 patients undergoing an implant attempt. Average patient age was 68.1 years (95% CI: 66.6, 69.6) and 53.1% were male (95% CI: 50.5%, 55.7%). The average implant success rate among bradycardia-indicated patients was 92.7% (95% CI: 89.5%, 94.9%). The overall estimated procedural adverse event rate was 2.5% (95% CI: 1.1%, 5.4%). The estimated septal perforation rate at implant was 1.6% (95% CI: 1.0%, 2.6%) with no adverse clinical sequelae reported. Pacing thresholds were low at implant (0.67 V [95% CI: 0.64, 0.70]) and remained stable through 12 months (0.76 V [95% CI: 0.72, 0.80]). Among bradycardia-indicated patients, LVEF remained stable from baseline to post-implant (59.5% [95% CI: 57.9%, 61.1%] vs. 60.1% [95% CI: 58.5%, 61.7%]). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis including 6061 patients implanted with a Model 3830 lead for LBBAP found an average implant success rate of 92.7% and a procedural adverse event rate of 2.5% with stable electrical parameters and LVEF post-implant.

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.

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.

Left bundle branch pacing lead for sensing ventricular arrhythmias in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator: A pilot study (LBBP-ICD study).

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative modality for biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT)-eligible patients. As it provides stable R-wave sensing, LBBP has been recently used to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the long-term safety and efficacy of the LBBP lead for appropriate detection of ventricular arrhythmia and delivery of antitachycardia pacing (ATP) in patients requiring defibrillator therapy with CRT. METHODS: CRT-eligible patients who underwent successful LBBP-optimized ICD and LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator were enrolled. The LBBP lead was connected to the right ventricular-P/S port after capping the IS-1 connector plug of the DF-1-ICD lead. LBBP-optimized ICD or LBBP-optimized CRT with defibrillator was decided on the basis of correction of conduction system disease. Documented arrhythmic episodes and therapy delivered were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty patients were enrolled. The mean age was 59.7 ± 10.5 years. LBBP resulted in an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction from 29.9% ± 4.6% to 43.9% ± 11.2% (P < .0001). During a mean follow-up of 22.9 ± 12.5 months, 254 ventricular arrhythmic events were documented. Appropriate events (n = 225 [89%]) included nonsustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) (n = 212 episodes [94%]), VT (n = 8 [3.5%]), and ventricular fibrillation (n = 5 [2.5%]). ATP efficacy in terminating VT was 75%. Eleven percent of episodes (n = 29) were inappropriately detected because of T-wave oversensing. Inappropriate therapy (ATP) was delivered for 14 episodes (5.5%). Three patients (10%) had worsening of tricuspid regurgitation. CONCLUSION: Sensing from the LBBP lead for arrhythmia detection is safe as ∼90% of the episodes were detected appropriately. Future studies with a dedicated LBBP-defibrillator lead along with algorithms to avoid oversensing can help in combining defibrillation with conduction system pacing.

Frontiers in conduction system pacing: treatment of long PR in patients with heart failure.

Patients with heart failure who have a prolonged PR interval are at a greater risk of adverse clinical outcomes than those with a normal PR interval. Potential mechanisms of harm relating to prolonged PR intervals include reduced ventricular filling and also the potential progression to a higher degree heart block. There has, however, been relatively little work specifically focusing on isolated PR prolongation as a therapeutic target. Secondary analyses of trials of biventricular pacing in heart failure have suggested that PR prolongation is both a prognostic marker and a promising treatment target. However, while biventricular pacing offers an improved activation pattern, it is nonetheless less physiological than native conduction in patients with a narrow QRS duration, and thus, may not be the ideal option for achieving therapeutic shortening of atrioventricular delay. Conduction system pacing aims to preserve physiological ventricular activation and may therefore be the ideal method for ventricular pacing in patients with isolated PR prolongation. Acute haemodynamic experiments and the recently reported His-optimized pacing evaluated for heart failure (HOPE HF) Randomised Controlled Trial demonstrates the potential benefits of physiological ventricular pacing on patient symptoms and left ventricular function in patients with heart failure.

Implant, assessment, and management of conduction system pacing.

His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing, together referred to as conduction system pacing, have (re)gained considerable interest over the past years as it has the potential to preserve and/or restore a more physiological ventricular activation when compared with right ventricular pacing and may serve as an alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy. This review manuscript dives deeper into the implantation techniques and the relevant anatomy of the conduction system for both pacing strategies. Furthermore, the manuscript elaborates on better understanding of conduction system capture with its various capture patterns, its potential complications as well as appropriate follow-up care. Finally, the limitations and its impact on clinical care for both His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing are being discussed.