Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing.

Cardiac pacing to treat bradyarrhythmias has evolved in recent decades. Recognition that a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients can develop heart failure due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from traditional right ventricular apical pacing has led to development of more physiologic pacing methods that better mimic normal cardiac conduction and provide synchronized ventricular contraction. Conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease but can be limited by scarring and fibrosis. His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing are novel techniques that can provide more physiologic ventricular activation as an alternative to conventional or biventricular pacing. Leadless pacing has emerged as another alternative pacing technique to overcome limitations in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Our objective is to review the evolution of cardiac pacing and explore these new advances in pacing strategies.

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.

Left bundle branch pacing versus left ventricular septal pacing as a primary procedural endpoint during left bundle branch area pacing: Evaluation of two different implant strategies.

INTRODUCTION: Implant procedure features and clinical implications of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) have not been yet fully described. We sought to compare two different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implant strategies: the first one accepting LVSP as a procedural endpoint and the second one aiming at achieving LBBP in every patient in spite of evidence of previous LVSP criteria. METHODS: LVSP was accepted as a procedural endpoint in 162 consecutive patients (LVSP strategy group). In a second phase, LBBP was attempted in every patient in spite of achieving previous LVSP criteria (n = 161, LBBP strategy group). Baseline patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up data were compared. RESULTS: The final capture pattern was LBBP in 71.4% and LVSP in 24.2% in the LBBP strategy group compared to 42.7% and 50%, respectively, in the LVSP strategy group. One hundred and eighty-four patients (57%) had proven LBB capture criteria with a significantly shorter paced QRS duration than the 120 patients (37%) with LVSP criteria (115 ± 9 vs. 121 ± 13 ms, p < .001). Implant parameters were comparable between the two strategies but the LBBP strategy resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p = .026) without any clinical sequelae. Patients with CRT indications significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow-up irrespective of the capture pattern (from 35 ± 11% to 45 ± 14% in proven LBBP, p = .024; and from 39 ± 13% to 47 ± 12% for LVSP, p = .003). The presence of structural heart disease and baseline LBBB independently predicted unsuccessful LBB capture. CONCLUSION: The LBBP strategy was associated with comparable implant parameters than the LVSP strategy but resulted in higher rates of septal perforation. Proven LBB capture and LVSP showed comparable effects on LVEF during follow-up.

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.

Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing is an alternative to biventricular pacing. In this study, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). OBJECTIVES: The study summarizes the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and concomitant LBBB. Recently LBBAP has been studied as a more physiological alternative to achieve CRT. METHOD: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify studies examining the role of LBBAP for CRT in heart failure. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 4 was used for meta-regression to examine variables that contribute to data heterogeneity. RESULT: Eighteen studies, 17 observational and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were examined. A total of 3906 HF patients who underwent CRT (2036 LBBAP vs. 1870 biventricular pacing [BVP]) were included. LBBAP was performed successfully in 90.4% of patients. Compared to baseline, LBBAP was associated with a reduction in QRS duration (MD: -47.23 ms 95% confidence interval [CI]: -53.45, -41.01), an increase in LVEF (MD: 15.22%, 95% CI: 13.5, 16.94), and a reduction in NYHA class (MD: -1.23, 95% CI: -1.41, -1.05). Compared to BVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in QRS duration (MD: -20.69 ms, 95% CI: -25.49, -15.88) and improvement in LVEF (MD: 4.78%, 95% CI: 3.30, 6.10). Furthermore, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.56) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.86) compared to BVP. CONCLUSION: LBBAP was associated with improved ventricular electrical synchrony compared to BVP, as well as better echocardiographic and clinical outcomes.

Comparison of clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography- and X-ray-guided left bundle branch pacing for bradycardia: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing modality. However, the long procedure and fluoroscopy time of LBBP is still a problem. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)- and X-ray-guided LBBP. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study. Consecutive patients who underwent LBBP in our team from June 2022 to November 2022 were enrolled. Procedure and fluoroscopy time, pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, as well as complications were recorded at implantation and during follow-up. RESULTS: In this study, 60 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups: 30 patients were allocated to the X-ray group and the remaining 30 to the TTE group. There was no significant difference in the success rate between the two groups (86.7% vs. 76.7%, p = .317). The procedure time of TTE group was comparable to that of the X-ray group (9.0 vs. 12.0 min, p = .063). However, the fluoroscopy time in the TTE group was significantly lower than that of the X-ray group (2.5 vs. 5.0 min, p = .002). There were no statistically significant differences in pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, or complications between the two groups at implantation and during follow-up. CONCLUSION: TTE-guided LBBP is a feasible and safe method. Compared with X-ray, TTE showed a comparable success rate and procedure time, but it could significantly reduce the fluoroscopy time of LBBP.

Paced QRS morphology mimicking complete left bundle branch block induced by right ventricular pacing is associated with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy.

INTRODUCTION: Right ventricular (RV) pacing sometimes causes left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction, also known as pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). However, the association between specifically paced QRS morphology and PICM development has not been elucidated. This study aimed to investigate the association between paced QRS mimicking a complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) and PICM development. METHODS: We retrospectively screened 2009 patients who underwent pacemaker implantation from 2010 to 2020 in seven institutions. Patients who received pacemakers for an advanced atrioventricular block or bradycardia with atrial fibrillation, baseline LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50%, and echocardiogram recorded at least 6 months postimplantation were included. The paced QRS recorded immediately after implantation was analyzed. A CLBBB-like paced QRS was defined as meeting the CLBBB criteria of the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology Foundation/Heart Rhythm Society in 2009. PICM was defined as a ≥10% LVEF decrease, resulting in an LVEF of <50%. RESULTS: Among the 270 patients analyzed, PICM was observed in 38. Baseline LVEF was lower in patients with PICM, and CLBBB-like paced QRS was frequently observed in PICM. Multivariate analysis revealed that low baseline LVEF (odds ratio [OR]: 0.93 per 1% increase, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.89-0.98, p = 0.006) and CLBBB-like paced QRS (OR: 2.69, 95% CI: 1.25-5.76, p = 0.011) were significantly associated with PICM development. CONCLUSION: CLBBB-like paced QRS may be a novel risk factor for PICM. RV pacing, which causes CLBBB-like QRS morphology, may need to be avoided, and patients with CLBBB-like paced QRS should be followed-up carefully.

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.

Prognostic benefits of His-Purkinje capture in physiological pacemakers for bradycardia.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical outcomes of long-term ventricular septal pacing (VSP) without His-Purkinje capture remain unknown. This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes between conduction system pacing (CSP), VSP, and right ventricular pacing (RVP). METHODS: Consecutive patients with bradycardia indicated for pacing from 2016 to 2022 were prospectively followed for the clinical endpoints of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations and all-cause mortality at 2 years. VSP was defined as septal pacing due to unsuccessful CSP implant or successful CSP followed by loss of His-Purkinje capture within 90 days. RESULTS: Among 1016 patients (age 73.9 ± 11.2 years, 47% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 612 received RVP, 335 received CSP and 69 received VSP. Paced QRS duration was similar between VSP and RVP, but both significantly longer than CSP (p < .05). HF-hospitalizations occurred in 130 (13%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 16% vs. VSP 13%, p = .001), and all-cause mortality in 143 (14%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 19% vs. VSP 9%, p < .001). The association of pacing modality with clinical events was limited to those with ventricular pacing (Vp) > 20% (pinteraction < .05). Adjusting for clinical risk factors among patients with Vp > 20%, VSP (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 4.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-14.36) and RVP (AHR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.44-6.60) were associated with increased hazard of HF-hospitalizations, and RVP (2.52, 95% CI: 1.19-5.35) with increased mortality, compared to CSP. Clinical endpoints did not differ between VSP and RVP with Vp > 20%, or amongst groups with Vp < 20%. CONCLUSION: Conduction system capture is associated with improved clinical outcomes. CSP should be preferred over VSP or RVP during pacing for bradycardia.

Conduction system pacing: how far are we from the "electrical" bypass?

Conduction system pacing is an alternative practice to conventional right ventricular apical pacing. It is a method that maintains physiologic ventricular activation, based on a correct pathophysiological basis, in which the pacing lead bypasses the lesion of the electrical fibers and the electrical impulse transmits through the intact adjacent conduction system. For this reason, it might be reasonably characterized by the term "electrical bypass" compared to the coronary artery bypass in revascularization therapy. In this review, reference is made to the sequence of events in which conventional right ventricular pacing may cause adverse outcomes. Furthermore, there is a reference to alternative strategies and pacing sites. Interest focuses on the modalities for which there are data from the literature, namely for the right ventricular (RV) septal pacing, the His bundle pacing (HBP), and the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). A more extensive reference is about the HBP, for which there are the most updated data. We analyze the considerations that limit HBP-wide application in three axes, and we also present the data for the implantation and follow-up of these patients. The indications with their most important studies to date are then described in detail, not only in their undoubtedly positive findings but also in their weak aspects, because of which this pacing mode has not yet received a strong recommendation for implementation. Finally, there is a report on LBBP, focusing mainly on its points of differentiation from HBP.

The clinical anatomy of the atrioventricular conduction axis.

It is axiomatic that the chances of achieving accurate capture of the conduction axis and its fascicles will be optimized by equally accurate knowledge of the relationship of the components to the recognizable cardiac landmarks, and we find it surprising that acknowledged experts should continue to use drawings that fall short in terms of anatomical accuracy. The accuracy achieved by Sunao Tawara (1906) in showing the location of the atrioventricular conduction axis is little short of astounding. Our purpose in bringing this to current attention is to question the need of the experts to have produced such inaccurate representations, since the findings of Tawara have been extensively endorsed in very recent years. The recent studies do no more than point to the amazing accuracy of the initial account of Tawara. At the same time, we draw attention to the findings described in the middle of the 20th century by Ivan Mahaim (1947). These observations have tended to be ignored in recent accounts. They are, perhaps, of equal significance to those seeking specifically to pace the left fascicles of the branching atrioventricular bundle.

Current of injury amplitude during left bundle branch area pacing implantation: impact of filter settings, ventricular pacing, and lead type.

AIMS: Monitoring current of injury (COI) during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implantation is useful to evaluate lead depth. Technical aspects for recording COI amplitude have not been well studied. Our aims were to evaluate the impact of high-pass filter settings on electrogram recordings during LBBAP implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with successful LBBAP implantation had unipolar recordings of COI at final lead position at different high-pass filter settings (0.01-1 Hz) from the tip electrode during sensing and pacing, and from the ring electrode during sensing. Duration of saturation-induced signal loss was also measured at each filter setting. COI amplitudes were compared between lumenless and stylet-driven leads. A total of 156 patients (96 males, aged 81.4 ± 9.6 years) were included. Higher filter settings led to significantly lower COI amplitudes. In 50 patients with COI amplitude < 10 mV, the magnitude of the drop was on average 1-1.5 mV (and up to 4 mV) between 0.05 and 0.5 Hz, meaning that cut-offs may not be used interchangeably. Saturation-induced signal loss was on average 10 s at 0.05 Hz and only 2 s with 0.5 Hz. When pacing was interrupted, the sensed COI amplitude varied (either higher or lower) by up to 4 mV, implying that it is advisable to periodically interrupt pacing to evaluate the sensed COI when reaching levels of ∼10 mV. Lead type did not impact COI amplitude. CONCLUSION: High-pass filters have a significant impact on electrogram characteristics at LBBAP implantation, with the 0.5 Hz settings having the most favourable profile.

Predictors for new-onset conduction block in patients with pure native aortic regurgitation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement with a new-generation self-expanding valve (VitaFlow Liberty™): a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: New-generation self-expanding valves can improve the success rate of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) for severe pure native aortic regurgitation (PNAR). However, predictors of new-onset conduction block post-TAVR using new-generation self-expanding valves in patients with PNAR remain to be established. Therefore, this study aimed to identify predictors of new-onset conduction block post-TAVR using new-generation self-expanding valves (VitaFlow Liberty™) in patients with PNAR. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, patients were categorized into pacemaker and non-pacemaker groups based on their need for new postoperative permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI). Based on the postoperative presence of either new-onset complete left bundle branch block (cLBBB) or high-grade atrioventricular block (AVB), patients were further classified into conduction disorder and non-conduction disorder groups. Laboratory, echocardiographic, computed tomography, preoperative and postoperative electrocardiography, and procedural and clinical data were collected immediately after TAVR and during hospitalization and compared between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed incorporating the significant variables from the univariate analyses. RESULTS: This study examined 68 consecutive patients with severe PNAR who underwent TAVR. In 20 patients, a permanent pacemaker was fitted postoperatively. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed an association between the need for postoperative PPI and preoperative complete right bundle branch block (cRBBB) or first-degree AVB, as well as a non-tubular left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT). In addition, valve implantation depth and angle of aortic root were independent predictors of new-onset cLBBB or high-grade AVB developing post-TAVR. The predictive value of valve implantation depth and angle of aortic root was further supported by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis results. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PNAR undergoing TAVR using self-expanding valves, preoperative cRBBB or first-degree AVB and a non-tubular LVOT were indicators of a higher likelihood of PPI requirement. Moreover, deeper valve implantation depth and greater angle of aortic root may be independent risk factors for new-onset cLBBB or high-grade AVB post-TAVR. Valve implantation depth and angle of aortic root values may be used to predict the possibility of new cLBBB or high-grade AVB post-TAVR.

Successful prediction of left bundle branch block-induced cardiomyopathy and treatment effect by artificial intelligence-enabled electrocardiogram.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) induced cardiomyopathy is an increasingly recognized disease entity.  However, no clinical testing has been shown to be able to predict such an occurrence. CASE REPORT: A 70-year-old male with a prior history of LBBB with preserved ejection fraction (EF) and no other known cardiovascular conditions presented with presyncope, high-grade AV block, and heart failure with reduced EF (36%). His coronary angiogram was negative for any obstructive disease. No other known etiologies for cardiomyopathy were identified. Artificial intelligence-enabled ECGs performed 6 years prior to clinical presentation consistently predicted a high probability (up to 91%) of low EF. The patient successfully underwent left bundle branch area (LBBA) pacing with correction of the underlying LBBB. Subsequent AI ECGs showed a large drop in the probability of low EF immediately after LBBA pacing to 47% and then to 3% 2 months post procedure. His heart failure symptoms markedly improved and EF normalized to 54% at the same time. CONCLUSIONS: Artificial intelligence-enabled ECGS may help identify patients who are at risk of developing LBBB-induced cardiomyopathy and predict the response to LBBA pacing.

Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with left bundle branch block.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) and atrial fibrillation (AF) are commonly coexisting conditions. The impact of LBBB on catheter ablation of AF has not been well determined. This study aims to explore the long-term outcomes of patients with AF and LBBB after catheter ablation. METHODS: Forty-two patients with LBBB of 11,752 patients who underwent catheter ablation of AF from 2011 to 2020 were enrolled as LBBB group. After propensity score matching in a 1:4 ratio, 168 AF patients without LBBB were enrolled as non-LBBB group. Late recurrence and a composite endpoint of stroke, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular hospitalization were compared between the two groups. RESULTS: Late recurrence rate was significantly higher in the LBBB group than that in the non-LBBB group (54.8% vs. 31.5%, p = .034). Multivariate analysis showed that LBBB was an independent risk factor for late recurrence after catheter ablation of AF (hazard ratio [HR] 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.09-4.40, p = .031). LBBB group was also associated with a significantly higher incidence of the composite endpoint (21.4% vs. 6.5%, HR 3.98, 95% CI 1.64-9.64, p = .002). CONCLUSIONS: LBBB was associated with a higher risk for late recurrence and a higher incidence of composite endpoint in the patients underwent catheter ablation.

Successful direct pacing of the left bundle branch area with ICD lead using steerable delivery sheath.

Recently, conduction system pacing has been performed in patients with impaired cardiac function. We report a case in which a DF4 implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead was screwed directly into the left bundle branch area with the support of a steerable delivery sheath.

Gradual development of left bundle branch current of injury during left bundle branch pacing lead implantation.

A larger left bundle branch (LBB) potential or LBB current of injury (COI) indicates a low LBB capture threshold in LBB pacing. During LBB pacing in an 85-year-old woman, achieving a low LBB capture threshold did not initially present with a larger LBB potential or LBB COI, but rather with a new initial negative deflection in a ventricular electrogram. LBB COI gradually developed over 7 min thereafter, which suggested that the lead tip had reached the left ventricular subendocardium. Therefore, this negative deflection may be the first sign to avoid further lead rotation.

Value of q waves in lateral and left precordial leads in patients with left bundle branch block to predict the response to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: The cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) non-response rate can reach 30% in heart failure (HF) patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). This study aimed to evaluate the value of baseline q waves in leads I, V5, or V6 in predicting response to CRT in patients with HF and LBBB. METHODS: Patients with HF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%) and LBBB receiving CRT implantation were retrospectively enrolled. Baseline characteristics and electrocardiogram parameters, including lateral and left precordial q waves were evaluated. Non-response to CRT was defined as the improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 5% at a 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 132 patients (mean age 63.0 ± 10.4 years, 94 [71.2%] male) were included. Among them, 32 patients with q waves in leads I, V5, or V6 were classified into the qLBBB (+) group, and the rest without q waves in these leads were defined as the qLBBB (-) group. The CRT non-response rate in the qLBBB (+) group was markedly higher than that in the qLBBB (-) group (68.8% vs. 33.3%, p < .001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis revealed that the presence of baseline q waves in leads I, V5, or V6 remained significantly associated with a higher rate of CRT non-response in patients with HF and LBBB (odds ratio: 4.8, 95% confidence interval: 1.5-15.0, p = .007). CONCLUSION: Any q wave in leads I, V5, or V6 was an independent predictive factor for CRT non-response in patients with HF and LBBB.

Outcomes of combined left bundle branch area pacing with atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and pulmonary disease.

INTRODUCTION: Concomitant left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) with atrioventricular (AV) nodal ablation is emerging as a viable management option in atrial fibrillation refractory to medical management. Its viability in patients with pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a retrospective, observational cohort study in consecutive patients who underwent concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation with advanced pulmonary disease at the Cleveland Clinic Fairview Hospital between January 2019 and January 2023. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use were extracted via chart review. Rates of hospitalizations, medication use, and structural disease seen on echocardiography were compared before and after the procedure. There were 27 patients with group 3 pulmonary hypertension who underwent the procedure. In the 24 months preprocedure, there were 114 admissions for heart failure or atrial fibrillation compared to 9 admissions postprocedure (p < .001). Mean follow up was 17.3 ± 12.1 months. There were no significant complications or lead dislodgements. Echocardiographic characteristics were similar prior to and after pacemaker implantation. Use of medications for rate and rhythm control was common preprocedure, and was reduced dramatically postprocedure. CONCLUSION: This small, retrospective cohort study suggests concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation may be safe and efficacious for management of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced pulmonary disease.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing: Prognosis and specific applications.

Cardiac pacing has become a widely accepted treatment strategy for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure. However, conventional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with electrical dyssynchrony, which may result in atrial fibrillation and heart failure. To achieve physiological pacing, Deshmukh et al. reported the first case of His bundle pacing (HBP) in 2000. This strategy was reported to have preserved ventricular synchronization by activating the conventional conduction system. Nonetheless, due to the anatomical location of the His bundle (HB), several issues such as high pacing thresholds, lead fixation, and early battery depletion may pose a challenge. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a novel physiological pacing strategy to achieve conduction system pacing by capturing the left bundle branch through the deep septum. Additionally, several studies have investigated the clinical outcomes of LBBAP. In this paper, we describe the pacing parameters, QRS duration (QRSd), cardiac function, complications, and specific applications of LBBAP in recent years.