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.

Variation in optimal hemodynamic atrio-ventricular delay of biventricular pacing with different endocardial left ventricular lead locations using precision hemodynamics.

INTRODUCTION: It is not known whether the optimal atrioventricular (AVopt ) delay varies between left ventricular (LV) pacing site during endocardial biventricular pacing (BiVP) and may therefore needs consideration. METHODS: We assessed the hemodynamic AVopt in patients with chronic heart failure undergoing endocardial LV lead implantation. AVopt was assessed during atrio-BiVP with a "roving LV lead." Up to four locations were studied: mid-lateral wall, mid-septum (or a close alternative), site of greatest hemodynamic improvement, and LV lead implant site. The AVopt was compared to a fixed AV delay of 180 ms. RESULTS: Seventeen patients were included (12 male, aged 66.5 ± 12.8 years, ejection fraction 26 ± 7%, 16 left bundle branch block or high percentage of right ventricular pacing [RVP], QRS duration 167 ± 27 ms). In most locations (62/63), AVopt increased systolic blood pressure during BiVP compared with RVP (relative improvement 6 mmHg, interquartile range [IQR] 4-9 mmHg). Compared to a fixed AV delay, the hemodynamic improvement at AVopt was higher (1 mmHg, IQR 0.2-2.6 mmHg, p < .001). Within most patients (16/17), we observed a difference in AVopt between pacing sites (median paced AVopt 209 ms, IQR 117-250). Within this range, the hemodynamic impact of these differences was small (median loss 0.6 mmHg, IQR 0.1-2.6 mmHg). CONCLUSION: Within a patient, different endocardial LV lead locations have slightly different hemodynamic AVopt which are superior to a fixed AV delay. The hemodynamic consequence of applying an optimum from a different lead location is small.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), and Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last five years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: executive summary. Endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS) and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique. A synopsis is provided in this print edition of EP-Europace. The full document may be consulted online, and a 'Key Messages' App can be downloaded from the EHRA website.

Comparison of methods for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy: an acute electrical and haemodynamic within-patient comparison of left bundle branch area, His bundle, and biventricular pacing.

AIMS: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising method for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but its relative physiological effectiveness compared with His bundle pacing (HBP) is unknown. We conducted a within-patient comparison of HBP, LBBAP, and biventricular pacing (BVP). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients referred for CRT were recruited. We assessed electrical response using non-invasive mapping, and acute haemodynamic response using a high-precision haemodynamic protocol. Nineteen patients were recruited: 14 male, mean LVEF of 30%. Twelve had time for BVP measurements. All three modalities reduced total ventricular activation time (TVAT), (ΔTVATHBP -43 ± 14 ms and ΔTVATLBBAP -35 ± 20 ms vs. ΔTVATBVP -19 ± 30 ms, P = 0.03 and P = 0.1, respectively). HBP produced a significantly greater reduction in TVAT compared with LBBAP in all 19 patients (-46 ± 15 ms, -36 ± 17 ms, P = 0.03). His bundle pacing and LBBAP reduced left ventricular activation time (LVAT) more than BVP (ΔLVATHBP -43 ± 16 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATLBBAP -45 ± 17 ms, P < 0.01 vs. BVP, ΔLVATBVP -13 ± 36 ms), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.65). Acute systolic blood pressure was increased by all three modalities. In the 12 with BVP, greater improvement was seen with HBP and LBBAP (6.4 ± 3.8 mmHg BVP, 8.1 ± 3.8 mmHg HBP, P = 0.02 vs. BVP and 8.4 ± 8.2 mmHg for LBBAP, P = 0.3 vs. BVP), with no difference between HBP and LBBAP (P = 0.8). CONCLUSION: HBP delivered better ventricular resynchronization than LBBAP because right ventricular activation was slower during LBBAP. But LBBAP was not inferior to HBP with respect to LV electrical resynchronization and acute haemodynamic response.

Catheter ablation improves cardiovascular outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

AIMS: The effect of atrial fibrillation catheter ablation on cardiovascular outcomes in heart failure is an important outstanding research question. We undertook a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing ablation to medical therapy in patients with AF and heart failure. METHODS AND RESULTS: We systematically identified all trials comparing catheter ablation to medical therapy in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. The pre-specified primary endpoint was all-cause mortality in trials with at least 2 years of follow-up. The secondary endpoint was heart failure hospitalization. Sensitivity analyses were performed for trials with any follow-up and trials deemed at low risk of bias. Eight trials (1390 patients) were included. Seven hundred and seven patients were randomized to catheter ablation and 683 to medical therapy. In the primary analysis (three trials, n = 977), catheter ablation reduced mortality compared with medical therapy [relative risk (RR): 0.61, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.44 to 0.84, P = 0.003]. Catheter ablation also reduced heart failure hospitalizations compared with medical therapy (RR: 0.60, 95% CI: 0.49-0.74, P < 0.001). The effect on stroke was not statistically significant (RR: 0.62, 95% CI: 0.28-1.37, P = 0.237). There was low heterogeneity between studies. Sensitivity analyses were consistent with the primary analyses. CONCLUSION: In patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure, catheter ablation reduces mortality and the occurrence of heart failure hospitalizations.

Upgrading right ventricular pacemakers to biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guidelines recommend patients undergoing a first pacemaker implant who have even mild left ventricular (LV) impairment should receive biventricular or conduction system pacing (CSP). There is no corresponding recommendation for patients who already have a pacemaker. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing device upgrades. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Six RCTs (randomizing 161 patients) and 47 observational studies (2644 patients) assessing the efficacy of upgrade to biventricular pacing were eligible for analysis. Eight observational studies recruiting 217 patients of CSP upgrade were also eligible. Fourteen additional studies contributed data on complications (25 412 patients). Randomized controlled trials of biventricular pacing upgrade showed LVEF improvement of +8.4% from 35.5% and observational studies: +8.4% from 25.7%. Observational studies of left bundle branch area pacing upgrade showed +11.1% improvement from 39.0% and observational studies of His bundle pacing upgrade showed +12.7% improvement from 36.0%. New York Heart Association class decreased by -0.4, -0.8, -1.0, and -1.2, respectively. Randomized controlled trials of biventricular upgrade found improvement in Minnesota Heart Failure Score (-6.9 points) and peak oxygen uptake (+1.1 mL/kg/min). This was also seen in observational studies of biventricular upgrades (-19.67 points and +2.63 mL/kg/min, respectively). In studies of the biventricular upgrade, complication rates averaged 2% for pneumothorax, 1.4% for tamponade, and 3.7% for infection over 24 months of mean follow-up. Lead-related complications occurred in 3.3% of biventricular upgrades and 1.8% of CSP upgrades. Randomized controlled trials show significant physiological and symptomatic benefits of upgrading pacemakers to biventricular pacing. Observational studies show similar effects between biventricular pacing upgrade and CSP upgrade.

Conduction system pacing, a European survey: insights from clinical practice.

AIMS: The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.

Ablation versus anti-arrhythmic therapy for reducing all hospital episodes from recurrent atrial fibrillation: a prospective, randomized, multi-centre, open label trial.

AIMS: There is rising healthcare utilization related to the increasing incidence and prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) worldwide. Simplifying therapy and reducing hospital episodes would be a valuable development. The efficacy of a streamlined AF ablation approach was compared to drug therapy and a conventional catheter ablation technique for symptom control in paroxysmal AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited 321 patients with symptomatic paroxysmal AF to a prospective randomized, multi-centre, open label trial at 13 UK hospitals. Patients were randomized 1:1:1 to cryo-balloon ablation without electrical mapping with patients discharged same day [Ablation Versus Anti-arrhythmic Therapy for Reducing All Hospital Episodes from Recurrent (AVATAR) protocol]; optimization of drug therapy; or cryo-balloon ablation with confirmation of pulmonary vein isolation and overnight hospitalization. The primary endpoint was time to any hospital episode related to treatment for atrial arrhythmia. Secondary endpoints included complications of treatment and quality-of-life measures. The hazard ratio (HR) for a primary endpoint event occurring when comparing AVATAR protocol arm to drug therapy was 0.156 (95% CI, 0.097-0.250; P < 0.0001 by Cox regression). Twenty-three patients (21%) recorded an endpoint event in the AVATAR arm compared to 76 patients (74%) within the drug therapy arm. Comparing AVATAR and conventional ablation arms resulted in a non-significant HR of 1.173 (95% CI, 0.639-2.154; P = 0.61 by Cox regression) with 23 patients (21%) and 19 patients (18%), respectively, recording primary endpoint events (P = 0.61 by log-rank test). CONCLUSION: The AVATAR protocol was superior to drug therapy for avoiding hospital episodes related to AF treatment, but conventional cryoablation was not superior to the AVATAR protocol. This could have wide-ranging implications on how demand for AF symptom control is met. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02459574.

Left bundle branch pacing with and without anodal capture: impact on ventricular activation pattern and acute haemodynamics.

AIMS: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) can deliver physiological left ventricular activation, but typically at the cost of delayed right ventricular (RV) activation. Right ventricular activation can be advanced through anodal capture, but there is uncertainty regarding the mechanism by which this is achieved, and it is not known whether this produces haemodynamic benefit. METHODS AND RESULTS: We recruited patients with LBBP leads in whom anodal capture eliminated the terminal R-wave in lead V1. Ventricular activation pattern, timing, and high-precision acute haemodynamic response were studied during LBBP with and without anodal capture. We recruited 21 patients with a mean age of 67 years, of whom 14 were males. We measured electrocardiogram timings and haemodynamics in all patients, and in 16, we also performed non-invasive mapping. Ventricular epicardial propagation maps demonstrated that RV septal myocardial capture, rather than right bundle capture, was the mechanism for earlier RV activation. With anodal capture, QRS duration and total ventricular activation times were shorter (116 ± 12 vs. 129 ± 14 ms, P < 0.01 and 83 ± 18 vs. 90 ± 15 ms, P = 0.01). This required higher outputs (3.6 ± 1.9 vs. 0.6 ± 0.2 V, P < 0.01) but without additional haemodynamic benefit (mean difference -0.2 ± 3.8 mmHg compared with pacing without anodal capture, P = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Left bundle branch pacing with anodal capture advances RV activation by stimulating the RV septal myocardium. However, this requires higher outputs and does not improve acute haemodynamics. Aiming for anodal capture may therefore not be necessary.

Septal scar as a barrier to left bundle branch area pacing.

BACKGROUND: The use of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization is increasing, but implants are not always successful. We prospectively studied consecutive patients to determine whether septal scar contributes to implant failure. METHODS: Patients scheduled for bradycardia pacing or cardiac resynchronization therapy were prospectively enrolled. Recruited patients underwent preprocedural scar assessment by cardiac MRI with late gadolinium enhancement imaging. LBBAP was attempted using a lumenless lead (Medtronic 3830) via a transeptal approach. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were recruited: 29 male, mean age 68 years, 10 ischemic, and 16 non-ischemic cardiomyopathy. Pacing indication was bradycardia in 26% and cardiac resynchronization in 74%. The lead was successfully deployed to the left ventricular septum in 30/35 (86%) and unsuccessful in the remaining 5/35 (14%). Septal late gadolinium enhancement was significantly less extensive in patients where left septal lead deployment was successful, compared those where it was unsuccessful (median 8%, IQR 2%-18% vs. median 54%, IQR 53%-57%, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The presence of septal scar appears to make it more challenging to deploy a lead to the left ventricular septum via the transeptal route. Additional implant tools or alternative approaches may be required in patients with extensive septal scar.

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.

Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study.

AIMS: Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.

Device-related complications in subcutaneous versus transvenous ICD: a secondary analysis of the PRAETORIAN trial.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) is developed to overcome lead-related complications and systemic infections, inherent to transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) therapy. The PRAETORIAN trial demonstrated that the S-ICD is non-inferior to the TV-ICD with regard to the combined primary endpoint of inappropriate shocks and complications. This prespecified secondary analysis evaluates all complications in the PRAETORIAN trial. METHODS AND RESULTS: The PRAETORIAN trial is an international, multicentre, randomized trial in which 849 patients with an indication for ICD therapy were randomized to receive an S- ICD (N = 426) or TV-ICD (N = 423) and followed for a median of 49 months. Endpoints were device-related complications, lead-related complications, systemic infections, and the need for invasive interventions. Thirty-six device-related complications occurred in 31 patients in the S-ICD group of which bleedings were the most frequent. In the TV-ICD group, 49 complications occurred in 44 patients of which lead dysfunction was most frequent (HR: 0.69; P = 0.11). In both groups, half of all complications were within 30 days after implantation. Lead-related complications and systemic infections occurred significantly less in the S-ICD group compared with the TV-ICD group (P < 0.001, P = 0.03, respectively). Significantly more complications required invasive interventions in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group (8.3% vs. 4.3%, HR: 0.59; P = 0.047). CONCLUSION: This secondary analysis shows that lead-related complications and systemic infections are more prevalent in the TV-ICD group compared with the S-ICD group. In addition, complications in the TV-ICD group were more severe as they required significantly more invasive interventions. This data contributes to shared decision-making in clinical practice.

The V-LAP System for Remote Left Atrial Pressure Monitoring of Patients With Heart Failure: Remote Left Atrial Pressure Monitoring.

OBJECTIVE: Patients with heart failure (HF) are at an increased risk of hospital admissions. The aim of this report is to describe the feasibility, safety and accuracy of a novel wireless left atrial pressure (LAP) monitoring system in patients with HF. METHODS: The V-LAP Left Atrium Monitoring systEm for Patients With Chronic sysTOlic & Diastolic Congestive heart Failure (VECTOR-HF) study is a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, open-label, first-in human clinical trial to assess the safety, performance and usability of the V-LAP system (Vectorious Medical Technologies) in patients with New York Heart Association class III HF. The device was implanted in the interatrial septum via a percutaneous, trans-septal approach guided by fluoroscopy and echocardiography. Primary endpoints included the successful deployment of the implant, the ability to perform initial pressure measurements and safety outcomes. RESULTS: To date, 24 patients have received implants of the LAP-monitoring device. No device-related complications have occurred. LAP was reported accurately, agreeing well with wedge pressure at 3 months (Lin concordance correlation coefficient = 0.850). After 6 months, New York Heart Association class improved in 40% of the patients (95% CI = 16.4%-63.5%), while the 6-minute walk test distance had not changed significantly (313.9 ± 144.9 vs 232.5 ± 129.9 meters; P = 0.076). CONCLUSION: The V-LAP left atrium monitoring system appears to be safe and accurate.

Standard care vs. TRIVEntricular pacing in Heart Failure (STRIVE HF): a prospective multicentre randomized controlled trial of triventricular pacing vs. conventional biventricular pacing in patients with heart failure and intermediate QRS left bundle branch block.

AIMS: To determine whether triventricular (TriV) pacing is feasible and improves CRT response compared to conventional biventricular (BiV) pacing in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and intermediate QRS prolongation (120-150 ms). METHODS AND RESULTS: Between October 2015 and November 2019, 99 patients were recruited from 11 UK centres. Ninety-five patients were randomized 1:1 to receive TriV or BiV pacing systems. The primary endpoint was feasibility of TriV pacing. Secondary endpoints assessed symptomatic and remodelling response to CRT. Baseline characteristics were balanced between groups. In the TriV group, 43/46 (93.5%) patients underwent successful implantation vs. 47/49 (95.9%) in the BiV group. Feasibility of maintaining CRT at 6 months was similar in the TriV vs. BiV group (90.0% vs. 97.7%, P = 0.191). All-cause mortality was similar between TriV vs. BiV groups (4.3% vs. 8.2%, P = 0.678). There were no significant differences in echocardiographic LV volumes or clinical composite scores from baseline to 6-month follow-up between groups. CONCLUSION: Implantation of two LV leads to deliver and maintain TriV pacing at 6 months is feasible without significant complications in the majority of patients. There was no evidence that TriV pacing improves CRT response or provides additional clinical benefit to patients with LBBB and intermediate QRS prolongation and cannot be recommended in this patient group. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02529410.

Optimizing atrio-ventricular delay in pacemakers using potentially implantable physiological biomarkers.

BACKGROUND: Hemodynamically optimal atrioventricular (AV) delay can be derived by echocardiography or beat-by-beat blood pressure (BP) measurements, but analysis is labor intensive. Laser Doppler perfusion monitoring measures blood flow and can be incorporated into future implantable cardiac devices. We assess whether laser Doppler can be used instead of BP to optimize AV delay. METHODS: Fifty eight patients underwent 94 AV delay optimizations with biventricular or His-bundle pacing using laser Doppler and simultaneous noninvasive beat-by-beat BP. Optimal AV delay was defined using a curve of hemodynamic response to switching from AAI (reference state) to DDD (test state) at several AV delays (40-320 ms), with automatic quality control checking precision of the optimum. Five subsequent patients underwent an extended protocol to test the impact of greater numbers of alternations on optimization quality. RESULTS: 55/94 optimizations passed quality control resulting in an optimal AV delay on laser Doppler similar to that derived by BP (median absolute deviation 12 ms). An extended protocol with increasing number of replicates consistently improved quality and reduced disagreement between laser Doppler and BP optima. With only five replicates, no optimization passed quality control, and the median absolute deviation would be 29 ms. These improved progressively until at 50 replicates, all optimizations passed quality control and the median absolute deviation was only 13 ms. CONCLUSIONS: Laser Doppler perfusion produces hemodynamic optima equivalent to BP. Quality control can be automatic. Adding more replicates, consistently improves quality. Future implantable devices could use such methods to dynamically and reliably optimize AV delays.

Targeting the ectopy-triggering ganglionated plexuses without pulmonary vein isolation prevents atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Ganglionated plexuses (GPs) are implicated in atrial fibrillation (AF). Endocardial high-frequency stimulation (HFS) delivered within the local atrial refractory period can trigger ectopy and AF from specific GP sites (ET-GP). The aim of this study was to understand the role of ET-GP ablation in the treatment of AF. METHODS: Patients with paroxysmal AF indicated for ablation were recruited. HFS mapping was performed globally around the left atrium to identify ET-GP. ET-GP was defined as atrial ectopy or atrial arrhythmia triggered by HFS. All ET-GP were ablated, and PVs were left electrically connected. Outcomes were compared with a control group receiving pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Patients were followed-up for 12 months with multiple 48-h Holter ECGs. Primary endpoint was ≥30 s AF/atrial tachycardia in ECGs. RESULTS: In total, 67 patients were recruited and randomized to ET-GP ablation (n = 39) or PVI (n = 28). In the ET-GP ablation group, 103 ± 28 HFS sites were tested per patient, identifying 21 ± 10 (20%) GPs. ET-GP ablation used 23.3 ± 4.1 kWs total radiofrequency (RF) energy per patient, compared with 55.7 ± 22.7 kWs in PVI (p = <.0001). Duration of procedure was 3.7 ± 1.0 and 3.3 ± 0.7 h in ET-GP ablation group and PVI, respectively (p = .07). Follow-up at 12 months showed that 61% and 49% were free from ≥30 s of AF/AT with PVI and ET-GP ablation respectively (log-rank p = .27). CONCLUSIONS: It is feasible to perform detailed global functional mapping with HFS and ablate ET-GP to prevent AF. This provides direct evidence that ET-GPs are part of the AF mechanism. The lower RF requirement implies that ET-GP targets the AF pathway more specifically.

Electrocardiographic predictors of successful resynchronization of left bundle branch block by His bundle pacing.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) is an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) for delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure and left bundle branch block (LBBB). It is not known whether ventricular activation times and patterns achieved by HBP are equivalent to intact conduction systems and not all patients with LBBB are resynchronized by HBP. OBJECTIVE: To compare activation times and patterns of His-CRT with BVP-CRT, LBBB and intact conduction systems. METHODS: In patients with LBBB, noninvasive epicardial mapping (ECG imaging) was performed during BVP and temporary HBP. Intrinsic activation was mapped in all subjects. Left ventricular activation times (LVAT) were measured and epicardial propagation mapping (EPM) was performed, to visualize epicardial wavefronts. Normal activation pattern and a normal LVAT range were determined from normal subjects. RESULTS: Forty-five patients were included, 24 with LBBB and LV impairment, and 21 with normal 12-lead ECG and LV function. In 87.5% of patients with LBBB, His-CRT successfully shortened LVAT by ≥10 ms. In 33.3%, His-CRT resulted in complete ventricular resynchronization, with activation times and patterns indistinguishable from normal subjects. EPM identified propagation discontinuity artifacts in 83% of patients with LBBB. This was the best predictor of whether successful resynchronization was achieved by HBP (logarithmic odds ratio, 2.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.07-4.31; p = .04). CONCLUSION: Noninvasive electrocardiographic mapping appears to identify patients whose LBBB can be resynchronized by HBP. In contrast to BVP, His-CRT may deliver the maximum potential ventricular resynchronization, returning activation times, and patterns to those seen in normal hearts.

Non-invasive detection of exercise-induced cardiac conduction abnormalities in sudden cardiac death survivors in the inherited cardiac conditions.

AIMS: Rate adaptation of the action potential ensures spatial heterogeneities in conduction across the myocardium are minimized at different heart rates providing a protective mechanism against ventricular fibrillation (VF) and sudden cardiac death (SCD), which can be quantified by the ventricular conduction stability (V-CoS) test previously described. We tested the hypothesis that patients with a history of aborted SCD due to an underlying channelopathy or cardiomyopathy have a reduced capacity to maintain uniform activation following exercise. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty individuals, with (n = 28) and without (n = 32) previous aborted-SCD event underwent electro-cardiographic imaging recordings following exercise treadmill test. These included 25 Brugada syndrome, 13 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 12 idiopathic VF, and 10 healthy controls. Data were inputted into the V-CoS programme to calculate a V-CoS score that indicate the percentage of ventricle that showed no significant change in ventricular activation, with a lower score indicating the development of greater conduction heterogeneity. The SCD group, compared to those without, had a lower median (interquartile range) V-CoS score at peak exertion [92.8% (89.8-96.3%) vs. 97.3% (94.9-99.1%); P < 0.01] and 2 min into recovery [95.2% (91.1-97.2%) vs. 98.9% (96.9-99.5%); P < 0.01]. No significant difference was observable later into recovery at 5 or 10 min. Using the lowest median V-CoS scores obtained during the entire recovery period post-exertion, SCD survivors had a significantly lower score than those without for each of the different underlying aetiologies. CONCLUSION: Data from this pilot study demonstrate the potential use of this technique in risk stratification for the inherited cardiac conditions.