Single operator experience, learning curve, outcomes, and insights gained with conduction system pacing.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is increasingly utilized to prevent and correct dyssynchrony. Barriers to CSP adoption include limited training, methodologic variability, laboratory slot allocation, and few data on learning curves. We report learning curves/clinical outcomes from a single experienced electrophysiologist who was new to CSP, and share gained insights. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent attempted CSP implantation (2016-2023). Patient characteristics, ECGs, echocardiograms, fluoroscopy/procedure times, lead data were recorded at implant and follow-up. RESULTS: CSP leads were implanted successfully in 167/191(87.4%) patients with a follow-up of 278 ± 378 days. His-bundle pacing (HBP = 59) and left-bundle-area pacing (LBAP = 108) had similar procedure/fluoroscopy times, QRS duration decreases, and ejection fraction improvements (all p > NS). Eight HBP lead revisions were required for high capture thresholds LBAP demonstrated lower pacing thresholds, higher lead impedances, and greater R-wave amplitudes at implant and follow-up. After 25 HBP cases, implant pacing thresholds, fluoroscopy, procedural times did not decrease. After 25 LBAP cases, there were significant decreases in all these parameters (p < 0.05). A separate analysis in LBAP patients with recorded Purkinje signals showed no differences in paced ECG characteristics between patients with pre- QRS Purkinje signals versus patients with Purkinje signals post-QRS onset. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced implanters who are new to CSP can achieve steady-state procedural/fluoroscopy times after a learning curve of 25 implants. LBAP showed lower capture thresholds and higher success rates. Adequate depth of lead deployment (as determined by published parameters) does not require Purkinje potential to be pre-QRS. Operators new to CSP.can forego HBP and directly implement LBAP.

Permanent his bundle pacing: Description and comparison of four implantation techniques.

INTRODUCTION: Permanent His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiological pacing modality, and new implantation systems are now available. The aim of the present study was to describe and compare four different techniques to perform HBP. METHODS AND RESULTS: We included all consecutive patients who underwent a HBP attempt in our initial experience between June 2020 and May 2022. The success and characteristics of the procedure were compared among four implantation techniques: the Biotronik Selectra 3D sheath with Solia S60 lead (Selectra 3D), the Boston Scientific Site Selective Pacing Catheter with Ingevity lead (SSPC), the Abbott steerable stylet locator with Tendril lead (Locator), and the use of a standard stylet manually pre-shaped with a conventional pacing lead (Curved stylet). Ninety-eight patients (median age 79 years [interquartile range, 73-83], 83% men) were identified. The Selectra 3D technique was used in 43 procedures, SSPC in 26, Locator in 18 and Curved stylet in 11. The groups had similar clinical characteristics. Overall, procedural success was achieved in 91 patients (93%) with similar proportions among groups (p = .986). Fluoroscopy and procedural times were 6.0 (4.4-8.5) and 60 (45-75) min, respectively, without significant differences (p = .333 and p = .790). The rate of selective capture, the pacing threshold, and the paced QRS duration were also comparable. There was one pre-discharge HBP lead dislodgment (1%) that required implant revision. CONCLUSION: In our experience, four techniques for HBP achieved comparable results in terms of safety and effectiveness. The availability of different systems may lead to widespread use of physiological pacing.

Alternative atrial pacing site to improve cardiac function: focus on Bachmann's bundle pacing.

Pacing from the right atrial appendage (RAA) prolongs the P wave duration and can induce interatrial and especially left-sided atrio-ventricular dyssynchrony. Pacing from Bachmann's bundle closely reproduces normal physiology and has the potential to avoid the electromechanical dysfunction associated with conventional RAA pacing. Interatrial conduction delay is associated with an increased risk of stroke, heart failure, and death. In addition to a reduction in atrial fibrillation, Bachmann's bundle pacing has emerging applications as a hemodynamic pacing modality. This review outlines the pathophysiology of atrial conduction disturbances and their potential remedies and provides the reader with a practical guide to implementing Bachmann's bundle pacing with an emphasis on the recapitulation of normal electrical and mechanical function.

Left bundle branch area pacing guided by continuous uninterrupted monitoring of unipolar pacing characteristics.

INTRODUCTION: During left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) lead implantation, intermittent monitoring of unipolar pacing characteristics confirms LBB capture and can detect septal perforation. We aimed to demonstrate that continuous uninterrupted unipolar pacing from an inserted lead stylet (LS) is feasible and facilitates LBBAP implantation. METHODS: Thirty patients (mean age 76 ± 14 years) were implanted with a stylet-driven pacing lead (Biotronik Solia S60). In 10 patients (comparison-group) conventional implantation with interrupted unipolar pacing was performed, with comparison of unipolar pacing characteristics between LS and connector-pin (CP)-pacing after each rotation step. In 20 patients (uninterrupted-group) performance and safety of uninterrupted implantation during continuous pacing from the LS were evaluated. RESULTS: In the comparison group, LS and CP-pacing impedances were highly correlated (R2 = 0.95, p < .0001, bias 12 ± 37 Ω) with comparable sensed electrograms and paced QRS morphologies. In the uninterrupted group, continuous LS-pacing allowed beat-to-beat monitoring of impedance and QRS morphology to guide implantation. This resulted in successful LBBAP in all patients, after a mean of 1 ± 0 attempts, with mean threshold 0.81 ± 0.4 V, median sensing 6.5 mV [IQR 4.4-9.5], and mean impedance 624 ± 101 Ω. Positive LBBAP-criteria were seen in all patients with median paced QRS duration of 120 ms [IQR 112-152 ms] and median pLVAT 73 ms [IQR 68-80.5 ms]. No septal perforation occurred. CONCLUSION: Unipolar pacing from the LS allows accurate determination of pacing impedance and generates similar paced QRS morphologies and sensed electrograms to CP pacing. Continuous LS pacing allows real-time monitoring of impedance and paced QRS morphology, which facilitates safe and successful LBBAP lead implantation.

Durability of left bundle branch area pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a form of conduction system pacing. Long-term data on the safety and performance of LBBAP 1 year postdevice implantation has not been well described. METHODS AND RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (49% females) who received LBBAP for bradycardia indications using the SelectSecure 3830 lead (Medtronic) were retrospectively evaluated. Clinical variables were examined. Lead parameters were obtained at implant and during regular follow-up. Mean age of patients was 75.7 ± 10.1 years with left ventricular ejection fraction 59.8 ± 10.4%. Indications for pacing were atrioventricular block 55%, sinus node dysfunction 19%, tachy-brady syndrome 15%, atrioventricular node ablation 8%, and bail out cardiac resynchronization therapy 3%. Mean baseline QRS measured 120 ± 38 ms, paced QRS duration was 138 ± 22ms. Paced QRS narrowed by 24 ms in those with pre-existing left bundle branch block (BBB), increased by 1 ms in those with pre-existing right BBB, and increased by 42 ms in those with no BBB. LBBAP threshold at implant was 0.521 ± 0.153 V at 0.4 ms, and increased to 0.654 ± 0.186 V at 3 months (+26%), 0.707 ± 0.186 V at 6 months (+36%), and 0.772 ± 0.220 V at 12 months (+48%). Patients with left BBB showed the maximum benefit with QRS narrowing 24 ms. Pacing impedance remained unchanged with no procedure-related complications. CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a durable form of conduction system pacing with pacing thresholds remaining relatively stable over 12 months post device implantation. Patients with left BBB display the narrowest paced QRS.

A single-center experience with early adoption of physiologic pacing approaches.

BACKGROUND: Increasing interest in physiological pacing has been countered with challenges such as accurate lead deployment and increasing pacing thresholds with His-bundle pacing (HBP). More recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative approach to physiologic pacing. OBJECTIVE: To compare procedural outcomes and pacing parameters at follow-up during initial adoption of HBP and LBBAP at a single center. METHODS: Retrospective review, from September 2016 to January 2020, identified the first 50 patients each who underwent successful HBP or LBBAP. Pacing parameters were then assessed at first follow-up after implantation and after approximately 1 year, evaluating for acceptable pacing parameters defined as sensing R-wave amplitude >5 mV, threshold <2.5 V @ 0.5 ms, and impedance between 400 and 1200 Ω. RESULTS: The HBP group was younger with lower ejection fraction compared to LBBAP (73.2 ± 15.3 vs. 78.2 ± 9.2 years, p = .047; 51.0 ± 15.9% vs. 57.0 ± 13.1%, p = .044). Post-procedural QRS widths were similarly narrow (119.8 ± 21.2 vs. 116.7 ± 15.2 ms; p = .443) in both groups. Significantly fewer patients with HBP met the outcome for acceptable pacing parameters at initial follow-up (56.0% vs. 96.4%, p = .001) and most recent follow-up (60.7% vs. 94.9%, p ≤ .001; at 399 ± 259 vs. 228 ± 124 days, p ≤ .001). More HBP patients required lead revision due to early battery depletion or concern for pacing failure (0% vs. 13.3%, at a mean of 664 days). CONCLUSION: During initial adoption, HBP is associated with a significantly higher frequency of unacceptable pacing parameters, energy consumption, and lead revisions compared with LBBAP.

Initial experience of left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven pacing leads: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been performed exclusively using lumen-less pacing leads (LLL) with fixed helix design. This registry study explores the safety and feasibility of LBBAP using stylet-driven leads (SDL) with extendable helix design in a multicenter patient population. METHODS: This study prospectively enrolled consecutive patients who underwent LBBAP for bradycardia pacing or heart failure indications at eight Belgian hospitals. LBBAP was attempted using SDL (Solia S60; Biotronik) delivered through dedicated delivery sheath (Selectra3D). Implant success, complications, procedural, and pacing characteristics were recorded at implant and follow-up. RESULTS: The study enrolled 353 patients (mean age 76 ± 39 years, 43% female). The mean number of implants per center was 25 (range: 5-162). Overall, LBBAP with SDL was successful in 334/353 (94%), varying from 93% to 100% among centers. Pacing response was labeled as left bundle branch pacing in 73%, whereas 27% were labeled as myocardial capture. Mean paced QRS duration and stimulus to left ventricular activation time measured 126 ± 21 ms and 74 ± 17. SDL-LBBAP resulted in low pacing thresholds (0.6 ± 0.4 V at 0.4 ms), which remained stable at 12 months follow-up (0.7 ± 0.3, p = .291). Lead revisions for SDL-LBBAP occurred in 5 (1.4%) patients occurred during a mean follow up of 9 ± 5 months. Five (1.4%) septal coronary artery fistulas and 8 (2%) septal perforations occurred, none of them causing persistent ventricular septal defects. CONCLUSION: The use of SDL to achieve LBBAP is safe and feasible, characterized by high implant success in low and high volume centers, low complication rates, and stable low pacing thresholds.

Preliminary experience of permanent left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-directed pacing lead without delivery sheath.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) aims to capture the cardiac conduction system in area of the left bundle branch. Currently, LBBAP is mainly performed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with preshaped sheath. However, the data on LBBAP with stylet-driven leads (SDLs) without sheath is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study presents the feasibility, safety, and pacing characteristics of LBBAP using SDLs without the support of sheath. METHODS: A total of 25 patients with bradycardia indications who received LBBAP implantation with an attempt of SDL (FINELINE II 4471 lead, Boston Scientific, MA, US) between August 2020 and April 2021 at Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital were included in this retrospective cohort study. Twenty of them finally were paced with SDL in priority (SDL-LBBAP group). Twenty propensity score matching patients who underwent LBBAP with LLL (Select Secure 3830 lead, Medtronic, MN, US) and 20 right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) with regular active fixation lead respectively in the same period (the LLL-LBBAP group and RVSP group) were compared using ECG characteristics, pacing parameters and complications during 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: LBBAP was successful with SDL in 23 of 25 patients (92%) and 20 of them were paced with SDL first. In the SDL-LBBAP group, the average age was 70.4 ± 8.2 years, and 55% of patients were male. Paced QRS duration and the stimulus to peak left ventricular activation time (Sti-LVAT) in SDL-LBBAP group were similar with those in LLL-LBBAP group and significantly shorter than those in RVSP group (126.1±14.1 ms vs. 124.8±10.9 ms, p = 1.00; 77.7 ± 11.2 ms vs. 73.5 ± 9.3 ms, P = .75; 126.1 ± 14.1 ms vs. 147.7 ± 22.5 ms, P<.001; 77.7 ± 11.2 ms vs. 97.0 ± 13.2 ms, P<.001). The pacing threshold and R-wave amplitude of SDL-LBBAP group were 0.53 ± 0.18V and 11.53 ± 3.63 mV at baseline respectively, which were comparable with the other two groups. During the 6-month follow-up, the pacing parameters remained stable and no lead-related complications were recorded. CONCLUSION: It is feasible and safe to use stylet-directed pacing lead for permanent LBBAP without a delivery sheath. Similar to LLL, LBBAP using SDL showed stable parameters and narrower paced QRS duration compared with RVSP, which could be an alternative to LLL in LBBAP.

Bradyarrhythmias and Physiologic Pacing in the ICU.

Bradyarrhythmias represent a common pathology in the intensive care unit (ICU) with etiologies of varying severity. Treatment has often been focused on correcting underlying causes and may require pacing for urgent hemodynamic support. In recent years, there has been interest in physiologic pacing modalities which avoid the dyssynchrony from right ventricular (RV) only pacing. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) through biventricular pacing is a well-established device-based electrical therapy in patients with wide QRS and heart failure. Recently, it has been shown that biventricular pacing may also be pursued for hemodynamic rescue in the ICU setting. Efforts to re-engage the conduction system with His bundle pacing or further downstream have also emerged as alternative means to deliver resynchronization, with early applications in the ICU now being reported. The goal of the review is to examine bradyarrhythmia causes and management in the ICU as well as investigate new approaches in physiologic pacing and their potential roles in critically ill patients.

Initial experience, feasibility and safety of permanent left bundle branch pacing: results from a prospective single-centre study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing is a novel pacing technique which may serve as an alternative to both right ventricular pacing for symptomatic bradycardia and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). A substantial amount of data is reported by relatively few, highly experienced centres. This study describes the first experience of LBB pacing in a high-volume device centre. METHODS: Success rates (i.e. the ability to achieve LBB pacing), electrophysiological parameters and complications at implant and up to 6 months of follow-up were prospectively assessed in 100 consecutive patients referred for various pacing indications. RESULTS: The mean age was 71 ± 11 years and 65% were male. Primary pacing indication was atrioventricular (AV) block in 40%, CRT in 42%, and sinus node dysfunction or refractory atrial fibrillation prior to AV node ablation in 9% each. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction was < 50% in 57% of patients, mean baseline QRS duration 145 ± 34 ms. Overall LBB pacing was successful in 83 of 100 (83%) patients but tended to be lower in patients with CRT pacing indication (69%, p = ns). Mean left ventricular activation time (LVAT) during LBB pacing was 81 ms and paced QRS duration was 120 ± 19 ms. LBB capture threshold and R­wave sense at implant was 0.74 ± 0.4 mV at 0.4 ms and 11.9 ± 5.9 V and remained stable at 6­month follow-up. No complications occurred during implant or follow-up. CONCLUSION: LBB pacing for bradycardia pacing and resynchronisation therapy can be easily adopted by experienced implanters, with favourable success rates and safety profile.

Repositioning and extraction of stylet-driven pacing leads with extendable helix used for left bundle branch area pacing.

Conventional stylet-driven leads with extendable helix can be implanted successfully for left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) with a low acute complication rate. We report two cases in which lead repositioning after a first unsuccessful attempt to LBBAP was associated with fracture of the helix rotating mechanism and failure to fully extract the pacing lead.

Physiologic lead placement with electroanatomic mapping: A case series.

INTRODUCTION: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) have emerged as attractive alternatives to traditional biventricular pacing to achieve cardiac resynchronization therapy. Early reported results have been inconsistent, particularly amongst patients in whom initial placement with traditional approaches has been unsuccessful or those with complex anatomy or congenital abnormalities. In this report, we describe the use of three-dimensional electroanatomic mapping (EAM) in five selected cases. METHODS: Five patients from multiple clinical sites underwent EAM-guided HBP or LBBAP by highly trained electrophysiologists with significant experience with conduction system pacing. Each patient in this series underwent EAM-guided conduction system pacing due to complex anatomy and/or prior failed lead implantation. RESULTS: EAM-guided lead implantation was successful in all five cases. Capture thresholds were relatively low and patients continued to have evidence of successful lead implantation with minimum 1-month follow-up. The fluoroscopy time varied, likely owing to the variable complexity of the cases. CONCLUSIONS: The use of EAM, in combination with traditional intracardiac electrograms with or without fluoroscopy, allows more targeted and precise placement of leads for HBP and LBBAP pacing. Further investigation is needed to determine this strategy's long-term performance and to optimize patient selection.

Left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven pacing leads with a new delivery sheath: A comparison with lumen-less leads.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) aims to achieve physiological pacing by capturing the conduction system in the area of the left bundle branch. LBBAP has exclusively been performed using lumen-less pacing leads (LLLs) with fixed helix design. This study explores the feasibility, safety, and pacing characteristics of LBBAP using stylet-driven leads (SDLs) with an extendable helix design. METHODS: Patients, in which LBBAP was attempted for bradycardia or heart failure pacing indications, were prospectively enrolled at the Ghent University Hospital. LBBAP was attempted with two different systems: 1/LLL with fixed helix (SelectSecure 3830, Medtronic Inc.) delivered through a preshaped sheath (C315His Medtronic Inc.) and 2/SDL with extendable helix (Solia S60, Biotronik, SE & CO) delivered through a new delivery sheath (Selectra 3D, Biotronik). RESULTS: The study enrolled 50 patients (mean age: 70 ± 14 years, 44% females). LBBAP with SDL was successful in 20/23 (87%) patients compared with 24/27 (89%) of patients in the LLL group (p = 0.834). Screw attempts, screw implant depth, procedural, and fluoroscopy times were comparable among both groups. Acute LBBAP thresholds were low and comparable between SDL and LLL (0.5 ± 0.15 V vs. 0.4 ± 0.17 V, p = 0.251). Pacing thresholds remained low at 3 ± 2.1 months of follow up in both groups and no lead revisions were necessary. Postprocedural echocardiography revealed a septal coronary artery fistula in one patient with SDLLBBAP. CONCLUSION: LBBAP using stylet-driven pacing leads is feasible and yields comparable implant success to LBBAP with LLLs. LBBAP thresholds are low and comparable with both types of leads.

Is the left bundle branch pacing a choice to conquer the right bundle branch block?-A case report.

In patients with preserved ejection fraction or right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern requiring a high percentage of ventricular pacing, His-bundle pacing (HBP) might be an alternative to biventricular pacing, although the high threshold occasionally occurs. We provided a case of the intrinsic RBBB correction by capturing intra-Hisian left bundle branch (LBB) or distal His-bundle with different output settings. LBB pacing had the advantage of a much lower threshold while remained most synchrony as HBP. LBB pacing might be a promisingly safe and effective procedure for patients with high-grade atrioventricular (AV) block and RBBB pattern.

Perimembranous ventricular septal defect following His bundle lead implantation.

His bundle pacing (HBP) offers physiologic pacing by placing the pacing lead directly to the His bundle. We present a case in which a HBP lead, implanted at the fragile membranous septum, resulted in a persistent restrictive perimembranous ventricular septal defect (VSD). This complication of HBP has not been reported before but brings new insights in the discussion regarding the optimal position of a pacing lead in the ventricular septum. The fragility of the membranous septum and low rate of spontaneous closure of membranous VSD, might favor lead placement in the muscular septum when aiming for physiologic pacing.

Treatment of atypical pacemaker-mediated tachycardia with ablation of the retrograde atrioventricular nodal pathway.

A 25-year-old runner received a single-lead, VDD pacemaker after ablation of AV nodal reentrant tachycardia complicated by intermittent AV block. The rate-adaptive AV delay algorithm (RAAV), which shortens the sensed AV interval (SAV) at faster atrial rates, was programmed to provide a physiologic SAV with exercise. She developed repetitive, atypical, long-RP pacemaker-mediated tachycardia (PMT) because the RAAV shortened the antegrade SAV and retrograde conduction occurred over the slow AV nodal pathway. PMT was refractory to usual programming solutions. Using high-density electroanatomic mapping, we were able to ablate the retrograde limb of PMT without further damaging AV conduction.

Utilization of Permanent His-Bundle Pacing for Management of Proarrhythmia Related to Biventricular Pacing.

Biventricular pacing has occasionally been associated with ventricular proarrhythmia, which at times can be refractory to conventional antiarrhythmic drug therapy and ablative intervention. Recently, permanent His-bundle pacing has emerged as a reasonable alternative to right ventricular and biventricular pacing. In addition, by maintaining the physiologic pattern of ventricular electrical activation, it is less likely to be arrhythmogenic. We report the use of permanent His-bundle pacing to manage ventricular proarrhythmia that developed after initiation of biventricular pacing and was unresponsive to antiarrhythmic and ablative therapy.

Accuracy of the pacemaker-mediated tachycardia algorithm in Boston Scientific devices.

INTRODUCTION: The incidence of pacemaker-mediated tachycardia (PMT) varies as a function of patient characteristics, device programming and algorithm specificities. We investigated the efficacy of the Boston Scientific algorithm by reviewing PMT episodes in a large device population. METHODS: In this multicenter study, we included 328 patients implanted with a Boston Scientific device: 157 non-dependent patients with RYTHMIQ™ activated (RYTHMIQ group), 76 patients with permanent AV-conduction disorder (AV-block group) and 95 Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy patients (CRT group). For each patient, we reviewed the last 10 remote monitoring-transmitted EGMs diagnosed as PMT. RESULTS: We analyzed 784 PMT episodes across 118 patients. In the RYTHMIQ group, the diagnosis of PMT was correct in most episodes (80%) of which 69% was directly related to the prolongation of the AV-delay associated with the RYTHMIQ algorithm. The usual triggers for PMT were also observed (PVC 16%, PAC 9%). The remainder of the episodes (20%) in RYTHMIQ patients and most episodes of AV-block (66%) and CRT patients (74%) were incorrectly diagnosed as PMT during sinus tachycardia at the maximal tracking rate. The inappropriate intervention of the algorithm during exercise causes non-conducted P-waves, loss of CRT (sustained in six patients) and may have been pro-arrhythmogenic in one patient (induction of ventricular tachycardia). CONCLUSION: Algorithms to minimize ventricular pacing can occasionally have unintended consequences such as PMT. The PMT algorithm in Boston Scientific devices is associated with a high rate of incorrect PMT diagnosis during exercise resulting in inappropriate therapy with non-conducted P-waves, loss of CRT and limited risk of pro-arrhythmic events.