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.

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.

Acute myocardial infarction in a patient with permanent left bundle branch pacing.

BACKGROUND: Electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction in the setting of cardiac pacing represents diagnostic challenge. There are no focusing data, neither reporting about diagnostic sensitivity of 12­lead ECG with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) during acute myocardial infarction (AMI). CASE SUMMARY: We present 12­lead ECG morphology in a patient with permanent LBBAP during AMI. DISCUSSION: Abnormal repolarization changes induced by ventricular pacing can lead to delay in diagnosis in patients with AMI. LBBAP and overall conduction system pacing may facilitate a timely diagnosis providing additional, still underestimated, advantages of physiological pacing of the heart.

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.

Pacing of the specialized His-Purkinje conduction system: 'back to the future'.

The conduction system of the human heart is composed of specialized cardiomyocytes that initiate and propagate the electric impulse with consequent rhythmic and synchronized contraction of the atria and ventricles, resulting in the normal cardiac cycle. Although the His-Purkinje system (HPS) was already described more than a century ago, there has been a recent resurgence of conduction system pacing (CSP), where pacing leads are positioned in the His bundle region and left bundle branch area to provide physiological cardiac activation as alternatives to the unnatural myocardial stimulation obtained with conventional right ventricular and biventricular pacing. In this review, we describe the fundamental anatomical and pathophysiological aspects of the specialized HPS along with the CSP technique's nuts and bolts to highlight its potential benefits in everyday clinical practice.

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.

Conduction system pacing in difficult cardiac anatomies: Systematic approach with the 3D electroanatomic mapping guide.

INTRODUCTION: Restoring physiological cardiac electrical activity in patients with conduction disease can be crucial for the survival and quality of life. Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a valuable option, although it is limited by technical challenges in difficult anatomies. 3D electroanatomical mapping (3D-EAM) can support CSP ensuring high electro-anatomical precision and low fluoroscopy. OBJECTIVES: We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of a systematic 3D-EAM use to guide CSP in difficult anatomical scenarios (highly dilated atria, congenital cardiomyopathies, failed biventricular implants (BiV) and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM)). METHODS: Forty-three consecutive patients (27 males, 75 ± 10 years old) with standard pacing indications and difficult anatomical scenarios were included. The right atrium, His cloud, and atrio-ventricular septum were reconstructed by 3D-EAM. The His bundle (HB) was the initial target, while left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) was aimed at in case of unsatisfactory parameters, sub-optimally paced QRS, or impossibility of reaching the HB. RESULTS: CSP was successful in 37 (86%) patients (15 HBP; 22 LBBAP). Mean mapping, fluoroscopy, and procedural times were 18 ± 7 min, 7 ± 5 min, 98 ± 47 min, respectively. The mean pacing threshold, R wave sensing, and pacing impedance of CSP lead were 1.2 ± 0.5V@0.5ms, 11.4 ± 6.2 mV, 736 ± 306 Ω, respectively. Baseline and paced QRS were 139 ± 38 ms and 114 ± 23 ms, respectively. No procedural complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS: 3D-EAM allowed the accurate definition of the His cloud and high ventricular septum and effectively guided CSP. It facilitated CSP in complex anatomies, with a procedural success rate of 86%. The results were satisfactory and reproducible, with acceptable fluoroscopy and procedural times.

Occurrence of persistent atrial fibrillation during pacing for sinus node disease: The influence of His bundle pacing versus managed ventricular pacing.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with sinus node disease (SND), the dual-chamber pacemaker (PM) is programmed in DDDR mode with an algorithm to avoid unnecessary right ventricular (RV) pacing. This pacing mode may prolong PR interval with consequently atrioventricular (AV) asynchrony which is associated with a higher risk of atrial fibrillation (AF). We evaluate whether preserving AV synchrony by setting a fixed AV delay during physiological RV pacing, that is, His bundle pacing (HBP), could reduce the risk of AF occurrence in comparison with a standard pacing mode with an algorithm to avoid unnecessary RV pacing (DDD-VPA). METHODS AND RESULTS: We collected retrospective data from 313 consecutive patients who had undergone PM for SND. The first occurrence of persistent AF (>7 consecutive days) as a function of the pacing mode was evaluated. HBP and DDD-VPA were implemented in 82 and 231 patients, respectively. Persistent AF occurred in 128 (40.9%) patients over a median follow-up of 70 months (67-105). The DDD-VPA pacing mode was significantly correlated with the occurrence of persistent AF only when the basal PR was long (>180 ms). The risk of persistent AF was significantly lower in patients on HBP than in those on DDD-VPA, adjusted HR = .57 (95% CI, .36- .89, p=.014). Other independent predictors of persistent AF occurrence were: A history of AF (HR = 3.91; 95% CI, 2.48-6.19, p = .001), age, and long PR interval (HR = 2.98; 95% CI, 2.00-4.43, p=.001). CONCLUSION: In SND patients and long basal PR interval, the HBP may reduce the risk of persistent AF in comparison with the DDD-VPA.

EHRA expert consensus statement and practical guide on optimal implantation technique for conventional pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators: endorsed by the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS), the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), and the Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

With the global increase in device implantations, there is a growing need to train physicians to implant pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators. Although there are international recommendations for device indications and programming, there is no consensus to date regarding implantation technique. This document is founded on a systematic literature search and review, and on consensus from an international task force. It aims to fill the gap by setting standards for device implantation.