Implantable Cardiac Devices in Patients with Brady- and Tachy-Arrhythmias: An Update of the Literature.

Implantable cardiac devices are a vital treatment option in the management of tachy/brady-arrhythmias and heart failure with conduction disease. In the recent years, these devices have become increasingly sophisticated, with high implantation success rates and longevity. However, these devices are not without risks and complications, which need to be carefully considered before implantation. In an era of rapidly evolving cardiac device therapies, this review article will provide an update on the literature and outline some of the emerging technologies that aim to maximise the efficiency of implantable devices and reduce complications. We discuss novel pacing techniques, including alternative pacing sites in anti-bradycardia and biventricular pacing, as well as the latest evidence surrounding leadless device technologies and patient selection for implantable device therapies.

Electrocardiographic imaging demonstrates electrical synchrony improvement by dynamic atrioventricular delays in patients with left bundle branch block and preserved atrioventricular conduction.

AIMS: Cardiac resynchronization therapy programmed to dynamically fuse pacing with intrinsic conduction using atrioventricular (AV) timing algorithms (e.g. SyncAV) has shown promise; however, mechanistic data are lacking. This study assessed the impact of SyncAV on electrical dyssynchrony across various pacing modalities using non-invasive epicardial electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi). METHODS AND RESULTS: Twenty-five patients with left bundle-branch block (median QRS duration (QRSd) 162.7 ms) and intact AV conduction (PR interval 174.0 ms) were prospectively enrolled. ECGi was performed acutely during biventricular pacing with fixed nominal AV delays (BiV) and using SyncAV (optimized for the narrowest QRSd) during: BiV + SyncAV, LV-only single-site (LVSS + SyncAV), MultiPoint pacing (MPP + SyncAV), and LV-only MPP (LVMPP + SyncAV). Dyssynchrony was quantified via ECGi (LV activation time, LVAT; RV activation time, RVAT; LV electrical dispersion index, LVEDi; ventricular electrical uncoupling index, VEU; and biventricular total activation time, VVtat). Intrinsic conduction LVAT (124 ms) was significantly reduced by BiV pacing (109 ms) (P = 0.001) and further reduced by LVSS + SyncAV (103 ms), BiV + SyncAV (103 ms), LVMPP + SyncAV (95 ms), and MPP + SyncAV (90 ms). Intrinsic RVAT (93 ms), VVtat (130 ms), LVEDi (36 ms), VEU (50 ms), and QRSd (163 ms) were reduced by SyncAV across all pacing modes. More patients exhibited minimal LVAT, VVtat, LVEDi, and QRSd with MPP + SyncAV than any other modality. CONCLUSION: Dynamic AV delay programming targeting fusion with intrinsic conduction significantly reduced dyssynchrony, as quantified by ECGi and QRSd for all evaluated pacing modes. MPP + SyncAV achieved the greatest synchrony overall but not for all patients, highlighting the value of pacing mode individualization during fusion optimization.

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.

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.

Iatrogenic cardiac perforation due to pacemaker and defibrillator leads: a contemporary multicentre experience.

AIMS: To determine the incidence, clinical features, management, and outcomes of pacemaker (PM) and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead cardiac perforation. Cardiac perforations due to PM and ICD leads are rare but serious complications. Clinical features vary widely and may cause diagnostic delay. Management strategies are non-guideline based due to paucity of data. METHODS AND RESULTS: A multicentre retrospective series including 3 UK cardiac tertiary centres from 2016 to 2020. Patient, device, and lead characteristics were obtained including 6-month outcomes. Seventy cases of perforation were identified from 10 631 procedures; perforation rate was 0.50% for local implants. Thirty-nine (56%) patients were female, mean ( ± standard deviation) age 74 ( ± 13.8) years. Left ventricular ejection fraction 51 ( ± 13.2) %. Median time to diagnosis was 9 (range: 0-989) days. Computed tomography (CT) diagnosed perforation with 97% sensitivity. Lead parameter abnormalities were present in 86% (whole cohort) and 98.6% for perforations diagnosed >24 h. Chest pain was the commonest symptom, present in 46%. The management strategy was percutaneous in 98.6% with complete procedural success in 98.6%. Pericardial effusion with tamponade was present in 17% and was associated with significantly increased mortality and major complications. Anticoagulation status was associated with tamponade by multivariate analysis (odds ratio 21.7, 95% confidence interval: 1.7-275.5, P = 0.018). CONCLUSIONS: Perforation was rare (0.50%) and managed successfully by a percutaneous strategy with good outcomes. Tamponade was associated with increased mortality and major complications. Anticoagulation status was an independent predictor of tamponade. Case complexity is highly variable and requires skilled operators with a multi-disciplinary approach to achieve good outcomes.

Risk factors for developing pacing induced LV dysfunction: Experience from a tertiary center in the UK.

BACKGROUND: The risk factors for developing pacing induced left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) in patients with high burden of right ventricular pacing (RVP) is poorly understood. Therefore, in the present study, we aimed to assess the determinants of pacing induced LVD. METHODS: Our data were retrospectively collected from 146 patients with RVP > 40% who underwent generator change (GC) or cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade between 2016 and 2019 who had left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) ≥50% at initial implant. RESULTS: A total of 75 patients had CRT upgrade due to pacing induced LVD (EF < 50%) and 71 patients with preserved LV function (EF ≥ 50%) had a GC. Primary indication for pacing in both groups was complete heart block. Male predominance (p = .008), prior myocardial infarction (MI) (p = .001), atrial fibrillation (AF) (p = .009), chronic kidney disease (CKD) (p = .005), and borderline low systolic function (BLSF) (EF 50%-55%) (p = .04) were more prevalent in the CRT upgrade group. Presence of AF (odds ratio [OR] = 3.05, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.42-6.58; p = .004), BLSF (OR = 3.8, 95% CI 1.22-11.8; p = .02), and male gender (OR = 2.41, 95% CI 1.14-5.08; p = .02) were independent predictors for RVP induced LVD. Age (OR = 1.08, 95% CI 1.02-1.14; p = .005) and BLSF (OR = 5.33, 95% CI 1.26-22.5; p = .023) were independent predictors of earlier development of LVD after implant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggested that AF, BLSF, and male gender are predictors for development of pacing induced LVD in patients with high RVP burden. LVD can occur at any time after pacemaker implant with BLSF and increasing age associated with earlier development of LVD.

Early pacemaker implantation for transcatheter aortic valve implantation is safe and effective.

BACKGROUND: Permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation is a common complication of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). The optimum timing of PPM implantation is still unclear as conduction abnormalities evolve and a balance needs to be struck between conservative delays in the hope of conduction recovery and overutilization of pacing. This study aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of early PPM implantation, without an observation period, among TAVI patients. METHODS: This is a retrospective, observational study of 1398 TAVI patients. Clinical and pacing data were collected at baseline, 30 days and at a median of 15 (4-21) months post-TAVI. Study endpoints included PPM-related complications, pacing utilization and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: One hundred five patients (8.2%) required a PPM, of which 13 were implanted pre and 92 post-TAVI. Seventy-six percent required pacing for either second- or third-degree heart block. Time to implantation for post-TAVI PPM was 1 (0-3) day. Six patients experienced a pacing-related complication- lead displacement (n = 3), hematoma (n = 2), and device infection (n = 1). Pacing utilization defined as pacing >10% of the time or a pacing requirement at the time of the pacing check was demonstrated in 83% of patients. Multivariate analysis revealed complete heart block (CHB) was the only independent predictor of pacing utilization. Hospital length of stay for the post-TAVI PPM group was longer than the group without PPM (4 [2-8] vs. 3 [2-4] days; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Early PPM implantation in TAVI patients is safe and majority of patients require pacing in the short and mid-term.

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.

Post-operative cardiac implantable electronic devices in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a contemporary experience.

AIMS: Optimum timing of pacemaker implantation following cardiac surgery is a clinical challenge. European and American guidelines recommend observation, to assess recovery of atrioventricular block (AVB) (up to 7 days) and sinus node (5 days to weeks) after cardiac surgery. This study aims to determine rates of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) implants post-surgery at a high-volume tertiary centre over 3 years. Implant timing, patient characteristics and outcomes at 6 months including pacemaker utilization were assessed. METHODS AND RESULTS: All cardiac operations (n = 5950) were screened for CIED implantation following surgery, during the same admission, from 2015 to 2018. Data collection included patient, operative, and device characteristics; pacing utilization and complications at 6 months. A total of 250 (4.2%) implants occurred; 232 (3.9%) for bradycardia. Advanced age, infective endocarditis, left ventricle systolic impairment, and valve surgery were independent predictors for CIED implants (P < 0.0001). Relative risk (RR) of CIED implants and proportion of AVB increased with valve numbers operated (single-triple) vs. non-valve surgery: RR 5.4 (95% CI 3.9-7.6)-21.0 (11.4-38.9) CIEDs. Follow-up pacing utilization data were available in 91%. Significant utilization occurred in 82% and underutilization (<1% A and V paced) in 18%. There were no significant differences comparing utilization rates in early (≤day 5 post-operatively) vs. late implants (P = 0.55). CONCLUSION: Multi-valve surgery has a particularly high incidence of CIED implants (14.9% double, 25.6% triple valve). Age, left ventricle systolic impairment, endocarditis, and valve surgery were independent predictors of CIED implants. Device underutilization was infrequent and uninfluenced by implant timing. Early implantation (≤5 days) should be considered in AVB post-multi-valve surgery.

Clinical outcomes of His-Purkinje conduction system pacing.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) in the form of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) allows normal left ventricular activation, thereby preventing the adverse consequences of right ventricular pacing. HBP has been established for several years with centers from China, Europe, and North America reporting their experience. There is international guidance as to how to implant such systems with the differing patterns of His bundle capture clearly described. LBBP is a more recent innovation with potential advantages including improved pacing parameters. HPCSP has been extensively studied in a variety of indications including cardiac resynchronization therapy, atrioventricular node ablation, and bradycardia pacing. This review will focus on the clinical outcomes of HPCSP including mortality and morbidity of heart failure hospitalization and symptoms.

Transient rise in His-lead threshold due to acute myocardial infarction.

An 85-year-old male was admitted to our center with a non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. The patient had a dual-chamber pacemaker in situ with an atrial and His lead. A transient increase in His threshold and loss of nonselective capture occurred at the presentation of right coronary artery infarction, peaking during rotational atherectomy therapy causing loss of capture and complete atrioventricular block. A follow-up interrogation, 2 weeks postrevascularization, showed a return to a normal nonselective capture morphology and threshold measurements. Physicians should be aware of this complication in patients with His leads, particularly those with a history of coronary artery disease.

Detecting deceased patients on cardiac device remote monitoring: A case series and management guide for cardiac device services.

BACKGROUND: Remote monitoring (RM) of implantable cardiac devices provides substantial and complex information, presenting new challenges such as detection of a patient's death. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe RM transmissions indicating death and propose a management strategy for services. METHODS: The study included consecutive ambulatory outpatients whose deaths were detected via RM. Clinical and device data were collected from electronic records, and ethical approval was obtained from the service's institutional review board. RESULTS: Over a 9-year period (2014-2023), 28 patients were detected. The deceased patients had implantable cardioverter-defibrillators, pacemakers, and implantable loop recorders. In 54% of the cases, the patient's death had already been recognized. Alert transmissions indicating death were commonly related to ventricular arrhythmia events, but also due to lead measurements, and implantable loop recorder battery status. Several diagnostic features may indicate a patient's death. The most reliable was the presenting electrogram, demonstrating base rate pacing with no capture. Device diagnostics, lead parameters, and arrhythmia recordings may indicate death; however, not all cases present with recordings and diagnosis may not be conclusive. A majority (82%) had ventricular arrhythmia at the time of death. In cases where defibrillator shocks were delivered, the arrhythmia reinitiated shortly after successful cardioversion. Delayed therapy was observed, and some patients did not receive defibrillator shocks because of discriminators or because the arrhythmia rate fell below the shock zone. CONCLUSION: Detecting a patient death via RM presents unique challenges and considerations for services. Standard operational policies and legal consultation should be established to address the implications.

Blood groups and Rhesus status as potential predictors of outcomes in patients with cardiac resynchronisation therapy.

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) improves prognosis in patients with heart failure (HF) however the role of ABO blood groups and Rhesus factor are poorly understood. We hypothesise that blood groups may influence clinical and survival outcomes in HF patients undergoing CRT. A total of 499 patients with HF who fulfilled the criteria for CRT implantation were included. Primary outcome of all-cause mortality and/or heart transplant/left ventricular assist device was assessed over a median follow-up of 4.6 years (IQR 2.3-7.5). Online repositories were searched to provide biological context to the identified associations. Patients were divided into blood (O, A, B, and AB) and Rhesus factor (Rh-positive and Rh-negative) groups. Mean patient age was 66.4 ± 12.8 years with a left ventricular ejection fraction of 29 ± 11%. There were no baseline differences in age, gender, and cardioprotective medication. In a Cox proportional hazard multivariate model, only Rh-negative blood group was associated with a significant survival benefit (HR 0.68 [0.47-0.98], p = 0.040). No association was observed for the ABO blood group (HR 0.97 [0.76-1.23], p = 0.778). No significant interaction was observed with prevention, disease aetiology, and presence of defibrillator. Rhesus-related genes were associated with erythrocyte and platelet function, and cholesterol and glycated haemoglobin levels. Four drugs under development targeting RHD were identified (Rozrolimupab, Roledumab, Atorolimumab, and Morolimumab). Rhesus blood type was associated with better survival in HF patients with CRT. Further research into Rhesus-associated pathways and related drugs, namely whether there is a cardiac signal, is required.

DOACs vs Vitamin K Antagonists During Cardiac Rhythm Device Surgery: A Multicenter Propensity-Matched Study.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data comparing vitamin K antagonists (VKAs) to direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) at the time of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) surgery. Furthermore, the best management of DOACs (interruption vs continuation) is yet to be determined. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the incidence of device-related bleeds and thrombotic events based on anticoagulant type (DOAC vs VKA) and regimen (interrupted vs uninterrupted). METHODS: This was an observational multicenter study. We included patients on chronic oral anticoagulation undergoing CIED surgery. Patients were matched using propensity scoring. RESULTS: We included 1,975 patients (age 73.8 ± 12.4 years). Among 1,326 patients on DOAC, this was interrupted presurgery in 78.2% (n = 1,039) and continued in 21.8% (n = 287). There were 649 patients on continued VKA. The matched population included 861 patients. The rate of any major bleeding was higher with continued DOAC (5.2%) compared to interrupted DOAC (1.7%) and continued VKA (2.1%) (P = 0.03). The rate of perioperative thromboembolism was 1.4% with interrupted DOAC, whereas no thromboembolic events occurred with DOAC or VKA continuation (P = 0.04). The use of dual antiplatelet therapy, DOAC continuation, and male sex were independent predictors of major bleeding on a multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: In this large real-world cohort, a continued DOAC strategy was associated with a higher bleeding risk compared to DOAC interruption or VKA continuation in patients undergoing CIED surgery. However, DOAC interruption was associated with increased thromboembolic risk. Concomitant dual antiplatelet therapy should be avoided whenever clinically possible. A bespoke approach is necessary, with a strategy of minimal DOAC interruption likely to represent the best compromise.

The BLISTER Score: A Novel, Externally Validated Tool for Predicting Cardiac Implantable Electronic Device Infections, and Its Cost-Utility Implications for Antimicrobial Envelope Use.

BACKGROUND: Antimicrobial envelopes reduce the incidence of cardiac implantable electronic device infections, but their cost restricts routine use in the United Kingdom. Risk scoring could help to identify which patients would most benefit from this technology. METHODS: A novel risk score (BLISTER [Blood results, Long procedure time, Immunosuppressed, Sixty years old (or younger), Type of procedure, Early re-intervention, Repeat procedure]) was derived from multivariate analysis of factors associated with cardiac implantable electronic device infection. Diagnostic utility was assessed against the existing PADIT score (Prior procedure, Age, Depressed renal function, Immunocompromised, Type of procedure) in both standard and high-risk external validation cohorts, and cost-utility models examined different BLISTER and PADIT score thresholds for TYRX (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) antimicrobial envelope allocation. RESULTS: In a derivation cohort (n=7383), cardiac implantable electronic device infection occurred in 59 individuals within 12 months of a procedure (event rate, 0.8%). In addition to the PADIT score constituents, lead extraction (hazard ratio, 3.3 [95% CI, 1.9-6.1]; P<0.0001), C-reactive protein >50 mg/L (hazard ratio, 3.0 [95% CI, 1.4-6.4]; P=0.005), reintervention within 2 years (hazard ratio, 10.1 [95% CI, 5.6-17.9]; P<0.0001), and top-quartile procedure duration (hazard ratio, 2.6 [95% CI, 1.6-4.1]; P=0.001) were independent predictors of infection. The BLISTER score demonstrated superior discriminative performance versus PADIT in the standard risk (n=2854, event rate: 0.8%, area under the curve, 0.82 versus 0.71; P=0.001) and high-risk validation cohorts (n=1961, event rate: 2.0%, area under the curve, 0.77 versus 0.69; P=0.001), and in all patients (n=12 198, event rate: 1%, area under the curve, 0.8 versus 0.75, P=0.002). In decision-analytic modeling, the optimum scenario assigned antimicrobial envelopes to patients with BLISTER scores ≥6 (10.8%), delivering a significant reduction in infections (relative risk reduction, 30%; P=0.036) within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-utility thresholds (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, £18 446). CONCLUSIONS: The BLISTER score (https://qxmd.com/calculate/calculator_876/the-blister-score-for-cied-infection) was a valid predictor of cardiac implantable electronic device infection, and could facilitate cost-effective antimicrobial envelope allocation to high-risk patients.

Predictors of the efficacy of His bundle pacing in patients with a prolonged PR interval: A stratified analysis of the HOPE-HF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled HOPE-HF trial assessed the benefit of atrio-ventricular (AV) delay optimization delivered using His bundle pacing. It recruited patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, PR interval ≥200 ms, and baseline QRS ≤140 ms or right bundle branch block. Overall, there was no significant increase in peak oxygen uptake (VO2max) but there was significant improvement in heart failure specific quality of life. In this pre-specified secondary analysis, we evaluated the impact of baseline PR interval, echocardiographic E-A fusion, and the magnitude of acute high-precision haemodynamic response to pacing, on outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 167 randomized participants underwent measurement of PR interval, acute haemodynamic response at optimized AV delay, and assessment of presence of E-A fusion. We tested the impact of these baseline parameters using a Bayesian ordinal model on VO2max, quality of life and activity measures. There was strong evidence of a beneficial interaction between the baseline acute haemodynamic response and the blinded benefit of pacing for VO2 (Pr 99.9%), Minnesota Living With Heart Failure (MLWHF) (Pr 99.8%), MLWHF physical limitation score (Pr 98.9%), EQ-5D visual analogue scale (Pr 99.6%), and exercise time (Pr 99.4%). The baseline PR interval and the presence of baseline E-A fusion did not have this reliable ability to predict the clinical benefit of pacing over placebo across multiple endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In the HOPE-HF trial, the acute haemodynamic response to pacing reliably identified patients who obtained clinical benefit. Patients with a long PR interval (≥200 ms) and left ventricular impairment who obtained acute haemodynamic improvement with AV-optimized His bundle pacing were likely to obtain clinical benefit, consistent across multiple endpoints. Importantly, this gradation can be reliably tested for before randomization, but does require high-precision AV-optimized haemodynamic assessment to be performed.

Effects of haemodynamically atrio-ventricular optimized His bundle pacing on heart failure symptoms and exercise capacity: the His Optimized Pacing Evaluated for Heart Failure (HOPE-HF) randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial.

AIMS: Excessive prolongation of PR interval impairs coupling of atrio-ventricular (AV) contraction, which reduces left ventricular pre-load and stroke volume, and worsens symptoms. His bundle pacing allows AV delay shortening while maintaining normal ventricular activation. HOPE-HF evaluated whether AV optimized His pacing is preferable to no-pacing, in a double-blind cross-over fashion, in patients with heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%, PR interval ≥200 ms and either QRS ≤140 ms or right bundle branch block. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients had atrial and His bundle leads implanted (and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator lead if clinically indicated) and were randomized to 6 months of pacing and 6 months of no-pacing utilizing a cross-over design. The primary outcome was peak oxygen uptake during symptom-limited exercise. Quality of life, LVEF and patients' holistic symptomatic preference between arms were secondary outcomes. Overall, 167 patients were randomized: 90% men, 69 ± 10 years, QRS duration 124 ± 26 ms, PR interval 249 ± 59 ms, LVEF 33 ± 9%. Neither peak oxygen uptake (+0.25 ml/kg/min, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.23 to +0.73, p = 0.3) nor LVEF (+0.5%, 95% CI -0.7 to 1.6, p = 0.4) changed with pacing but Minnesota Living with Heart Failure quality of life improved significantly (-3.7, 95% CI -7.1 to -0.3, p = 0.03). Seventy-six percent of patients preferred His bundle pacing-on and 24% pacing-off (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: His bundle pacing did not increase peak oxygen uptake but, under double-blind conditions, significantly improved quality of life and was symptomatically preferred by the clear majority of patients. Ventricular pacing delivered via the His bundle did not adversely impact ventricular function during the 6 months.

Fusion Pacing with Biventricular, Left Ventricular-only and Multipoint Pacing in Cardiac Resynchronisation Therapy: Latest Evidence and Strategies for Use.

Despite advances in the field of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), response rates and durability of therapy remain relatively static. Optimising device timing intervals may be the most common modifiable factor influencing CRT efficacy after implantation. This review addresses the concept of fusion pacing as a method for improving patient outcomes with CRT. Fusion pacing describes the delivery of CRT pacing with a programming strategy to preserve intrinsic atrioventricular (AV) conduction and ventricular activation via the right bundle branch. Several methods have been assessed to achieve fusion pacing. QRS complex duration (QRSd) shortening with CRT is associated with improved clinical response. Dynamic algorithm-based optimisation targeting narrowest QRSd in patients with intact AV conduction has shown promise in people with heart failure with left bundle branch block. Individualised dynamic programming achieving fusion may achieve the greatest magnitude of electrical synchrony, measured by QRSd narrowing.