Clinical Outcomes of Selective Versus Nonselective His Bundle Pacing.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of nonselective (NS) His bundle pacing (HBP) compared with selective (S) HBP. BACKGROUND: HBP is the most physiologic form of ventricular pacing. NS-HBP results in right ventricular septal pre-excitation due to fusion with myocardial capture in addition to His bundle capture resulting in widened QRS duration compared with S-HBP wherein there is exclusive His bundle capture and conduction. METHODS: The Geisinger and Rush University HBP registries comprise 640 patients who underwent successful HBP. Our study population included 350 consecutive patients treated with HBP for bradyarrhythmic indications who demonstrated ≥20% ventricular pacing burden 3 months post-implantation. Patients were categorized into S-HBP or NS-HBP based on QRS morphology (NS-HBP n = 232; S-HBP n = 118) at the programmed output at the 3-month follow-up. The primary analysis outcome was a combined endpoint of all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. RESULTS: The NS-HBP group had a higher number of men (64% vs. 50%; p = 0.01), higher incidence of infranodal atrioventricular block (40% vs. 9%; p < 0.01), ischemic cardiomyopathy (24% vs. 14%; p = 0.03), and permanent atrial fibrillation (18% vs. 8%; p = 0.01). The primary endpoint occurred in 81 of 232 patients (35%) in the NS-HBP group compared with 23 of 118 patients (19%) in the S-HBP group (hazard ratio: 1.38; 95% confidence interval: 0.87 to 2.20; p = 0.17). Subgroup analyses of patients at greatest risk (higher pacing burden or lower left ventricular ejection fraction) revealed no incremental risk with NS-HBP. CONCLUSIONS: NS-HBP was associated with similar outcomes of death or heart failure hospitalization when compared with S-HBP. Multicenter risk-matched clinical studies are needed to confirm these findings.

Novel Method for Assessment of His Bundle Pacing Morphology Using Near Field and Far Field Device Electrograms.

BACKGROUND: The 12-lead ECG is considered the gold standard to differentiate between selective (S), nonselective (NS) His bundle pacing (HBP), and right ventricular septal capture in routine clinical practice. We sought to assess the utility of device EGM recordings as a tool to identify the type of HBP morphology. METHODS: One hundred forty-eight consecutive patients underwent HBP with a 3830 Select Secure lead (Medtronic, Inc) at 3 centers between October 2016 and October 2017. The near field V-EGM morphology (NF EGM), near field V-EGM time to peak (NFTime to peak), and far-field EGM QRS duration (QRSd) were recorded while pacing the His lead with simultaneous 12-lead ECG rhythm strips. RESULTS: Indications for HBP were sinus node dysfunction, atrioventricular conduction disease, and cardiac resynchronization therapy in 68 (46%), 56 (38%), and 24 (16%) patients, respectively. Baseline QRSd was 108±38 ms with QRSd >120 ms in 57 (39%) patients (27 right bundle branch block, 18 left bundle branch block, and 12 intraventricular conduction delay). S-HBP was noted in 54 (36%) patients. A positive NFEGM and NFTime to peak >40 ms were highly sensitive (94% and 93%, respectively) and specific (90% and 94%) for S-HBP irrespective of baseline QRSd. All 3 parameters (+NFEGM, NFTime to peak >40 ms, and far-field EGM QRSd <120 ms) had high negative predictive value (97%, 95%, and 92%). A novel device-based algorithm for S-HBP was proposed. EGM transitions correlated with ECG transitions during threshold testing and can help accurately differentiate between S-HBP, NS-HBP, and right ventricular septal pacing with a cumulative positive predictive value of 91% (positive predictive value =100% in patients with baseline QRSd <120 ms). CONCLUSIONS: We propose a novel and simple criteria for accurate differentiation between S-HBP, NS-HBP, and right ventricular septal capture morphologies by careful analysis of device EGMs alone. This study paves the way for future studies to assess autocapture algorithms for devices with HBP.

Managing Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Nonresponse: Conventional and Unconventional Techniques.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an established option for select patients with systolic heart failure. Nonresponse to CRT remains a significant problem. We present five patients who were CRT nonresponders and discuss the conventional and nonconventional approaches employed to achieve CRT benefit.