Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward.

PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). RECENT FINDINGS: Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

Early Experience of Left Bundle Branch Pacing with Lumenless Lead in a Single Center: A Case Series.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been subject to increasing interest over the last few years due to its capacity for physiological conduction and its advantages compared to His bundle pacing. His bundle pacing has certain limitations, such as a small pacing area for the His bundle, a high threshold that leads to battery depletion, a low R-wave amplitude that may result in atrial or His oversensing, and ventricular signal undersensing. In this case series, four patients (two female and two male) aged 62.2 ± 8.4 years old with symptomatic sick sinus disease and no scar tissue in the interventricular septum underwent LBBP. All LBBPs were done with standard LBBP using a lumenless SelectSecure 3830 lead (Medtronic®, Minneapolis, USA) with a fixed helix. The lead parameters showed a good R-wave amplitudes (13 ± 7.4 mV) and a low threshold  (0.77 ± 0.17 V @ 0.4 ms). All patients were discharged on the next day. During follow-up period of 13.3 ± 12.9 months, all patients were well and no complications were noted. In conclusion, LBBP may be as an alternative of novel conduction pacing techniques and can be done relatively easy and safe, even with limited experience center.

Mid-term performance of His bundle pacing and usefulness of backup leads.

Ventricular backup leads may be considered in selected patients with His bundle pacing (HBP), but it remains unknown to what extent this is useful. A total of 184 HBP patients were studied. At last follow-up, 147 (79.9%) patients retained His bundle capture at programmed output. His bundle pacing lead revision was performed in 5/36 (13.9%) patients without a backup lead and in 3/148 (2.0%) patients with a backup lead (P = 0.008). One patient without a backup lead had syncope due to atrial oversensing. Thus, implantation of ventricular backup leads may avoid lead revision and adverse events in selected HBP patients.

A His bundle pacing protocol for suppressing ventricular arrhythmia maintenance and improving defibrillation efficacy.

BACKGROUND: The excitable gap (EG), defined as the excitable tissue between two subsequent wavefronts of depolarization, is critical for maintaining reentry that underlies deadly ventricular arrhythmias. EG in the His-Purkinje Network (HPN) plays an important role in the maintenance of electrical wave reentry that underlies these arrhythmias. OBJECTIVE: To determine if rapid His bundle pacing (HBP) during reentry reduces the amount of EG in the HPN and ventricular myocardium to suppress reentry maintenance and/or improve defibrillation efficacy. METHODS: In a virtual human biventricular model, reentry was initiated with rapid line pacing followed by HBP delivered for 3, 6, or 9 s at pacing cycle lengths (PCLs) ranging from 10 to 300 ms (n=30). EG was calculated independently for the HPN and myocardium over each PCL. Defibrillation efficacy was assessed for each PCL by stimulating myocardial surface EG with delays ranging from 0.25 to 9 s (increments of 0.25 s, n=36) after the start of HBP. Defibrillation was successful if reentry terminated within 1 s after EG stimulation. This defibrillation protocol was repeated without HBP. To test the approach under different pathological conditions, all protocols were repeated in the model with right (RBBB) or left (LBBB) bundle branch block. RESULTS: Compared to without pacing, HBP for >3 seconds reduced average EG in the HPN and myocardium across a broad range of PCLs for the default, RBBB, and LBBB models. HBP >6 seconds terminated reentrant arrhythmia by converting HPN activation to a sinus rhythm behavior in the default (6/30 PCLs) and RBBB (7/30 PCLs) models. Myocardial EG stimulation during HBP increased the number of successful defibrillation attempts by 3%-19% for 30/30 PCLs in the default model, 3%-6% for 14/30 PCLs in the RBBB model, and 3%-11% for 27/30 PCLs in the LBBB model. CONCLUSION: HBP can reduce the amount of excitable gap and suppress reentry maintenance in the HPN and myocardium. HBP can also improve the efficacy of low-energy defibrillation approaches targeting excitable myocardium. HBP during reentrant arrhythmias is a promising anti-arrhythmic and defibrillation strategy.

Current of injury amplitude during left bundle branch area pacing implantation: impact of filter settings, ventricular pacing, and lead type.

AIMS: Monitoring current of injury (COI) during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implantation is useful to evaluate lead depth. Technical aspects for recording COI amplitude have not been well studied. Our aims were to evaluate the impact of high-pass filter settings on electrogram recordings during LBBAP implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with successful LBBAP implantation had unipolar recordings of COI at final lead position at different high-pass filter settings (0.01-1 Hz) from the tip electrode during sensing and pacing, and from the ring electrode during sensing. Duration of saturation-induced signal loss was also measured at each filter setting. COI amplitudes were compared between lumenless and stylet-driven leads. A total of 156 patients (96 males, aged 81.4 ± 9.6 years) were included. Higher filter settings led to significantly lower COI amplitudes. In 50 patients with COI amplitude < 10 mV, the magnitude of the drop was on average 1-1.5 mV (and up to 4 mV) between 0.05 and 0.5 Hz, meaning that cut-offs may not be used interchangeably. Saturation-induced signal loss was on average 10 s at 0.05 Hz and only 2 s with 0.5 Hz. When pacing was interrupted, the sensed COI amplitude varied (either higher or lower) by up to 4 mV, implying that it is advisable to periodically interrupt pacing to evaluate the sensed COI when reaching levels of ∼10 mV. Lead type did not impact COI amplitude. CONCLUSION: High-pass filters have a significant impact on electrogram characteristics at LBBAP implantation, with the 0.5 Hz settings having the most favourable profile.

Conduction latency in left bundle branch pacing in heart failure patient.

Since the introduction of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), a search for precise parameters confirming successful capture of conduction system was conducted. Most of the proposed electrocardiographic criteria refer to patients with narrow QRS complexes. We present a patient with heart failure in whom cardiac resynchronization was achieved using conduction system pacing. While measuring left ventricular activation time, an isoelectric interval of 74 ms between stimulus and R-wave appeared resulting in prolongation of V6 RWPT to 124 ms. Considering the immediate narrowing of QRS complexes following LBBP, the observed latency most probably reflects prolonged conduction time through the His-Purkinje system.

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.

Septal venous channel perforation during left bundle branch area pacing: a prospective study.

AIMS: To characterize the diagnosis, frequency, and procedural implications of septal venous channel perforation during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). METHODS AND RESULTS: All consecutive patients undergoing LBBAP over an 8-month period were prospectively studied. During lead placement, obligatory septal contrast injection was performed twice, at initiation (implant entry zone) and at completion (fixation zone). An intuitive fluoroscopic schema using orthogonal views (left anterior oblique/right anterior oblique) and familiar landmarks is described. Using this, we resolved zonal distribution (I-VI) of lead position on the ventricular septum and its angulation (post-fixation angle θ). Subjects with and without septal venous channel perforation were compared. Sixty-one patients {male 57.3%, median age [interquartile range (IQR)] 69.5 [62.5-74.5] years} were enrolled. Septal venous channel perforation was observed in eight (13.1%) patients [male 28.5%, median age (IQR) 64 (50-75) years]. They had higher frequency of (i) right-sided implant (25% vs. 1.9%, P = 0.04), (ii) fixation in zone III at the mid-superior septum (75% vs. 28.3%, P = 0.04), (iii) steeper angle of fixation-median θ (IQR) [19 (10-30)° vs. 5 (4-19)°, P = 0.01], and (iv) longer median penetrated-lead length (IQR) [13 (10-14.8) vs. 10 (8.5-12.5) mm, P = 0.03]. Coronary sinus drainage of contrast was noted in five (62.5%) patients. Abnormal impedance drops during implantation (12.5% vs. 5.7%, P = NS) were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: When evaluated systematically, septal venous channel perforation may be encountered commonly after LBBAP. The fiducial reference framework described using fluoroscopic imaging identified salient associated findings. This may be addressed with lead repositioning to a more inferior location and is not associated with adverse consequence acutely or in early follow-up.

Narrow QRS ectopy with concealed connections from a para-Hisian origin to the proximal left fascicles.

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation of ectopy originating from the vicinity of the His bundle can be challenging. METHODS AND RESULTS: We report a case of a 33-year-old man with narrow QRS ectopy with preferential conduction from a para-Hisian origin to the proximal left fascicles, which was successfully eliminated by radiofrequency ablation in the right coronary cusp, guided by ultrahigh-resolution mapping of the His bundle, bundle branch, and fascicular electrograms. CONCLUSION: Some narrow QRS ectopy may originate from the vicinity of the conduction system, instead of the "true" conduction system, and have concealed connections from its origin to the conduction system.

Enhancing cardiac pacing strategies: a review of conduction system pacing compared with right and biventricular pacing and their influence on myocardial function.

Traditional right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been linked to the deterioration of both left ventricular diastolic and systolic function. This worsening often culminates in elevated rates of hospitalization due to heart failure, an increased risk of atrial fibrillation, and increased morbidity. While biventricular pacing (BVP) has demonstrated clinical and echocardiographic improvements in patients afflicted with heart failure and left bundle branch block, it has also encountered significant challenges such as a notable portion of non-responders and procedural failures attributed to anatomical complexities. In recent times, the interest has shifted towards conduction system pacing, initially, His bundle pacing, and more recently, left bundle branch area pacing, which are seen as promising alternatives to established methods. In contrast to other approaches, conduction system pacing offers the advantage of fostering more physiological and harmonized ventricular activation by directly stimulating the His-Purkinje network. This direct pacing results in a more synchronized systolic and diastolic function of the left ventricle compared with RVP and BVP. Of particular note is the capacity of conduction system pacing to yield a shorter QRS, conserve left ventricular ejection fraction, and reduce rates of mitral and tricuspid regurgitation when compared with RVP. The efficacy of conduction system pacing has also been found to have better clinical and echocardiographic improvement than BVP in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization. This review will delve into myocardial function in conduction system pacing compared with that in RVP and BVP.

Left bundle branch area versus conventional pacing after transcatheter valve implant for aortic stenosis: the LATVIA study.

BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular block (AVB) is a frequent complication in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Right apex ventricular pacing (RVP) represents the standard treatment but may induce cardiomyopathy over the long term. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising alternative, minimizing the risk of desynchrony. However, available evidence with LBBAP after TAVI is still low. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and safety of LBBAP for AVB post-TAVI compared with RVP. METHODS: Consecutive patients developing AVB early after TAVI were enrolled between 1 January 2022 and 31 December 2022 at three high-volume hospitals and received LBBAP or RVP. Data on procedure and at short-term follow-up (at least 3 months) were collected. RESULTS: A total of 38 patients (61% men, mean age 83 ±â€Š6 years) were included; 20 patients (53%) received LBBAP. Procedural success was obtained in all patients according to chosen pacing strategy. Electrical pacing performance at implant and after a mean follow-up of 4.2 ±â€Š2.8 months was clinically equivalent for both pacing modalities. In the LBBAP group, procedural time was longer (70 ±â€Š17 versus 58 ±â€Š15 min in the RVP group, P  = 0.02) and paced QRS was shorter (120 ±â€Š19 versus 155 ±â€Š12 ms at implant, P  < 0.001; 119 ±â€Š18 versus 157 ±â€Š9 ms at follow-up, P  < 0.001). Complication rates did not differ between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with AVB after TAVI, LBBAP is feasible and safe, resulting in a narrow QRS duration, either acutely and during the follow-up, compared with RVP. Further studies are needed to evaluate if LBBAP reduces pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this clinical setting.

Outcomes of combined left bundle branch area pacing with atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and pulmonary disease.

INTRODUCTION: Concomitant left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) with atrioventricular (AV) nodal ablation is emerging as a viable management option in atrial fibrillation refractory to medical management. Its viability in patients with pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a retrospective, observational cohort study in consecutive patients who underwent concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation with advanced pulmonary disease at the Cleveland Clinic Fairview Hospital between January 2019 and January 2023. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use were extracted via chart review. Rates of hospitalizations, medication use, and structural disease seen on echocardiography were compared before and after the procedure. There were 27 patients with group 3 pulmonary hypertension who underwent the procedure. In the 24 months preprocedure, there were 114 admissions for heart failure or atrial fibrillation compared to 9 admissions postprocedure (p < .001). Mean follow up was 17.3 ± 12.1 months. There were no significant complications or lead dislodgements. Echocardiographic characteristics were similar prior to and after pacemaker implantation. Use of medications for rate and rhythm control was common preprocedure, and was reduced dramatically postprocedure. CONCLUSION: This small, retrospective cohort study suggests concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation may be safe and efficacious for management of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced pulmonary disease.

His potential injury as the end point of screwing by a continuous recording technique in His bundle pacing: A case report.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) engaged electrical activation of both ventricles by stimulating the His-Purkinje network, which could avoid marked ventricles dyssynchrony. The lead was given three to five clockwise rotations at the site with the His potential to anchor the interventricular septum. In 2018, the Multicenter His Bundle Pacing Collaborative Working Group recommended that the His bundle capture threshold should be lower than 2.5 V/1 ms in non-pacing-dependent patients, and pacing-dependent patients should have a lower adjacent ventricular capture threshold as self-backup. Therefore, to avoid safety issues such as loss of capture caused by increased threshold, we believe that more stringent criteria should be adopted in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). In previous studies, the connection cable needed to be disconnected during the screwing. When the procedure was finished, the performer found that the patients with His bundle injury could obtain a lower threshold than those without His bundle injury. Although no studies of new bundle branch block (BBB) or AVB by the acute His bundle injury was reported. However, It is worrying that the damage of His bundle seems random during the procedure. How to balance avoiding severe injury with a lower capture threshold? At present, we report a case of light His injury and lower His capture threshold under continuous intracardiac electrocardiogram monitoring.