Case Report: Leadless and left bundle branch area pacemakers, complementary advantages require a personalized approach.

Traditional transvenous pacemakers consist of a pacemaker generator usually positioned surgically in the upper left chest on the pectoral muscle fascia and one or more leads positioned through the veins to the right atrium and across the tricuspid valve to the right ventricular apex. While these devices reduce symptoms and improve survival among patients with symptomatic bradycardia, they are associated with an increased risk of infection, venous occlusion, heart failure, and tricuspid valve regurgitation. Although new pacemaker designs minimize these risks, none of the current-generation pacemaker designs effectively eliminate all of them. A personalized approach to selecting the appropriate pacemaker for each patient is needed to optimize outcomes.

Single-center experience of efficacy and safety of atrioventricular node ablation after left bundle branch area pacing for the management of atrial fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) with permanent pacing is an effective treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) prevents cardiac dyssynchrony associated with right ventricular pacing and could prevent worsening of heart failure (HF). METHODS: In this retrospective monocentric study, all patients who received AVNA procedure with LBBAP were consecutively included. AVNA procedure data, electrical and echocardiographic parameters at 6 months, and clinical outcomes at 1 year were studied and compared to a matched cohort of patients who received AVNA procedure with conventional pacing between 2010 and 2023. RESULTS: Seventy-five AVNA procedures associated with LBBAP were studied. AVNA in this context was feasible, with a success rate of 98.7% at first ablation, and safe without any complications. There was no threshold rise at follow-up. At 1 year, 6 (8%) patients were hospitalized for HF and 2 (2.7%) were deceased. Patients had a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (P ≤ 0.0001). When compared to a matched cohort of patients with AVNA and conventional pacing, AVNA data and pacing complications rates were similar. Patients with LBBAP had a better improvement of LVEF (+5.27 ± 9.62% vs. -0.48 ± 14%, P = 0.01), and a lower 1-year rate of composite outcome of hospitalization for HF or death (HR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.16-0.95, P = 0.037), significant on survival analysis (log-rank P-value = 0.03). CONCLUSION: AVNA with LBBAP in patients with symptomatic AF is feasible, safe, and efficient. Hospitalization for HF or death rate was significantly lower and LVEF improvement was greater.

Outcomes with physiologic His bundle pacing in patients with narrow QRS complex.

BACKGROUND: In patients with narrow QRS complex, both ventricular and biventricular pacing is associated with increased cardiac morbidity and mortality. This risk is not decreased by ventricular pacing avoidance algorithms, which cause nonphysiologic atrioventricular (AV) delays. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to report outcomes in patients with narrow QRS complex when the paced complex is in normal range and physiologic AV delays are programmed. METHODS: In 196 patients with QRS duration of 92 ± 10 ms, permanent pacing was done at the site of the His bundle electrogram. The pacemakers were then programmed to maintain physiologic AV delays and to increase heart rates in response to exercise. Patients received usual care and were observed for 3 years. RESULTS: The paced complex exhibited a delta wave, and the ventricular activation time, QRS axis, and lead I voltage remained in normal range. Physiologic programming resulted in His bundle pacing burden of 92%. In patients with decreased ejection fraction, there was significant improvement in left ventricular function, left ventricular dilation, and mitral regurgitation (P < .003). In patients with normal ejection fraction, left ventricular function remained normal without new valvular abnormalities. The 3-year all-cause mortality was 10%, and there was no increase in heart failure admissions. CONCLUSION: In patients with narrow QRS complex, when paced QRS morphology is maintained in normal range and AV dyssynchrony is avoided, His bundle pacing is associated with low all-cause mortality and improvement in abnormal echocardiographic parameters. The paced QRS morphology and physiologic AV delays may be important factors to evaluate in future trials of conduction system pacing.

Clinical and Electrophysiological Outcomes of Left Bundle Area Pacing Compared to Biventricular Pacing: An Updated Meta-analysis.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing strategy that uses the conduction system distal to the left bundle branch block level for direct activation of the left bundle and right ventricular myocardium. Our meta-analysis compared the structural, electrophysiological, clinical, and procedural outcomes of LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BVP). The meta-analysis included two randomized controlled trials and showed significant reductions in the left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic volumes with LBBAP compared to BVP, together with statistically significant reductions in the QRS duration, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. The fluoroscopic time was also significantly shorter in the LBBAP group. However, no significant change in the LV ejection fraction was noted. Procedural complications were slightly higher in the LBBAP group, albeit not to a statistically significant degree. Our findings suggest that LBBAP may be a superior alternative to standard BVP in improving the structural, electrophysiological, and clinical components of cardiomyopathy, including the NYHA class and HF hospitalizations. LBBAP is a more physiological pacing strategy that results in normal ventricular activation and may be a viable alternative to BVP for cardiac synchronization therapy.

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.

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.

Conduction System Pacing for Patients with Congenital Heart Disease.

For patients with congenital heart disease (CHD), chronic ventricular pacing may lead to progressive cardiomyopathy owing to electromechanical dyssynchrony. Cardiac conduction system pacing (CSP) has been proposed as a physiologic pacing strategy-directly engaging the His-Purkinje system and preserving electromechanical synchrony. CSP may be indicated for a wide variety of children and adults with CHD and has emerged as an important tool in the armamentarium for cardiac implantable electronic device operators. This review provides the rationale, background, and supportive evidence for CSP in patients with CHD and discusses implant strategies and outcomes in the context of dominant ventricular morphologic categories.

Cardiac Resynchronisation with Conduction System Pacing.

To date, biventricular pacing (BiVP) has been the standard pacing modality for cardiac resynchronisation therapy. However, it is non-physiological, with the activation spreading between the left ventricular epicardium and right ventricular endocardium. Up to one-third of patients with heart failure who are eligible for cardiac resynchronisation therapy do not derive benefit from BiVP. Conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing, has emerged as an alternative to BiVP for cardiac resynchronisation. There is mounting evidence supporting the benefits of CSP in achieving synchronous ventricular activation and repolarisation. The aim of this review is to summarise the current options and outcomes of CSP when used for cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure.

Pacing of Specialized Conduction System.

Right ventricular pacing for bradycardia remains the mainstay of pacing therapy. Chronic right ventricular pacing may lead to pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. We focus on the anatomy of the conduction system and the clinical feasibility of pacing the His bundle and/or left bundle conduction system. We review the hemodynamics of conduction system pacing, the techniques to capture the conduction system and the electrocardiogram and pacing definitions of conduction system capture. Clinical studies of conduction system pacing in the setting of atrioventricular block and after AV junction ablation are reviewed and the evolving role of conduction system pacing is compared with biventricular pacing.

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.

Defining the distance between the His bundle and first septal perforator: implications for left bundle branch pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a developing method of native conduction pacing, but cases of injury to the septal perforator arteries during implantation have been reported. Knowing the distance between the His bundle and the first septal perforator artery can help operators implant LBBP leads more safely. METHODS: Using previously performed coronary CT angiography (CCTA) studies, the distance between the His bundle and the first septal perforator was measured. RESULTS: A total of 50 CCTA studies were included. The mean distance from the His bundle to the first septal perforator (His-SP) along the line connecting the His bundle to the RV apex (His-RV apex) was 27.17 ± 7.7 mm with a range of 13.0 to 44.7 mm. The distance was greater than 2.0 cm in 84% of patients. To standardize this distance among patients with varying cardiac structures, the ratio between the His-SP distance and the His-RV Apex distance was also measured. The mean His-SP:His-RV Apex was 0.302 and the median was 0.298. Eighty-six percent of patients had a ratio of greater than 0.20. CONCLUSION: Using this information, operators can aim to implant LBBP leads within 2.0 cm of the His bundle or 20% of the distance between the His bundle and the RV apex with minimal risk of causing vascular injury.

His Bundle Pacing: My Experience, Tricks, and Tips.

His Bundle Pacing (HBP) is a form of physiologic pacing achieved through implantation of a pacing electrode into the His bundle. HBP began 20 years ago without any dedicated tools. As specific tools became available HBP quickly spread and proved to be a viable alternative to traditional right ventricle pacing. HBP is reliable and effective in preserving the physiologic ventricular synchrony with clinical benefits particularly evident when a high percentage of pacing is required. Unipolar signals from the lead tip guide the implant. 3D electroanatomical mapping could further assist the procedure.

Physiology of Left Ventricular Septal Pacing and Left Bundle Branch Pacing.

Following the recognition of the adverse effects of right ventricular pacing, alternative permanent pacing strategies aiming to maintain a synchronous ventricular contraction have been sought. The quest for the optimal pacing site has recently led to several promising and rapidly emerging new pacing strategies, such as left ventricular septal pacing and left bundle branch pacing. In both animal and human studies, these pacing strategies seem to maintain electrical and mechanical activation of the left ventricle to a (near)physiologic level. However, more studies on the long-term effects of both strategies are needed.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Although conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease, there are limitations to its therapeutic success, resulting in widely variable clinical response. Limitations of conventional biventricular pacing evolve around myocardial scar, fibrosis, and inability to effectively stimulate diseased tissue. Several observational and acute hemodynamic studies have demonstrated improved electrical resynchronization and echocardiographic response with conduction system pacing. This article provides a systematic review of conduction system pacing as a physiologic alternative to conventional CRT, which is currently undergoing rigorous investigation.

Generating Evidence to Support the Physiologic Promise of Conduction System Pacing: Status and Update on Conduction System Pacing Trials.

Conduction system pacing avoids the potential deleterious effects of right ventricular pacing in patients with bradycardia and provides an alternative approach to cardiac resynchronization therapy. We focus on the available observational and randomized evidence and review studies supporting the safety, feasibility, and physiologic promise of conduction system approaches. We evaluate the randomized data generated from the available clinical trials of conduction system pacing, which have led to the recent inclusion of CSP in international guidelines. The scope for future randomized trials will building on the physiologic promise of conduction system approaches and offering information on clinical end points is explored.

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.

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.