Comparison of Pacing Performance and Clinical Outcomes Between Left Bundle Branch and His Bundle Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch (LBBP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) provide physiological ventricular activation. OBJECTIVES: This study investigated differences in feasibility, device performance, and clinical outcomes between LBBP and HBP. METHODS: Consecutive patients with LBBP and HBP from 2018 to 2021 in 2 centers were prospectively studied. The primary endpoint was optimal device performance during follow-up, defined as the presence of pacing thresholds <2.5 V, R-wave amplitude ≥5 V, and absence of conduction system pacing (CSP)-related complications. The secondary endpoint was the composite of heart failure hospitalizations or all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Among 338 patients, 282 underwent successful CSP (119 HBP, 163 LBBP). Success rates, CSP-related complications, and need for reoperations did not differ between LBBP and HBP (P > 0.05). Pacing thresholds were lower, whereas R-wave amplitudes and lead impedance were higher in LBBP (P < 0.05). The primary endpoint was more frequent in LBBP than HBP (79% vs 34%; P < 0.001), with LBBP independently associated with 9-fold increased odds of optimal device performance (adjusted OR: 9.31; 95% CI: 5.14-16.86). LBBP was less likely to have increased pacing thresholds by >1 V (1% vs 19% HBP, P < 0.001). The secondary outcome was less frequent in LBBP than HBP (9% vs 24%, P = 0.001), with LBBP trending towards higher event-free survival (HR: 0.62; 95% CI: 0.31-1.23). The secondary outcome was independent of pacing burden or pacing indication. CONCLUSIONS: Despite similar feasibility and safety profiles, LBBP confers additional benefits in pacing performance and reliability, shows trends towards improved survival compared to HBP, and should be the preferred first-line CSP modality of choice.

Stroke Recurrence in Embolic Stroke of Undetermined Source Without Atrial Fibrillation on Invasive Cardiac Monitoring.

BACKGROUND: More than half of patients with embolic stroke of undetermined source (ESUS) suffer from recurrent ischaemic stroke, despite the absence of atrial fibrillation (AF) on invasive cardiac monitoring (ICM). This study investigated the predictors and prognosis of recurrent stroke in ESUS without AF on ICM. METHOD: This prospective study included patients with ESUS at two tertiary hospitals from 2015 to 2021 who underwent comprehensive neurological imaging, transthoracic echocardiography, and inpatient continuous electrographic monitoring for ≥48 hours prior to ICM for definitive exclusion of AF. Recurrent ischaemic stroke, all-cause mortality, and functional outcome by the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at 3 months were evaluated in patients without AF. RESULTS: Of 185 consecutive patients with ESUS, AF was not detected in 163 (88%) patients (age 62±12 years, 76% men, 25% prior stroke, median time to ICM insertion 26 [7, 123] days), and stroke recurred in 24 (15%) patients. Stroke recurrences were predominantly ESUS (88%), within the first 2 years (75%), and involved a different vascular territory from qualifying ESUS (58%). Pre-existing cancer was the only independent predictor of recurrent stroke (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 5.43, 95% CI 1.43-20.64), recurrent ESUS (AHR 5.67, 95% CI 1.15-21.21), and higher mRS score at 3 months (ß 1.27, 95% CI 0.23-2.42). All-cause mortality occurred in 17 (10%) patients. Adjusting for age, cancer, and mRS category (≥3 vs <3), recurrent ESUS was independently associated with more than four times greater hazard of death (AHR 4.66, 95% CI 1.76-12.34). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with recurrent ESUS are a high-risk subgroup. Studies elucidating optimal diagnostic and treatment strategies in non-AF-related ESUS are urgently required.

Conduction system versus biventricular pacing in heart failure with non-left bundle branch block.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiV) is significantly lower when applied to heart failure (HF) patients with non-left bundle branch block (LBBB) conduction delay. We investigated clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing (CSP) for CRT in non-LBBB HF. METHODS: Consecutive HF patients with non-LBBB conduction delay undergoing CSP were propensity matched for age, sex, HF-etiology, and atrial fibrillation (AF) in a 1:1 ratio to BiV from a prospective registry of CRT recipients. Echocardiographic response was defined as an increase in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) by ≥10%. The primary outcome was the composite of HF-hospitalizations or all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were recruited (mean age 70 ± 11years, 22% female, 68% ischemic HF and 49% AF). Significant reductions in QRS duration and LV dimensions were seen only after CSP, while LVEF improved significantly in both groups (p < 0.05). Echocardiographic response occurred more frequently in CSP than BiV (51% vs. 21%, p < 0.01), with CSP independently associated with four-fold increased odds (adjusted odds ratio 4.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-12.41). The primary outcome occurred more frequently in BiV than CSP (69% vs. 27%, p < 0.001), with CSP independently associated with 58% risk reduction (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR] 0.42, 95% CI 0.21-0.84, p = 0.01), driven by reduced all-cause mortality (AHR 0.22, 95% CI 0.07-0.68, p < 0.01), and a trend toward reduced HF-hospitalization (AHR 0.51, 95% CI 0.21-1.21, p = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: CSP provided greater electrical synchrony, reverse remodeling, improved cardiac function and survival compared to BiV in non-LBBB, and may be the preferred CRT strategy for non-LBBB HF.

Clinical Outcomes in Conduction System Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing in Bradycardia.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) provides more physiological ventricular activation than right ventricular pacing (RVP). OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes in patients receiving CSP and RVP. METHODS: Consecutive patients with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia from 2016 to 2021 in 2 centers were prospectively followed for the primary composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, upgrade to biventricular pacing, or all-cause mortality, stratified by ventricular pacing burden (Vp) . RESULTS: Among 860 patients (mean age 74 ± 11 years, 48% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 628 received RVP and 231 received CSP (95 His-bundle pacing, 136 left bundle branch pacing). The primary outcome occurred in 217 (25%) patients, more commonly in patients with RVP than CSP (30% vs 13%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, CSP was independently associated with 47% reduction of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.29-0.97; P = 0.04) and HF hospitalization alone (AHR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.95; P = 0.04), among only patients with Vp >20%. The incidence of the primary outcome was highest among RVP with Vp >20% and lowest in CSP with Vp >20% (35% vs 10%, P < 0.001). Compared with RVP with Vp >20%, both CSP with Vp >20% (AHR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91; P = 0.02) and all patients with Vp ≤20% (AHR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.54-0.99; P = 0.04) were independently associated with reduced primary outcome, driven primarily by reductions in HF hospitalizations (P < 0.05). Event-free survival was similar between CSP with Vp >20% and those needing ≤20% Vp. CONCLUSIONS: CSP significantly reduced adverse clinical outcomes for bradycardic patients requiring ventricular pacing and should be the preferred pacing modality of choice.

Adopting permanent His bundle pacing: learning curves and medium-term outcomes.

AIMS: This study aims to determine procedural characteristics, acute success rates, and medium-term outcomes of consecutive patients undergoing His bundle pacing (HBP); and learning curves of experienced electrophysiologists adopting HBP. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive HBP patients at three hospitals were recruited. Clinical characteristics, acute procedural details, and medium-term outcomes were extracted from electronic medical records. Two hundred and thirty-three patients [mean age 74.6 ± 10.1 years, 48% female, 68% narrow QRS, 71% normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), 55.8% atrioventricular block] underwent HBP. Acute procedural success was 81.1% (mean procedural and fluoroscopic times of 105.5 ± 36.5 and 13.8 ± 9.3 min). Broad QRS was associated with lower HBP success (odds ratio 0.39, P = 0.02). Fluoroscopic and procedural times decreased and plateaued after 30-40 cases per operator. Implant HBP threshold was 1.3 ± 0.7 V at 1.0 ± 0.2 ms and R wave was 5.0 ± 3.9 mV. During follow-up, loss of HBP occurred in a further 12.4% and 11.3% of patients experienced a ≥1 V increase in HBP threshold. Five (2.6%) patients required HBP revision for pacing difficulties. About 8.6% of patients had a >50% decrease in R wave but lead revision for sensing issues was not necessary. On an intention to treat basis, 56.7% of patients in whom HBP was attempted had persisting HBP capture and thresholds of <2 V. CONCLUSION: Physicians adopting HBP should be cognizant of the learning curve and preferentially select non-dependent patients with normal QRS and LVEF, to minimize risk of lead revision. Further rises in HBP threshold may increase battery drain and need for reoperations, important considerations when choosing HBP for cardiac resynchronization therapy.