A randomized comparison of HBP versus RVP: Effect on left ventricular function and biomarkers of collagen metabolism.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) can result in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). It is unknown whether specific biomarkers reflect differences between His bundle pacing (HBP) and RVP and predict a decrease in left ventricular function during RVP. AIMS: We aimed to compare the effect of HBP and RVP on the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and to study how they affect serum markers of collagen metabolism. METHODS: Ninety-two high-risk PICM patients were randomized to HBP or RVP groups. Their clinical characteristics, echocardiography, and serum levels of transforming growth factor ß1 (TGF-ß1), matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP-9), suppression of tumorigenicity 2 interleukin (ST2-IL), tissue inhibitor of metalloproteinase 1 (TIMP-1), and galectin 3 (Gal-3) were studied before pacemaker implantation and six months later. RESULTS: Fifty-three patients were randomized to the HBP group and 39 patients to the RVP group. HBP failed in 10 patients, who crossed over to the RVP group. Patients with RVP had significantly lower LVEF compared to HBP patients after six months of pacing (-5% and -4% in as-treated and intention-to-treat analysis, respectively). Levels of TGF-ß1 after 6 months were lower in HBP than RVP patients (mean difference -6 ng/ml; P = 0.009) and preimplant Gal-3 and ST2-IL levels were higher in RVP patients, with a decline in LVEF ≥5% compared to those with a decline of <5% (mean difference 3 ng/ml and 8 ng/ml; P = 0.02 for both groups). CONCLUSION: In high-risk PICM patients, HBP was superior to RVP in providing more physiological ventricular function, as reflected by higher LVEF and lower levels of TGF-ß1. In RVP patients, LVEF declined more in those with higher baseline Gal-3 and ST2-IL levels than in those with lower levels.

Ventricular Dyssynchrony and Pacing-induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with Pacemakers, the Utility of Ultra-high-frequency ECG and Other Dyssynchrony Assessment Tools.

The majority of patients tolerate right ventricular pacing well; however, some patients manifest signs of heart failure after pacemaker implantation and develop pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This is a consequence of non-physiological ventricular activation bypassing the conduction system. Ventricular dyssynchrony was identified as one of the main factors responsible for pacing-induced cardiomyopathy development. Currently, methods that would allow rapid and reliable ventricular dyssynchrony assessment, ideally during the implant procedure, are lacking. Paced QRS duration is an imperfect marker of dyssynchrony, and methods based on body surface mapping, electrocardiographic imaging or echocardiography are laborious and time-consuming, and can be difficult to use during the implantation procedure. However, the ventricular activation sequence can be readily displayed from the chest leads using an ultra-high-frequency ECG. It can be performed during the implantation procedure to visualise ventricular depolarisation and resultant ventricular dyssynchrony during pacing. This information can assist the electrophysiologist in selecting a pacing location that avoids dyssynchronous ventricular activation.

Left Ventricular Myocardial Septal Pacing in Close Proximity to LBB Does Not Prolong the Duration of the Left Ventricular Lateral Wall Depolarization Compared to LBB Pacing.

Background: Three different ventricular capture types are observed during left bundle branch pacing (LBBp). They are selective LBB pacing (sLBBp), non-selective LBB pacing (nsLBBp), and myocardial left septal pacing transiting from nsLBBp while decreasing the pacing output (LVSP). Study aimed to compare differences in ventricular depolarization between these captures using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG). Methods: Using decremental pacing voltage output, we identified and studied nsLBBp, sLBBp, and LVSP in patients with bradycardia. Timing of ventricular activations in precordial leads was displayed using UHF-ECGs, and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated as the difference between the first and last activation. The durations of local depolarizations (Vd) were determined as the width of the UHF-QRS complex at 50% of its amplitude. Results: In 57 consecutive patients, data were collected during nsLBBp (n = 57), LVSP (n = 34), and sLBBp (n = 23). Interventricular dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was significantly lower during LVSP -16 ms (-21; -11), than nsLBBp -24 ms (-28; -20) and sLBBp -31 ms (-36; -25). LVSP had the same V1d-V8d as nsLBBp and sLBBp except for V3d, which during LVSP was shorter than sLBBp; the mean difference -9 ms (-16; -1), p = 0.01. LVSP caused less interventricular dyssynchrony and the same or better local depolarization durations than nsLBBp and sLBBp irrespective of QRS morphology during spontaneous rhythm or paced QRS axis. Conclusions: In patients with bradycardia, LVSP in close proximity to LBB resulted in better interventricular synchrony than nsLBBp and sLBBp and did not significantly prolong depolarization of the left ventricular lateral wall.

Ventricular activation pattern assessment during right ventricular pacing: Ultra-high-frequency ECG study.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) pacing causes delayed activation of remote ventricular segments. We used the ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG) to describe ventricular depolarization when pacing different RV locations. METHODS: In 51 patients, temporary pacing was performed at the RV septum (mSp); further subclassified as right ventricular inflow tract (RVIT) and right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) for septal inflow and outflow positions (below or above the plane of His bundle in right anterior oblique), apex, anterior lateral wall, and at the basal RV septum with nonselective His bundle or RBB capture (nsHBorRBBp). The timings of UHF-ECG electrical activations were quantified as left ventricular lateral wall delay (LVLWd; V8 activation delay) and RV lateral wall delay (RVLWd; V1 activation delay). RESULTS: The LVLWd was shortest for nsHBorRBBp (11 ms [95% confidence interval = 5-17]), followed by the RVIT (19 ms [11-26]) and the RVOT (33 ms [27-40]; p < .01 between all of them), although the QRSd for the latter two were the same (153 ms (148-158) vs. 153 ms (148-158); p = .99). RV apical capture not only had a longer LVLWd (34 ms (26-43) compared to mSp (27 ms (20-34), p < .05), but its RVLWd (17 ms (9-25) was also the longest compared to other RV pacing sites (mean values for nsHBorRBBp, mSp, anterior and lateral wall captures being below 6 ms), p < .001 compared to each of them. CONCLUSION: RVIT pacing produces better ventricular synchrony compared to other RV pacing locations with myocardial capture. However, UHF-ECG ventricular dysynchrony seen during RVIT pacing is increased compared to concomitant capture of basal septal myocytes and His bundle or proximal right bundle branch.