Conduction System Pacing Compared To Biventricular Pacing For Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy In Patients With Heart Failure and Mildly Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction: Results From International Collaborative LBBAP Study (I-CLAS) Group.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy is a guideline-recommended therapy in patients with heart failure, mildly reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFmrEF 36-50%), and left bundle branch block or indication for ventricular pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) utilizing left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) or His bundle pacing (HBP) has been shown to be a safe and physiologic alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and CSP among patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent BVP or CSP in patients with HFmrEF between Jan 2018 to June 2023 at 16 international centers were included. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or HFH. Secondary endpoints included change in LVEF and individual endpoints of death and HFH. RESULTS: A total of 1004 patients met inclusion criteria: BVP 178, CSP 826 (HBP 154; LBBAP 672). Mean age was 73±13 yrs, female 34%, and LVEF 42±5%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower compared to BVP (129±21 vs 144±19, p<0.001). LVEF improved during follow-up in both groups (49±10 vs 48±10%, p=0.32). CSP was independently associated with significant reduction in the primary endpoint of time to death or HFH compared to BVP (22% vs 34%; HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.43-0.94; p=0.025). CONCLUSIONS: CSP was associated with improved clinical outcomes when compared to BVP in this large cohort of patients with HFmrEF undergoing CRT. Randomized controlled trials comparing CSP to BVP will be necessary to confirm these results.

Left ventricular volumes and function in successful and failed His-BundLe Pacing. A comparative prospective study.

INTRODUCTION: Initial data suggest that His Bundle Pacing (HBP) could preserve long-term cardiac structure and function better than Right Ventricular Pacing (RVP), but evidence is limited. METHODS: We studied consecutive patients with baseline ejection fraction (EF) ≥ 50% who underwent HBP attempt, either successful (HBP group) or failed (RVP group). Two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) echocardiography were carried out at baseline and after 6 months of ventricular pacing burden > 20%. RESULTS: Among 68 patients, 40 underwent successful HBP, and 28 RVP. The HBP and RVP groups did not differ for age, sex and pacing indication. At baseline, the HBP and RVP groups did not differ for 2D EF (62% vs. 62%), 3D EF (60% vs. 63%), 2D (-19% vs. -19%) and 3D global longitudinal strain (GLS) (-15% vs. -16%). After 6 months, 2D EF (-3.86%) and 3D EF (-5.71%) significantly decreased in the RVP group and did not change in the HBP group (p for interaction .006 and <.001, respectively). 2D GLS (3.08%) and 3D GLS (2.22%) significantly increased in the RVP group, but did not change in the HBP group (p for interaction .013 and <.016, respectively). Pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) (EF drop ≥ 10% and EF < 50%) occurred in 14% (RVP) versus 0% (HBP) of patients (p = .025). CONCLUSIONS: Successful HBP was superior to RVP in preserving LV systolic function despite a high ventricular pacing burden, and was less frequently associated with PICM.

His-bundle pacing from the right atrium: Solving pacemaker implantation challenges post-TriClip.

INTRODUCTION: This case report highlights the novel role of His-bundle pacing (HBP) from right atrium, not just for preserving cardiac function, but also for avoiding interference with TriClip devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 78-year-old female with severe tricuspid regurgitation received two TriClip devices. Postprocedure, frequent significant sinus pauses required a pacemaker. HBP was chosen to avoid lead complications. Under local anesthesia, a His pacing lead was inserted via the axillary vein using specialized catheter. Follow-ups over 2.5 years showed stable parameters with no complications. CONCLUSION: HBP is effective for patients with TriClip devices, ensuring optimal cardiac function and lead stability.

His bundle pacing combined with atrioventricular node ablation for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: His bundle pacing (HBP) could replace failed biventricular pacing (BVP) in guidelines (IIa Indication), but the high capture thresholds and backup lead pacing requirements limit its development. We assessed the efficacy and safety of HBP combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) and compared with BVP and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). METHODS: We reviewed PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), New York Heart Association (NYHA) score, QRS duration (QRSd), and pacing threshold. RESULTS: Thirteen studies included 1115 patients (639 with HBP, 338 with BVP, and 221 with LBBP). Compared with baseline, HBP improved LVEF (mean difference [MD]: 9.24 [6.10, 12.37]; p < 0.01), reduced NYHA score (MD: -1.12 [-1.34, -0.91]; p < 0.01), increased QRSd (MD: 10.08 [4.45, 15.70]; p < 0.01), and rose pacing threshold (MD: 0.16 [0.05, 0.26]; p < 0.01). HBP had comparable efficacy to BVP and LBBP and lower QRSd (p < 0.05). HBP had a lower success rate (85.97%) and more complications (16.1%). CONCLUSION: HBP combined with AVNA is effective for AF, despite having a lower success rate and more complications. Further trials are required to determine whether HBP is superior to BVP and LBBP.

Sex differences outcomes in conduction system pacing for patients with typical left bundle branch block.

BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing (BVP) appears to confer more pronounced advantages in women, yet the impact of conduction system pacing (CSP) remains insufficiently characterized. This investigation seeks to elucidate sex-specific disparities in clinical outcomes among patients with typical left bundle branch block (LBBB) undergoing CSP, with a particular focus on assessing contributory factors. METHODS: Consecutive patients diagnosed with nonischemic cardiomyopathy, exhibiting left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 40%, and manifesting typical LBBB as Strauss criteria, underwent CSP. Subsequent longitudinal monitoring assessed improvements in LVEF and the composite endpoint of mortality or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). RESULTS: Among the included 176 patients, women (n = 84, mean age: 69.5 ± 8.8 years) displayed smaller heart size (LVEDd, 62.0 ± 8.3 mm vs. 64.8 ± 7.9 mm, P = 0.023) and shorter baseline QRSd (163.5 ± 17.7 ms vs. 169.7 ± 15.1 ms; P = 0.013) than men. Of the 171 patients who completed the follow-up, super-response was observed in 120 (70%), with a higher occurrence in women than men (78.3% vs. 62.5%, P = 0.024). The incidence of death or HFH was numerically lower in women (7.1% Vs 13%, Log-rank P = 0.216). Notably, the super-response showed a significant difference in women compared to men at the same electrocardiography and/or echocardiographic parameters value. Mediation analysis between sex and super-response revealed that LVEDd and pQRSd play an intermediary role, with the mediation proportion of 26.07% and 27.98%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Women may derive more benefits from CSP, and pQRSd and LVEDd partly drive this difference.

Selective his bundle pacing eliminates crochetage sign: A case report.

BACKGROUND: Crochetage sign is a specific electrocardiographic manifestation of ostium secundum atrial septal defects (ASDs), which is associated with the severity of the left-to-right shunt. Herein, we reported a case of selective his bundle pacing (S-HBP) that eliminated crochetage sign in a patient with ostium secundum ASD. CASE SUMMARY: A 77-year-old man was admitted with a 2-year history of chest tightness and shortness of breath. Transthoracic echocardiography revealed an ostium secundum ASD. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram revealed atrial fibrillation with a prolonged relative risk interval, incomplete right bundle branch block, and crochetage sign. The patient was diagnosed with an ostium secundum ASD, atrial fibrillation with a second-degree atrioventricular block, and heart failure. The patient was treated with selective his bundle pacemaker implantation. After the procedure, crochetage sign disappeared during his bundle pacing on the electrocardiogram. CONCLUSION: S-HBP eliminated crochetage sign on electrocardiogram. Crochetage sign may be a manifestation of a conduction system disorder.

Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Relatively High His-Bundle Capture Threshold After Permanent His-Bundle Pacing　- A Multicenter Clinical Study.

Background: Outcomes in patients with relatively high His-bundle (HB) capture thresholds at implantation are unknown. This study aimed to compare changes in the HB capture threshold and prognosis between patients with a relatively high threshold and those with a low threshold. Methods and Results: Forty-nine patients who underwent permanent HB pacing (HBP) were divided into two groups: low (<1.25 V at 1.0 ms; n=35) and high (1.25-2.49 V; n=14) baseline HB capture threshold groups. The HB capture threshold was evaluated at implantation, and after 1 week, 1, 3, and 6 months, and every 6 months thereafter. HB capture threshold rise was defined as threshold rise ≥1.0 V at 1.0 ms compared with implantation measures. We compared outcomes between the groups. During a mean follow-up period of 34.6 months, the high-threshold group showed a trend toward a higher incidence of HB capture threshold of ≥2.5 V (50% vs. 14%; P=0.023), HBP abandonment (29% vs. 8.6%; P=0.091), lead revision (21% vs. 2.9%; P=0.065), and clinical events (all-cause death, heart failure hospitalization, and new-onset or progression of atrial fibrillation; 50% vs. 23%; P=0.089) than the low-threshold group. A baseline HB capture threshold of ≥1.25V was an independent predictor of clinical events. Conclusions: A relatively high HB capture threshold is associated with increased risk of HBP abandonment, lead revision, and poor clinical outcomes.

Is Conduction System Pacing Going to Be the New Gold Standard for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy?

The current gold standard in device therapy for advanced heart failure (HF), which has been firmly established in HF management for more than 25 years, is classical biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT). In the last decade, a new pacing modality called conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a variant for advanced cardiac device therapy. It provides pacing with preserved intrinsic cardiac activation by direct stimulation of the specific cardiac conduction system. The term CSP integrates the modalities of HIS bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), both of which have provided convincing data in smaller randomized and big non-randomized studies for the prevention of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy and for providing effective cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with classical CRT-indication (primary approach or after failed CRT). Recent American guidelines proposed the term "cardiac physiological pacing" (CPP), which summarizes CSP including left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), a technical variant of LBBAP together with classical BiV-CRT. The terms HOT-CRT (HIS-optimized CRT) and LOT-CRT (LBBP-optimized CRT) describe hybrid technologies that combine CSP with an additional coronary-sinus electrode, which is sometimes useful in patients with advanced HF and diffuse interventricular conduction delay. If CSP continues providing promising data that can be confirmed in big, randomized trials, it is likely to become the new gold standard for patients with an expected high percentage of pacing (>20%), possibly also for cardiac resynchronization therapy. CSP is a sophisticated new treatment option that has the potential to raise the term "cardiac resynchronization therapy" to a new level. The aim of this review is to provide basic technical, anatomical, and functional knowledge of these new pacemaker techniques in order to facilitate the understanding of the different modalities, as well as to provide an up-to-date overview of the existing randomized and non-randomized evidence, particularly in direct comparison to right ventricular and classical biventricular pacing.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to biventricular pacing in patients with mid-range ejection fraction.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data comparing conduction system pacing (CSP) to biventricular pacing (BiVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) with mid-range left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). OBJECTIVE: Compare the clinical outcomes of patients with mid-range LVEF undergoing CSP versus BiVP. METHODS: Patients with mid-range LVEF (> 35 to 50%) undergoing CSP or BiVP were retrospectively identified. Lead performance, LVEF, HF hospitalization, and clinical composite outcome including upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy and mortality were compared. RESULTS: A total of 36 patients (20 BiVP, 16 CSP--14 His bundle pacing, 4 left bundle branch area pacing) were analyzed. The mean age was 73 ± 15, 44% were female, and the mean LVEF was 42 ± 5%. Procedural and fluoroscopy time was comparable between the two groups. QRS duration was significantly shorter for the CSP group compared to the BiVP group (P < 0.001). During a mean follow-up of 47 ± 36 months, no significant differences were found in thresholds or need for generator change due to early battery depletion. LVEF improved in both groups (41.5 ± 4.5% to 53.9 ± 10.9% BiVP, P < 0.001; 41.6 ± 5.3% to 52.5 ± 8.3% CSP, P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in HF hospitalizations (P = 0.71) or clinical composite outcomes (P = 0.07). CONCLUSION: Among patients with HF with moderately reduced ejection fraction, CSP appears associated with similar improvements in LVEF and had similar clinical outcomes as BiVP in mid-term follow-up.

Extraction of lumenless pacing leads from the His bundle and left bundle branch area: outcomes of the high-volume centre.

AIMS: The application of conduction system pacing (CSP) in clinical practice is growing, and the need for lead extraction will also increase. The data on outcomes and safety of CSP lead extraction are limited. The aim of this study was to assess procedural outcomes and safety of CSP lead removal. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-seven patients from the EXTRACT Registry with the indication for CSP lead removal were enrolled in the study conducted at the Department of Electrocardiology in Katowice, Poland. Extraction technique, outcomes, safety, and complication were evaluated. Forty-three (91.5%) leads were successfully removed, and 41 (87.2%) were removed with traction only. The dwelling time of 28 extracted leads was longer than 1 year, and the oldest extracted lead was implanted for 89 months. Seven (14.9%) leads were removed from the left bundle branch (LBB) area and 36 from the His bundle (HB). Transient complete atrioventricular block occurred during the procedure in two patients. In 27 out of 31 attempts (87.1%), new CSP leads were implanted: nine (33.3%) HB pacing leads and 18 (66.7%) LBB area pacing leads. CONCLUSION: The CSP lead extraction is safe and feasible with a low complication rate and high rate of CSP lead reimplantation.

His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch area pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation: A prospective and comparative study.

BACKGROUND: Pacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is a well-established strategy for uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias. Limited data are available regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting. AIM: To compare the outcomes of HBP and LBBAP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation combined with AVN in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after successful conduction system pacing (CSP) in two hospitals between September 2017 and May 2023. The primary outcome was the 1-year composite of first episode of heart failure hospitalization, symptomatic atrioventricular node reconduction requiring a second AVNA procedure, lead revision or death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients underwent AVNA following successful CSP (68 HBP and 96 LBBAP). Mean pacemaker implantation and AVNA procedure times were shorter in the LBBAP group than the HBP group (46±18 vs 59±23min; P<0.001 and 31±12 vs 43±22min, respectively; P<0.001). Complete atrioventricular block was more frequently obtained in the LBBAP group (88/96 patients [92%] vs 54/68 patients [79%]; P=0.04). One-year freedom from the composite outcome was more frequent in the LBBAP group (89.7% vs 72.9%; hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.72; P=0.01). The strategy was similarly effective in both groups with a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary pacing threshold elevation >1V occurred only in the HBP group (11%). CONCLUSION: In this prospective, comparative study, LBBAP provided better 1-year outcomes than HBP.

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.

Predictors of the efficacy of His bundle pacing in patients with a prolonged PR interval: A stratified analysis of the HOPE-HF randomized controlled trial.

AIMS: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled HOPE-HF trial assessed the benefit of atrio-ventricular (AV) delay optimization delivered using His bundle pacing. It recruited patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40%, PR interval ≥200 ms, and baseline QRS ≤140 ms or right bundle branch block. Overall, there was no significant increase in peak oxygen uptake (VO2max) but there was significant improvement in heart failure specific quality of life. In this pre-specified secondary analysis, we evaluated the impact of baseline PR interval, echocardiographic E-A fusion, and the magnitude of acute high-precision haemodynamic response to pacing, on outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: All 167 randomized participants underwent measurement of PR interval, acute haemodynamic response at optimized AV delay, and assessment of presence of E-A fusion. We tested the impact of these baseline parameters using a Bayesian ordinal model on VO2max, quality of life and activity measures. There was strong evidence of a beneficial interaction between the baseline acute haemodynamic response and the blinded benefit of pacing for VO2 (Pr 99.9%), Minnesota Living With Heart Failure (MLWHF) (Pr 99.8%), MLWHF physical limitation score (Pr 98.9%), EQ-5D visual analogue scale (Pr 99.6%), and exercise time (Pr 99.4%). The baseline PR interval and the presence of baseline E-A fusion did not have this reliable ability to predict the clinical benefit of pacing over placebo across multiple endpoints. CONCLUSIONS: In the HOPE-HF trial, the acute haemodynamic response to pacing reliably identified patients who obtained clinical benefit. Patients with a long PR interval (≥200 ms) and left ventricular impairment who obtained acute haemodynamic improvement with AV-optimized His bundle pacing were likely to obtain clinical benefit, consistent across multiple endpoints. Importantly, this gradation can be reliably tested for before randomization, but does require high-precision AV-optimized haemodynamic assessment to be performed.

Safety and performance of conduction system pacing: Real-world experience from a product surveillance registry.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has been used as an alternative for pacemaker indicated patients requiring ventricular pacing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the safety and performance of HBP and LBBAP among patients enrolled in the Medtronic product surveillance registry (PSR). METHODS: This observational analysis included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations for HBP or LBBAP with a Medtronic Model 3830 lead between January 2019 and December 2023 in the Medtronic PSR. The primary outcomes were lead-related complications and pacing capture threshold. Baseline characteristics, R-wave amplitude, impedance, and all-cause mortality were summarized. RESULTS: A total of 2342 patients were included across 77 centers (mean age 74 years; 38.9% female). Of the patients implanted with a 3830 lead for CSP, 64.1% (n = 1502) had LBBAP placement and 35.9% (n = 840) had HBP placement. The most commonly reported indications for CSP were sinus node dysfunction (67.0%) and atrioventricular block (57.2%). LBBAP had lower pacing thresholds, higher R-wave sensing, and higher impedance (all P <.001) through 30 months. At 36 months postimplant, the lead complication rate for LBBAP and HBP was 2.5% and 6.3%, ,respectively with no difference in all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: In a multicenter cohort of LBBAP and HBP patients treated with the catheter-delivered 3830 lead, lead-related complication rates were low and electrical parameters were stable through 30 months.

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.

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.

Extraction of His Bundle Pacing Lead: More Difficult than Coronary Sinus Lead Extraction: An Analysis of 3897 Lead Extraction Procedures Including 27 His and 253 Coronary Sinus Lead Removals.

BACKGROUND: Experience with the transvenous extraction of leads used for His bundle pacing (HBP) is limited. METHODS: Analysis of 3897 extractions including 27 HBP and 253 LVP (left ventricular pacing) leads. RESULTS: The main reason for HBP lead extraction was lead failure (59.26%). The age of HBP and LVP leads (54.52 vs. 50.20 months) was comparable, whereas procedure difficulties were related to the LVP lead dwell time. The extraction of HBP leads > 40 months old was longer than the removal of younger leads (8.57 vs. 3.87 min), procedure difficulties occurred in 14.29%, and advanced tools were required in 28.57%. There were no major complications. The extraction time of dysfunctional or infected leads was similar in the HBP and LVP groups (log-rank p = 0.868) but shorter when compared to groups with other leads. Survival after the procedure did not differ between HBP and LVP groups but was shorter than in the remaining patients. CONCLUSIONS: 1. HBP is used in CRT-D systems for resynchronisation of the failing heart in 33.33%. 2. Extraction of HBP leads is most frequently performed for non-infectious indications (59.26%) and most often because of lead dysfunction (33.33%). 3. The extraction of "old" (>40 months) HBP leads is longer (8.57 vs. 3.87 min) and more difficult than the removal of "young" leads due to unexpected procedure difficulties (14.29%) and the use of second line/advanced tools (28.57%), but it does not entail the risk of major complications and procedure-related death and is comparable to those encountered in the extraction of LVP leads of a similar age. 4. Survival after lead extraction was comparable between HBP and LVP groups but shorter compared to patients who underwent the removal of other leads.

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.