Ultra-High-Frequency ECG in Cardiac Pacing and Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy: From Technical Concept to Clinical Application.

Identifying electrical dyssynchrony is crucial for cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG) technique allows instantaneous dyssynchrony analyses with real-time visualization. This review explores the physiological background of higher frequencies in ventricular conduction and the translational evolution of UHF-ECG in cardiac pacing and CRT. Although high-frequency components were studied half a century ago, their exploration in the dyssynchrony context is rare. UHF-ECG records ECG signals from eight precordial leads over multiple beats in time. After initial conceptual studies, the implementation of an instant visualization of ventricular activation led to clinical implementation with minimal patient burden. UHF-ECG aids patient selection in biventricular CRT and evaluates ventricular activation during various forms of conduction system pacing (CSP). UHF-ECG ventricular electrical dyssynchrony has been associated with clinical outcomes in a large retrospective CRT cohort and has been used to study the electrophysiological differences between CSP methods, including His bundle pacing, left bundle branch (area) pacing, left ventricular septal pacing and conventional biventricular pacing. UHF-ECG can potentially be used to determine a tailored resynchronization approach (CRT through biventricular pacing or CSP) based on the electrical substrate (true LBBB vs. non-specified intraventricular conduction delay with more distal left ventricular conduction disease), for the optimization of CRT and holds promise beyond CRT for the risk stratification of ventricular arrhythmias.

Ultra-high-frequency ECG volumetric and negative derivative epicardial ventricular electrical activation pattern.

From precordial ECG leads, the conventional determination of the negative derivative of the QRS complex (ND-ECG) assesses epicardial activation. Recently we showed that ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG) determines the activation of a larger volume of the ventricular wall. We aimed to combine these two methods to investigate the potential of volumetric and epicardial ventricular activation assessment and thereby determine the transmural activation sequence. We retrospectively analyzed 390 ECG records divided into three groups-healthy subjects with normal ECG, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and right bundle branch block (RBBB) patients. Then we created UHF-ECG and ND-ECG-derived depolarization maps and computed interventricular electrical dyssynchrony. Characteristic spatio-temporal differences were found between the volumetric UHF-ECG activation patterns and epicardial ND-ECG in the Normal, LBBB, and RBBB groups, despite the overall high correlations between both methods. Interventricular electrical dyssynchrony values assessed by the ND-ECG were consistently larger than values computed by the UHF-ECG method. Noninvasively obtained UHF-ECG and ND-ECG analyses describe different ventricular dyssynchrony and the general course of ventricular depolarization. Combining both methods based on standard 12-lead ECG electrode positions allows for a more detailed analysis of volumetric and epicardial ventricular electrical activation, including the assessment of the depolarization wave direction propagation in ventricles.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP. METHODS: The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model. RESULTS: Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.

Sex-Specific Outcomes of LBBAP Versus Biventricular Pacing: Results From I-CLAS.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) has been associated with greater clinical improvement in women than men. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be an alternative form of CRT. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate sex-specific outcomes for death and heart failure events in a large, international, multicenter, cohort of patients undergoing CRT with BVP or LBBAP. METHODS: In this international study of 1,778 patients (575 female and 1203 male), sex-specific survival analysis was performed to compare the effect of LBBAP-CRT relative to BVP-CRT on the combined endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and secondary endpoints of HFH only, and death alone. RESULTS: Female patients were more likely to have nonischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block (LBBB) and less likely to have hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease than were male patients. Overall, female patients had a better result with LBBAP compared with BVP than did male patients, with a significant 36% reduction in death or HFH (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.97; P = 0.03) and a significant 60% reduction in HFH alone (HR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.69, P < 0.01). Women had a greater reduction in death or HFH among those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (HR: 0.45 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.79; P < 0.01) and LBBB (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.87; P < 0.01). Sex-specific echocardiographic outcomes were better in women than in men. CONCLUSIONS: Women obtained significantly greater reductions in the combined endpoint of death or HFH (primarily driven by reduction in HFH) with LBBAP compared with BVP among patients requiring CRT than did men.

Cardiac Conduction System Pacing: A Comprehensive Update.

The field of cardiac pacing has changed rapidly in the last several years. Since the initial description of His bundle pacing targeting the conduction system, recent advances in pacing the left bundle branch and its fascicles have evolved. The field and investigators' knowledge of conduction system pacing including relevant anatomy and physiology has advanced significantly. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on recent advances in conduction system pacing.

Left ventricular septal pacing - can we trust the ECG?

In contrast to left bundle branch pacing, the criteria for left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were never validated. LVSP is usually defined as deep septal deployment of the pacing lead with a pseudo-right bundle branch morphology in V1. The case report describes an implant procedure during which this definition of LVSP was fulfilled in four of five pacing locations within the septum, with the shallowest of them present in less than 50% of the septal thickness. The case highlights the need for a more precise definition of LVSP.

Result of the Physiologic Pacing Registry, an international multicenter prospective observational study of conduction system pacing.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option for patients with indication for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant success, safety, and electrical performances of HBP and LBBAP in the multinational Physiological Pacing Registry. METHODS: The international prospective observational registry included 44 sites from 16 countries globally between November 2018 and May 2021. RESULTS: Of 870 subjects enrolled, CSP lead implantation was attempted in 849 patients. Subjects with successful CSP lead implantation were followed for 6 months (5 ± 2 months). CSP lead implantation was successful in 768 patients (90.4%). Implant success was 95.2% (239/251) for LBBAP and 88.5% (529/598) for HBP (P = .002). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy duration were comparable between LBBAP and HBP (P = .537). Capture threshold at implant was 0.69 ± 0.39 V at 0.46 ± 0.15 ms in LBBAP and 1.44 ± 1.03 V at 0.71 ± 0.33 ms in HBP (P <.001). Capture threshold at 6 months was 0.79 ± 0.33 V at 0.44 ± 0.13 ms in LBBAP and 1.59 ± 0.97 V at 0.67 ± 0.31 ms in HBP (P <.001). Pacing threshold rise ≥1 V was observed at 6 months in 3 of 208 (1.4%) of LBBAP and 55 of 418 (13.2%) of HBP (P <.001). Serious adverse events related to implant procedure or CSP lead occurred in 5 of 251 (2.0%) with LBBAP and 25 of 598 (4.2%) with HBP (P = .115). CONCLUSION: This large prospective multicenter study demonstrates that CSP is technically feasible in most patients with relatively higher implant success and suggests that, with current technology, LBBAP may have better pacing parameters than HBP.

Left bundle branch area pacing results in more physiological ventricular activation than biventricular pacing in patients with left bundle branch block heart failure.

Biventricular pacing (Biv) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are methods of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Currently, little is known about how they differ in terms of ventricular activation. This study compared ventricular activation patterns in left bundle branch block (LBBB) heart failure patients using an ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG). This was a retrospective analysis including 80 CRT patients from two centres. UHF-ECG data were obtained during LBBB, LBBAP, and Biv. Left bundle branch area pacing patients were divided into non-selective left bundle branch pacing (NSLBBP) or left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) and into groups with V6 R-wave peak times (V6RWPT) < 90 ms and ≥ 90 ms. Calculated parameters were: e-DYS (time difference between the first and last activation in V1-V8 leads) and Vdmean (average of V1-V8 local depolarization durations). In LBBB patients (n = 80) indicated for CRT, spontaneous rhythms were compared with Biv (39) and LBBAP rhythms (64). Although both Biv and LBBAP significantly reduced QRS duration (QRSd) compared with LBBB (from 172 to 148 and 152 ms, respectively, both P < 0.001), the difference between them was not significant (P = 0.2). Left bundle branch area pacing led to shorter e-DYS (24 ms) than Biv (33 ms; P = 0.008) and shorter Vdmean (53 vs. 59 ms; P = 0.003). No differences in QRSd, e-DYS, or Vdmean were found between NSLBBP, LVSP, and LBBAP with paced V6RWPTs < 90 and ≥ 90 ms. Both Biv CRT and LBBAP significantly reduce ventricular dyssynchrony in CRT patients with LBBB. Left bundle branch area pacing is associated with more physiological ventricular activation.

Pacing of the specialized His-Purkinje conduction system: 'back to the future'.

The conduction system of the human heart is composed of specialized cardiomyocytes that initiate and propagate the electric impulse with consequent rhythmic and synchronized contraction of the atria and ventricles, resulting in the normal cardiac cycle. Although the His-Purkinje system (HPS) was already described more than a century ago, there has been a recent resurgence of conduction system pacing (CSP), where pacing leads are positioned in the His bundle region and left bundle branch area to provide physiological cardiac activation as alternatives to the unnatural myocardial stimulation obtained with conventional right ventricular and biventricular pacing. In this review, we describe the fundamental anatomical and pathophysiological aspects of the specialized HPS along with the CSP technique's nuts and bolts to highlight its potential benefits in everyday clinical practice.

Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: This observational study included patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included endpoints of death, HFH, and echocardiographic changes. RESULTS: A total of 1,778 patients met inclusion criteria: 981 BVP, 797 LBBAP. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% ± 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 ± 19 ms vs 161 ± 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 ± 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% ± 6% to 41% ± 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% ± 7% to 37% ± 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% ± 12% vs 10% ± 12%; P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, the primary outcome was significantly reduced with LBBAP compared with BVP (20.8% vs 28%; HR: 1.495; 95% CI: 1.213-1.842; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.

Bipolar anodal septal pacing with direct LBB capture preserves physiological ventricular activation better than unipolar left bundle branch pacing.

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) produces delayed, unphysiological activation of the right ventricle. Using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG), we explored how bipolar anodal septal pacing with direct LBB capture (aLBBP) affects the resultant ventricular depolarization pattern. Methods: In patients with bradycardia, His bundle pacing (HBP), unipolar nonselective LBBP (nsLBBP), aLBBP, and right ventricular septal pacing (RVSP) were performed. Timing of local ventricular activation, in leads V1-V8, was displayed using UHF-ECG, and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated as the difference between the first and last activation. Durations of local depolarizations were determined as the width of the UHF-QRS complex at 50% of its amplitude. Results: aLBBP was feasible in 63 of 75 consecutive patients with successful nsLBBP. aLBBP significantly improved ventricular dyssynchrony (mean -9 ms; 95% CI (-12;-6) vs. -24 ms (-27;-21), ), p < 0.001) and shortened local depolarization durations in V1-V4 (mean differences -7 ms to -5 ms (-11;-1), p < 0.05) compared to nsLBBP. aLBBP resulted in e-DYS -9 ms (-12; -6) vs. e-DYS 10 ms (7;14), p < 0.001 during HBP. Local depolarization durations in V1-V2 during aLBBP were longer than HBP (differences 5-9 ms (1;14), p < 0.05, with local depolarization duration in V1 during aLBBP being the same as during RVSP (difference 2 ms (-2;6), p = 0.52). Conclusion: Although aLBBP improved ventricular synchrony and depolarization duration of the septum and RV compared to unipolar nsLBBP, the resultant ventricular depolarization was still less physiological than during HBP.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), and Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last five years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: executive summary. Endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS) and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique. A synopsis is provided in this print edition of EP-Europace. The full document may be consulted online, and a 'Key Messages' App can be downloaded from the EHRA website.

Conduction system pacing, a European survey: insights from clinical practice.

AIMS: The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.

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.

Right bundle branch pacing: Criteria, characteristics, and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Targets for right-sided conduction system pacing (CSP) include His bundle and right bundle branch. Electrocardiographic patterns, diagnostic criteria, and outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) are not known. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to delineate electrocardiographic and electrophysiological characteristics of RBBP and to compare outcomes between RBBP and His bundle pacing (HBP). METHODS: Patients with confirmed right CSP were divided according to the conduction system potential to QRS complex interval at the pacing lead implantation site. Six hypothesized RBBP criteria as well as pacing parameters, echocardiographic outcomes, and all-cause mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: All analyzed criteria discriminated between HBP and RBBP: double QRS complex transition during the threshold test, selective paced QRS complex different from conducted QRS complex, stimulus to selective-QRS complex > potential-QRS complex, small increase in V6 R-wave peak time (V6RWPT) during QRS complex transition, equal capture thresholds of CSP and myocardium, and stimulus-V6RWPT > potential-V6RWPT (adopted as the diagnostic standard). According to the last criterion, RBBP was observed in 19.2% of patients (64 of 326) who had been targeted for HBP, present mainly among patients with potential to QRS complex interval <35 ms (90.6% [48 of 53]) and occasionally among the remaining patients (5.6% [16 of 273]). RBBP was characterized by longer QRS complex (by 10.5 ms), longer V6RWPT (by 11.6 ms), and better sensing (by 2.6 mV) compared with HBP. During a median follow-up duration of 29 months, no differences in capture threshold, echocardiographic outcomes, or mortality were found. CONCLUSION: RBBP has distinct features that separate it from HBP and is observed in approximately a fifth of patients in whom HBP is intended.