Comparison of clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography- and X-ray-guided left bundle branch pacing for bradycardia: A randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a physiological pacing modality. However, the long procedure and fluoroscopy time of LBBP is still a problem. This study aims to compare the clinical outcomes between transthoracic echocardiography (TTE)- and X-ray-guided LBBP. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, randomized controlled study. Consecutive patients who underwent LBBP in our team from June 2022 to November 2022 were enrolled. Procedure and fluoroscopy time, pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, as well as complications were recorded at implantation and during follow-up. RESULTS: In this study, 60 patients were enrolled and divided into two groups: 30 patients were allocated to the X-ray group and the remaining 30 to the TTE group. There was no significant difference in the success rate between the two groups (86.7% vs. 76.7%, p = .317). The procedure time of TTE group was comparable to that of the X-ray group (9.0 vs. 12.0 min, p = .063). However, the fluoroscopy time in the TTE group was significantly lower than that of the X-ray group (2.5 vs. 5.0 min, p = .002). There were no statistically significant differences in pacing parameters, electrophysiological and echocardiographic characteristics, or complications between the two groups at implantation and during follow-up. CONCLUSION: TTE-guided LBBP is a feasible and safe method. Compared with X-ray, TTE showed a comparable success rate and procedure time, but it could significantly reduce the fluoroscopy time of LBBP.

Selective proximal left anterior fascicle pacemapping for guiding narrow QRS premature ventricular complex ablation from the right coronary cusp.

A 38-year-old woman with a structurally normal heart was referred for catheter ablation due to symptomatic, monomorphic, high burden (12%) premature ventricular complexes (PVC) refractory to medical therapy. The PVC's ECG morphology suggested an origin in the proximal left anterior fascicle (LAF). During procedure PVCs were mechanically suppressed. Consequently, selection of the ablation target site was based on pace-mapping. This case illustrates how ablation from the right coronary cusp (RCC) for PVC arising from the proximal LAF could be accurately guided by pace-mapping. At this location, pacing can result in both a selective and a non-selective capture of the proximal LAF.

Clinical outcomes of left bundle branch area pacing compared to right ventricular pacing: Results from the Geisinger-Rush Conduction System Pacing Registry.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for patients requiring ventricular pacing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to compare clinical outcomes between LBBAP and RVP among patients undergoing pacemaker implantation METHODS: This observational registry included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations with LBBAP or RVP for bradycardia indications between April 2018 and October 2020. The primary composite outcome included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), or upgrade to biventricular pacing. Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with a prespecified burden of ventricular pacing and individual outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 703 patients met inclusion criteria (321 LBBAP and 382 RVP). QRS duration during LBBAP was similar to baseline (121 ± 23 ms vs 117 ± 30 ms; P = .302) and was narrower compared to RVP (121 ± 23 ms vs 156 ± 27 ms; P <.001). The primary composite outcome was significantly lower with LBBAP (10.0%) compared to RVP (23.3%) (hazard ratio [HR] 0.46; 95%T confidence interval [CI] 0.306-0.695; P <.001). Among patients with ventricular pacing burden >20%, LBBAP was associated with significant reduction in the primary outcome compared to RVP (8.4% vs 26.1%; HR 0.32; 95% CI 0.187-0.540; P <.001). LBBAP was also associated with significant reduction in mortality (7.8% vs 15%; HR 0.59; P = .03) and HFH (3.7% vs 10.5%; HR 0.38; P = .004). CONCLUSION: LBBAP resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared to RVP. Higher burden of ventricular pacing (>20%) was the primary driver of these outcome differences.

Importance of the Activation Sequence of the His or Right Bundle for Diagnosis of Complex Tachycardia Circuits.

In this review, we emphasize the unique value of recording the activation sequence of the His bundle or right bundle branch (RB) for diagnoses of various supraventricular and fascicular tachycardias. A close analysis of the His to RB (H-RB) activation sequence can help differentiate various forms of supraventricular tachycardias, namely atrioventricular nodal reentry tachycardia from concealed nodofascicular tachycardia, a common clinical dilemma. Furthermore, bundle branch reentry tachycardia and fascicular tachycardias often are included in the differential diagnosis of supraventricular tachycardia with aberrancy, and the use of this technique can help the operator make the distinction between supraventricular tachycardias and these other forms of ventricular tachycardias using the His-Purkinje system. We show that this technique is enhanced by the use of multipolar catheters placed to span the proximal His to RB position to record the activation sequence between proximal His potential to the distal RB potential. This allows the operator to fully analyze the activation sequence in sinus rhythm as compared to that during tachycardia and may help target ablation of these arrhythmias. We argue that 3 patterns of H-RB activation are commonly identified-the anterograde H-RB pattern, the retrograde H-RB (right bundle to His bundle) pattern, and the chevron H-RB pattern (simultaneous proximal His and proximal RB activation)-and specific arrhythmias tend to be associated with specific H-RB activation sequences. We show that being able to record and categorize this H-RB relationship can be instrumental to the operator, along with standard pacing maneuvers, to make an arrhythmia diagnosis in complex tachycardia circuits. We highlight the importance of H-RB activation patterns in these complex tachycardias by means of case illustrations from our groups as well as from prior reports.

Permanent His-bundle pacing using distal His-bundle electrogram-guided approach in patients with atrioventricular block.

BACKGROUND: Permanent His-bundle pacing (HBP) is effective and safe; however, the success rate of HBP is low, especially in patients with infranodal block. This study aimed to assess the efficacy and feasibility of HBP implantation using an electrophysiological guided approach targeting a distal His-bundle electrogram (HBE) in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). METHODS: Thirty-four consecutive patients with AVB (infranodal block in 28 patients) who underwent HBP were enrolled. During implantation, we attempted to target the distal part of the HBE (distal HBE) beyond the block site based on unipolar mapping. The His-capture threshold was evaluated for 1 year after implantation. RESULTS: HBP was achieved in 26 patients and in 21 patients (75%) with infranodal block. Detection of distal HBE was significantly higher in the successful HBP group than in the HBP failure group (65.4% vs. 0%, p = .001). Among 15 patients with intra-Hisian block, 14 patients (93%) successfully achieved HBP with distal HBE detection. During the 1-year follow-up period, an increase in His-capture threshold by ≥1.0 V at 1.0 ms occurred in five (19.2%) of 26 patients. The increased His-capture threshold group exhibited significantly less detection of distal HBE (20% vs. 76.2%; odds ratio 0.078, 95% confidence interval 0.07-0.87, p = .038) and a higher His-capture threshold at implantation (2.0 ± 1.1 V vs. 1.1 ± 0.9 V; odds ratio 1.702, 95% confidence interval 1.025-2.825, p = 0.04) than the non-increased His-capture threshold group. CONCLUSION: HBP implantation guided by distal HBE approach may be feasible with subsequent stable pacing in patients with intra-Hisian and atrioventricular nodal block.

Automated Framework for the Inclusion of a His-Purkinje System in Cardiac Digital Twins of Ventricular Electrophysiology.

Personalized models of cardiac electrophysiology (EP) that match clinical observation with high fidelity, referred to as cardiac digital twins (CDTs), show promise as a tool for tailoring cardiac precision therapies. Building CDTs of cardiac EP relies on the ability of models to replicate the ventricular activation sequence under a broad range of conditions. Of pivotal importance is the His-Purkinje system (HPS) within the ventricles. Workflows for the generation and incorporation of HPS models are needed for use in cardiac digital twinning pipelines that aim to minimize the misfit between model predictions and clinical data such as the 12 lead electrocardiogram (ECG). We thus develop an automated two stage approach for HPS personalization. A fascicular-based model is first introduced that modulates the endocardial Purkinje network. Only emergent features of sites of earliest activation within the ventricular myocardium and a fast-conducting sub-endocardial layer are accounted for. It is then replaced by a topologically realistic Purkinje-based representation of the HPS. Feasibility of the approach is demonstrated. Equivalence between both HPS model representations is investigated by comparing activation patterns and 12 lead ECGs under both sinus rhythm and right-ventricular apical pacing. Predominant ECG morphology is preserved by both HPS models under sinus conditions, but elucidates differences during pacing.

Comparison of synchronization between left bundle branch and his bundle pacing in atrial fibrillation patients: An intra-patient-controlled study.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological pacing strategy to preserve the electrical synchrony of ventricular conduction and left ventricular (LV) function. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative physiological pacing technique. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony comparing LBBP and HBP in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: Consecutive patients with symptomatic bradycardia and AF were enrolled from January to June of 2019. The cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony in different pacing mode were evaluated at baseline and after implantation. RESULTS: Both HBP and LBBP were performed in 20 patients. LBBP significantly widened the QRS duration compared with the intrinsic conduction (113.2 ± 14.5  vs. 96.5 ± 16.2 ms; p = .01), while HBP did not (104.5 ± 22.3  vs. 96.5 ± 16.2 ms; p = .12). Both LBBP and HBP patients had similar LV myocardial strain measurements for the mechanical synchrony evaluation without significant change compared with baseline. There was no significant difference in right ventricular synchrony measurement between LBBP and HBP. Compared to HBP, LBBP had less interventricular synchrony (IMVD, 14.7 ± 9.2  vs. 3.1 ± 12.7 ms, p < .01; Ts-LV-RV, 37.9 ± 10.7  vs. 18.5 ± 10.8 ms, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Although LBBP's a physiological pacing mode can achieve a similar cardiac electrical and mechanical synchronization when compared to HBP, LBBP results in modest delay in RV activation, and the clinical implication remains to be studied.

Is His-optimized superior to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy in improving heart failure? Results from a propensity-matched study.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP), alone or optimized in association with coronary sinus pacing (HBP+LV) has recently been proposed as an alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, there is lack of controlled studies that assessed clinical outcome. METHODS: We did a single-center, propensity-score matched, case-control study of comparison of HBP and HBP+LV versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure (HF) and standard indications for CRT. The study group patients were consecutively enrolled in the year 2019. The control group patients were selected, by propensity score matching, among those CRT implantations performed in the years 2015-2018. RESULTS: There were 27 patients in each group. In the active group, 12 (44%) patients received HBP alone and 12 (44%) patients HBP+LV pacing. HBP failed in three (11%) patients. In the control group, conventional CRT was achieved in 26 (96%) patients and failed in one. Paced QRS width was shorter in the active than in the control group (128 ± 18 vs. 148 ± 27 ms, p = .004). During a mean of 9.6 months of follow-up, a composite clinical outcome of death, hospitalization for HF or worsening HF occurred in three (11%) in the active group and in four (15%) in the control group, p = .58. No difference was also observed with softer endpoints: NYHA class (1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.1 ± 0.7), subjective improvement (74% vs. 74%) and LV ejection fraction (40.7% vs. 40.7%). CONCLUSION: Compared with conventional CRT, a shorter QRS width can be obtained with HBP alone or in association with coronary sinus pacing but we were unable to show a better clinical outcome. There is urgent need for large, randomized trials.

His bundle lead implantation for leadless pacemaker pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in persistent left superior vena cava.

Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) poses technical challenges to implantation of transvenous cardiac implantable electronic devices. His-bundle pacing is a physiologic pacing strategy to avoid or treat pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. We report a case of His-bundle lead implantation in a patient with PLSVC, absent right SVC, and pacing-induced cardiomyopathy.

Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch pacing in comparison with conventional right ventricular pacing: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been widely accepted as a traditional pacing strategy, but long-term RVP has detrimental impact on ventricular synchrony. However, left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) that evolved from His-bundle pacing could maintain ventricular synchrony and overcome its clinical deficiencies such as difficulty of lead implantation, His bundle damage, and high and unstable thresholds. This analysis aimed to appraise the clinical safety and efficacy of LBBP. METHODS: The Medline, PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library databases from inception to November 2020 were searched for studies comparing LBBP and RVP. RESULTS: Seven trials with 451 patients (221 patients underwent LBBP and 230 patients underwent RVP) were included in the analysis. Pooled analyses verified that the paced QRS duration (QRSd) and left ventricular mechanical synchronization parameters of the LBBP capture were similar with the native-conduction mode (P > .7),but LBBP showed shorter QRS duration (weighted mean difference [WMD]: -33.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], -40.44 to -26.19, P < .001), better left ventricular mechanical synchrony (standard mean differences: -1.5; 95% CI: -1.85 to -1.14, P < .001) compared with RVP. No significant differences in Pacing threshold (WMD: 0.01; 95% CI: -0.08 to 0.09, P < .001), R wave amplitude (WMD: 0.04; 95% CI: -1.12 to 1.19, P = .95) were noted between LBBP and RVP. Ventricular impedance of LBBP was higher than that of RVP originally (WMD: 19.34; 95% CI: 3.13-35.56, P = .02), and there was no difference between the 2 groups after follow-up (WMD: 11.78; 95% CI: -24.48 to 48.04, P = .52). And follow-up pacing threshold of LBBP kept stability (WMD: 0.08; 95% CI: -0.09 to 0.25, P = .36). However, no statistical difference existed in ejection fraction between the 2 groups (WMD: 1.41; 95% CI: -1.72 to 4.54, P = .38). CONCLUSIONS: The safety and efficacy of LBBP was firstly verified by meta-analysis to date. LBBP markedly preserve ventricular electrical and mechanical synchrony compared with RVP. Meanwhile, LBBP had stable and excellent pacing parameters. However, LBBP could not be significant difference in ejection fraction between RVP during short- term follow-up.

Brady-arrhythmias in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure of reduced ejection fraction: is his-bundle pacing superior to biventricular pacing？.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy and safety of His-bundle pacing (HBP) compared with the traditional biventricular pacing (BVP) on patients with brady-arrhythmias, who suffer from permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). METHODS: All patients with brady-arrhythmias, permanent AF and HFrEF were continuously enrolled from January 2017 to July 2019 and followed up for at least 12 months. The differences in QRS duration (QRSd), New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), tricuspid regurgitation grade, mitral regurgitation grade, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), and left atrial size were compared. RESULTS: A total of 52 patients were enrolled: 37 patients were with HBP and 15 patients with BVP. There was no electrode dislodged, perforation, infection or thrombosis during the follow-up of 18.12 ± 4.45 months. The success rate for HBP implantation was 88.10%. The capture threshold of his-bundle and the threshold of the left ventricular lead remained stable during follow-up. LVEF increased to higher than 50% in 11 patients with HBP (29.73%). The NYHA classification (both p < .001), LVEF (both p < .001) and LVEDD improved significantly during the follow-up in both groups. NYHA (p = .030), LVEF (p = .013), and LVEDD (p = .003) improved in patients with HBP compared with BVP. CONCLUSION: HBP was safe and more effective in improving the cardiac function and remodeling in patients with brady-arrhythmias, permanent AF and HFrEF compared with BVP.

A network meta-analysis and systematic review of change in QRS duration after left bundle branch pacing, His bundle pacing, biventricular pacing, or right ventricular pacing in patients requiring permanent pacemaker.

Cardiac dyssynchrony is the proposed mechanism for pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy, which can be prevented by biventricular pacing. Left bundle branch pacing and His bundle pacing are novel interventions that imitate the natural conduction of the heart with, theoretically, less interventricular dyssynchrony. One of the surrogate markers of interventricular synchrony is QRS duration. Our study aimed to compare the change of QRS duration before and after implantation between types of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs): left bundle branch pacing versus His bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing and conventional right ventricular pacing. A literature search for studies that reported an interval change of QRS duration after CIED implantation was conducted utilizing the MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases. All relevant works from database inception through November 2020 were included in this analysis. A random-effects model, Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to analyze QRS duration changes (eg, electrical cardiac synchronization) across different CIED implantations. The mean study sample size, from 14 included studies, was 185 subjects. The search found 707 articles. After exclusions, 14 articles remained with 2,054 patients. The His bundle pacing intervention resulted in the most dramatic decline in QRS duration (mean difference, - 53 ms; 95% CI - 67, - 39), followed by left bundle branch pacing (mean difference, - 46 ms; 95% CI - 60, - 33), and biventricular pacing (mean difference, - 19 ms; 95% CI - 37, - 1.8), when compared to conventional right ventricle apical pacing. When compared between LBBP and HBP, showed no statistically significant wider QRS duration in LBBP with mean different 6.5 ms. (95% CI - 6.7, 21). Our network meta-analysis found that physiologic pacing has the greatest effect on QRS duration after implantation. Thus, HBP and LBBP showed no significant difference between QRS duration after implantation. Physiologic pacing interventions result in improved electrocardiography markers of cardiac synchrony, narrower QRS duration, and might lower electromechanical dyssynchrony.