Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing.

Cardiac pacing to treat bradyarrhythmias has evolved in recent decades. Recognition that a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients can develop heart failure due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from traditional right ventricular apical pacing has led to development of more physiologic pacing methods that better mimic normal cardiac conduction and provide synchronized ventricular contraction. Conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease but can be limited by scarring and fibrosis. His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing are novel techniques that can provide more physiologic ventricular activation as an alternative to conventional or biventricular pacing. Leadless pacing has emerged as another alternative pacing technique to overcome limitations in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Our objective is to review the evolution of cardiac pacing and explore these new advances in pacing strategies.

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.

Leadless pacemakers at 5-year follow-up: the Micra transcatheter pacing system post-approval registry.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Prior reports have demonstrated a favourable safety and efficacy profile of the Micra leadless pacemaker over mid-term follow-up; however, long-term outcomes in real-world clinical practice remain unknown. Updated performance of the Micra VR leadless pacemaker through five years from the worldwide post-approval registry (PAR) was assessed. METHODS: All Micra PAR patients undergoing implant attempts were included. Endpoints included system- or procedure-related major complications and system revision rate for any cause through 60 months post-implant. Rates were compared through 36 months post-implant to a reference dataset of 2667 transvenous pacemaker patients using Fine-Gray competing risk models. RESULTS: 1809 patients were enrolled between July 2015 and March 2018 and underwent implant attempts from 179 centres in 23 countries with a median follow-up period of 51.1 months (IQR: 21.6-64.2). The major complication rate at 60 months was 4.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.6%-5.5%] and was 4.1% at 36 months, which was significantly lower than the 8.5% rate observed for transvenous systems (HR: .47, 95% CI: .36-.61; P < .001). The all-cause system revision rate at 60 months was 4.9% (95% CI: 3.9%-6.1%). System revisions among Micra patients were mostly for device upgrades (41.2%) or elevated thresholds (30.6%). There were no Micra removals due to infection noted over the duration of follow-up. At 36 months, the system revision rate was significantly lower with Micra vs. transvenous systems (3.2% vs. 6.6%, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Long-term outcomes with the Micra leadless pacemaker continue to demonstrate low rates of major complications and system revisions and an extremely low incidence of infection.

Atrioventricular node ablation for atrial fibrillation in the era of conduction system pacing.

Despite key advances in catheter-based treatments, the management of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a therapeutic challenge in a significant subset of patients. While success rates have improved with repeat AF ablation procedures and the concurrent use of antiarrhythmic drugs, the likelihood of maintaining sinus rhythm during long-term follow-up is still limited. Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) has returned as a valuable treatment option given the recent developments in cardiac pacing. With the advent of conduction system pacing, AVNA has seen a revival where pacing-induced cardiomyopathy after AVNA is felt to be overcome. This review will discuss the role of permanent pacemaker implantation and AVNA for AF management in this new era of conduction system pacing. Specifically, this review will discuss the haemodynamic consequences of AF and the mechanisms through which 'pace-and-ablate therapy' enhances outcomes, analyse historical and more recent literature across various pacing methods, and work to identify patient groups that may benefit from earlier implementation of this approach.

High-energy pacing inhibits slow-wave dysrhythmias in the small intestine.

The motility of the gastrointestinal tract is coordinated in part by rhythmic slow waves, and disrupted slow-wave patterns are linked to functional motility disorders. At present, there are no treatment strategies that primarily target slow-wave activity. This study assessed the use of pacing to suppress glucagon-induced slow-wave dysrhythmias in the small intestine. Slow waves in the jejunum were mapped in vivo using a high-resolution surface-contact electrode array in pigs (n = 7). Glucagon was intravenously administered to induce hyperglycemia. Slow-wave propagation patterns were categorized into antegrade, retrograde, collision, pacemaker, and uncoupled activity. Slow-wave characteristics such as period, amplitude, and speed were also quantified. Postglucagon infusion, pacing was applied at 4 mA and 8 mA and the resulting slow waves were quantified spatiotemporally. Antegrade propagation was dominant throughout all stages with a prevalence of 55 ± 38% at baseline. However, glucagon infusion resulted in a substantial and significant increase in uncoupled slow waves from 10 ± 8% to 30 ± 12% (P = 0.004) without significantly altering the prevalence of other slow-wave patterns. Slow-wave frequency, amplitude, and speed remained unchanged. Pacing, particularly at 8 mA, significantly suppressed dysrhythmic slow-wave patterns and achieved more effective spatial entrainment (85%) compared with 4 mA (46%, P = 0.039). This study defined the effect of glucagon on jejunal slow waves and identified uncoupling as a key dysrhythmia signature. Pacing effectively entrained rhythmic activity and suppressed dysrhythmias, highlighting the potential of pacing for gastrointestinal disorders associated with slow-wave abnormalities.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Glucagon was infused in pigs to induce hyperglycemia and the resulting slow-wave response in the intact jejunum was defined in high resolution for the first time. Subsequently, with pacing, the glucagon-induced dysrhythmias were suppressed and spatially entrained for the first time with a success rate of 85%. The ability to suppress slow-wave dysrhythmias through pacing is promising in treating motility disorders that are associated with intestinal dysrhythmias.

Atrial pacing improves mitochondrial function in peripheral blood mononuclear cells in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Mitochondrial dysfunction contributes significantly to the development of atrial fibrillation (AF). Conflicting data regarding the atrial pacing and the risk of AF existed, and the impact of atrial pacing on mitochondrial function remains unknown. Therefore, we sought to examine the association between atrial pacing percentage and mitochondrial function in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) with atrial pacing capability. This is a cross-sectional study involving 183 patients with CIEDs with atrial pacing capability. The oxidative stress and mitochondrial function were determined in peripheral blood mononuclear cells (PBMCs). Among 183 patients, 55.7% had permanent pacemakers, 7.7% had defibrillators, and 36.6% had cardiac resynchronization therapy. Mean age was 67.5 ± 14.7 yr with 51% being male. Mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 53.9 ± 16.8%. We demonstrated that the presence of atrial pacing above 50% correlated with higher levels of mitochondrial spared respiratory capacity (P = 0.043) and coupling efficiency (P = 0.045). After adjusting with multiple linear regression for age, sex, LVEF, history of AF, sick sinus syndrome, comorbidities, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), and percentage of ventricular pacing, our findings revealed a statistically significant association between a higher percentage of atrial pacing and increased spared respiratory capacity (ß, 0.217, P = 0.046), lower nonmitochondrial respiration (ß, -0.230; P = 0.023), and proton leak (ß, -0.247; P = 0.022). We demonstrated that atrial pacing enhances mitochondrial performance in PBMCs and left ventricular contractile performance in patients with CIEDs. This observation may serve as an additional support for the preventive effect of atrial pacing in the prevention of atrial arrhythmia.NEW & NOTEWORTHY Atrial pacing enhances mitochondrial spare respiratory capacity and reduces proton leak. This finding may provide further evidence supporting the preventive role of atrial pacing in reducing the risk of atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by interventricular conduction delay: How to choose between biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing.

BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing (BIV) is the gold standard for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Thirty percent of patients do not respond to CRT. Conduction system pacing (CSP) represents a viable alternative. Interventricular conduction delay (IVCD), as electrical desynchrony marker, is a CRT response predictor. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of CRT responders by selecting the best approach between BIV and CPS based on intraoperative IVCD measurement in patients with HFrEF and LBBB. METHODS: Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a standard BIV group(control group, CG) or a group where the CRT approach was determined based on IVCD evaluation(study group, SG). If the right ventricular sensed electrogram (RVs)-left ventricular sensed electrogram (LVs) interval was ≥100 ms, the lead was left in its original position; otherwise, the LV lead was removed, and CSP was performed instead. Clinical, EKG, and echocardiographic features have been assessed pre- and 6 months post-implant. Echocardiographic and clinical responder were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of patients in the SG underwent CSP, as the operative algorithm. The incidence of CRT responders was significantly higher in the SG (echocardiographic criterion: 92.5% vs. 69.8%, p:.009; clinical criterion 87.5% vs. 62.8%, p:.014). The SG showed a significantly greater difference in EF between pre- and post-implant as well as reduced end-diastolic and systolic volumes. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis indicated that enrollment in the SG was the only factor associated with CRT response. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative assessment of IVCD could help determine the optimal CRT approach between BIV and CSP, leading to a significant improvement in the rate of CRT responders.

Comparison of novel intrinsic versus conventional antitachycardia pacing for ventricular tachycardia among implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients.

INTRODUCTION: Intrinsic antitachycardia pacing (iATP) is a novel automated antitachycardia pacing (ATP) that provides individual treatment to terminate ventricular tachycardia (VT). However, the clinical efficacy of iATP in comparison with conventional ATP is unknown. We aim to compare the termination rate of VT between iATP and conventional ATP in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators using a unique setting of different sequential orders of both ATP algorisms. METHODS: Patients with the iATP algorithm were assigned to iATP-first and conventional ATP-first groups sequentially. In the iATP-first group, a maximum of seven iATP sequences were delivered, followed by conventional burst and ramp pacing. In contrast, in the conventional ATP-first group, two bursts and ramp pacing were initially programmed, followed by iATP sequences. We compared the success rates of VT termination in the first and secondary programmed ATP zones between the two groups. RESULTS: Fifty-eight and 56 patients were enrolled in the iATP-first and conventional ATP-first groups, and 67 and 44 VTs were analyzed in each group, respectively. At the first single ATP therapy, success rates were 64% and 70% in the iATP and conventional groups, respectively. At the end of the first iATP treatment zone, the success rate increased from 64% to 85%. Moreover, secondary iATP therapy following the failure of conventional ATPs increased the success rate from 80% to 93%. There was a significant benefit of alternative iATP for VT termination compared to secondary conventional ATP (100% vs. 33%, p = .028). CONCLUSIONS: iATP may be beneficial as a secondary therapy after failure of conventional ATP to terminate VT.

Prognostic benefits of His-Purkinje capture in physiological pacemakers for bradycardia.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical outcomes of long-term ventricular septal pacing (VSP) without His-Purkinje capture remain unknown. This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes between conduction system pacing (CSP), VSP, and right ventricular pacing (RVP). METHODS: Consecutive patients with bradycardia indicated for pacing from 2016 to 2022 were prospectively followed for the clinical endpoints of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations and all-cause mortality at 2 years. VSP was defined as septal pacing due to unsuccessful CSP implant or successful CSP followed by loss of His-Purkinje capture within 90 days. RESULTS: Among 1016 patients (age 73.9 ± 11.2 years, 47% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 612 received RVP, 335 received CSP and 69 received VSP. Paced QRS duration was similar between VSP and RVP, but both significantly longer than CSP (p < .05). HF-hospitalizations occurred in 130 (13%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 16% vs. VSP 13%, p = .001), and all-cause mortality in 143 (14%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 19% vs. VSP 9%, p < .001). The association of pacing modality with clinical events was limited to those with ventricular pacing (Vp) > 20% (pinteraction < .05). Adjusting for clinical risk factors among patients with Vp > 20%, VSP (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 4.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-14.36) and RVP (AHR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.44-6.60) were associated with increased hazard of HF-hospitalizations, and RVP (2.52, 95% CI: 1.19-5.35) with increased mortality, compared to CSP. Clinical endpoints did not differ between VSP and RVP with Vp > 20%, or amongst groups with Vp < 20%. CONCLUSION: Conduction system capture is associated with improved clinical outcomes. CSP should be preferred over VSP or RVP during pacing for bradycardia.

Left bundle branch pacing versus left ventricular septal pacing as a primary procedural endpoint during left bundle branch area pacing: Evaluation of two different implant strategies.

INTRODUCTION: Implant procedure features and clinical implications of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) have not been yet fully described. We sought to compare two different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implant strategies: the first one accepting LVSP as a procedural endpoint and the second one aiming at achieving LBBP in every patient in spite of evidence of previous LVSP criteria. METHODS: LVSP was accepted as a procedural endpoint in 162 consecutive patients (LVSP strategy group). In a second phase, LBBP was attempted in every patient in spite of achieving previous LVSP criteria (n = 161, LBBP strategy group). Baseline patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up data were compared. RESULTS: The final capture pattern was LBBP in 71.4% and LVSP in 24.2% in the LBBP strategy group compared to 42.7% and 50%, respectively, in the LVSP strategy group. One hundred and eighty-four patients (57%) had proven LBB capture criteria with a significantly shorter paced QRS duration than the 120 patients (37%) with LVSP criteria (115 ± 9 vs. 121 ± 13 ms, p < .001). Implant parameters were comparable between the two strategies but the LBBP strategy resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p = .026) without any clinical sequelae. Patients with CRT indications significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow-up irrespective of the capture pattern (from 35 ± 11% to 45 ± 14% in proven LBBP, p = .024; and from 39 ± 13% to 47 ± 12% for LVSP, p = .003). The presence of structural heart disease and baseline LBBB independently predicted unsuccessful LBB capture. CONCLUSION: The LBBP strategy was associated with comparable implant parameters than the LVSP strategy but resulted in higher rates of septal perforation. Proven LBB capture and LVSP showed comparable effects on LVEF during follow-up.

Assessment of ventricular electrical heterogeneity in left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing by using various electrophysiological methods.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) comprises pacing at the left ventricular septum (LVSP) or left bundle branch (LBBP). The aim of the present study was to investigate the differences in ventricular electrical heterogeneity between LVSP, LBBP, right ventricular pacing (RVP) and intrinsic conduction with different dyssynchrony measures using the ECG, vectorcardiograpy, ECG belt, and Ultrahigh frequency (UHF-)ECG. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with a pacemaker indication for bradycardia or cardiac resynchronization therapy underwent LBBAP implantation. ECG, vectorcardiogram, ECG belt and UHF-ECG signals were recorded during RVP, LVSP and LBBP, and intrinsic activation. QRS duration (QRSd) was measured from the ECG, QRS area was calculated from the vectorcardiogram, LV activation time (LVAT) and standard deviation of activation time (SDAT) from ECG belt and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS16) from UHF-ECG. RESULTS: Both LVSP and LBBP significantly reduced ventricular electrical heterogeneity as compared to underlying LBBB and RV pacing in terms of QRS area (p < .001), SDAT (p < .001), LVAT (p < .001) and e-DYS16 (p < .001). QRSd was only reduced as compared to RV pacing(p < .001). QRS area was similar during LBBP and normal intrinsic conduction, e-DYS16 was similar during LVSP and normal intrinsic conduction, whereas SDAT was similar for LVSP, LBBP and normal intrinsic conduction. For all these variables there was no significant difference between LVSP and LBBP. CONCLUSION: Both LVSP and LBBP resulted in a more synchronous LV activation than LBBB and RVP. Especially LBBP resulted in levels of LV synchrony comparable to normal intrinsic conduction.

Transvenous extraction of conduction system and lumenless pacing leads.

INTRODUCTION: Conduction system pacing (CSP), often accomplished with lumenless pacing leads, is increasingly employed to achieve physiologic ventricular activation. There are limited data on the extraction of these leads. The objective of this study was to describe the safety and efficacy of extraction of CSP pacing leads and compare outcomes with extraction of non-CSP lumenless leads. METHODS: Patients undergoing CSP/non-CSP lumenless lead removal were included. Outcomes of interest included rates of complete procedural success, complications, and successful reimplantation. RESULTS: Overall, 23 patients were included (n = 14 with CSP and n = 9 with non-CSP lumenless leads implanted in the right atrium, right ventricle, or septum). The mean age was 52.7 ± 24.0 years, 30% were female, and the mean lead age was 4.5 ± 4.4 years. The complete procedural success rate was 100%. One serious complication occurred in the non-CSP group but was unrelated to the lead of interest. Manual traction alone was successful in 57% of CSP cases (mean lead age 2.4 ± 1.7 years) and in 11% of non-CSP cases (mean lead age 7.9 ± 5.3 years). Laser sheaths were used in 43% of CSP cases and 89% of non-CSP cases; rotational cutting tools were used in no CSP cases and in 33% of non-CSP cases. Reimplantation in the conduction system was attempted with a left bundle branch pacing lead and successful in 80% (n = 4/5). CONCLUSION: Extraction of CSP and non-CSP lumenless leads is feasible with a high success rate and a good safety profile. CSP reimplantation after extraction is also feasible with good electrical performance.

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.

Cardiac resynchronization using fusion pacing during exercise.

INTRODUCTION: Fusion pacing requires correct timing of left ventricular pacing to right ventricular activation, although it is unclear whether this is maintained when atrioventricular (AV) conduction changes during exercise. We used cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) to compare cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using fusion pacing or fixed AV delays (AVD). METHODS: Patients 6 months post-CRT implant with PR intervals < 250 ms performed two CPET tests, using either the SyncAV™ algorithm or fixed AVD of 120 ms in a double-blinded, randomized, crossover study. All other programming was optimized to produce the narrowest QRS duration (QRSd) possible. RESULTS: Twenty patients (11 male, age 71 [65-77] years) were recruited. Fixed AVD and fusion programming resulted in similar narrowing of QRSd from intrinsic rhythm at rest (p = .85). Overall, there was no difference in peak oxygen consumption (V̇O2 PEAK , p = .19), oxygen consumption at anaerobic threshold (VT1, p = .42), or in the time to reach either V̇O2 PEAK (p = .81) or VT1 (p = .39). The BORG rating of perceived exertion was similar between groups. CPET performance was also analyzed comparing whichever programming gave the narrowest QRSd at rest (119 [96-136] vs. 134 [119-142] ms, p < .01). QRSd during exercise (p = .03), peak O2 pulse (mL/beat, a surrogate of stroke volume, p = .03), and cardiac efficiency (watts/mL/kg/min, p = .04) were significantly improved. CONCLUSION: Fusion pacing is maintained during exercise without impairing exercise capacity compared with fixed AVD. However, using whichever algorithm gives the narrowest QRSd at rest is associated with a narrower QRSd during exercise, higher peak stroke volume, and improved cardiac efficiency.

Left bundle branch area pacing for atrioventricular block and mild to moderately reduced left ventricular systolic function.

INTRODUCTION: The clinical efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has not been fully elucidated in patients with atrioventricular block and mild to moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This study evaluated the impact of LBBAP on patients with an LVEF of ≤50% and dependent on ventricular pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Thirty-seven patients with atrioventricular block underwent successful LBBAP. All patients had a reduced LVEF of 36%-50% and underwent pacemaker implantation. Ventricular pacing was performed using the LBBAP alone throughout the follow-up period. Clinical outcomes, including death from any cause, fatal ventricular arrhythmias, hospitalization for heart failure, and echocardiographic improvements after 1 year, were assessed. Thirty-three (89%) patients were free from the composite endpoint during a median follow-up of 36 months, whereas four patients experienced noncardiovascular deaths or hospitalization for heart failure. No fatal ventricular arrhythmias occurred. LVEF was improved using LBBAP from 42.6 ± 4.7% to 52.1 ± 9.1% (p < .001). LVEF normalization (>50%) was achieved in 64.5% of patients, while in 11 patients LVEF remained stable demonstrating no deterioration (from 42.5 ± 4.7% to 42.4 ± 6.3%). Nonischemic cardiomyopathy (odds ratio, 21.52; 95% confidence interval, 1.96-236.45) and Pre-existing bundle branch block (odds ratio, 11.79; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-125.75) were independent preoperative predictors of LVEF normalization using LBBAP. CONCLUSION: LBBAP significantly improved cardiac systolic dysfunction without causing fatal ventricular arrhythmias. Moreover, LBBAP may provide a promising alternative to biventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block and a reduced LVEF of 36%-50%.

First-in-man report of transsubclavian venous implantation of the Aveir leadless cardiac pacing system.

INTRODUCTION: Transsubclavian venous implantation of the Aveir leadless cardiac pacemaker (LCP) has not been previously reported. METHODS AND RESULTS: Three cases of transsubclavian implantation of the Aveir LCP are reported. Two cases were postbilateral orthotopic lung transplant, without appropriate femoral or jugular access due to recent ECMO cannulation and jugular central venous catheters. In one case, there was strong patient preference for same-day discharge. Stability testing confirmed adequate fixation and electrical testing confirmed stable parameters in all cases. All patients tolerated the procedure well without significant immediate complications. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrate the feasibility of transsubclavian implantation of the Aveir LCP.

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.

Left bundle branch area pacing in heart failure: A systematic review and meta-analysis with meta-regression.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing is an alternative to biventricular pacing. In this study, we aim to summarize the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). OBJECTIVES: The study summarizes the available evidence on the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of left bundle branch block area pacing (LBBAP). BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduced mortality and hospitalizations in heart failure (HF) patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% and concomitant LBBB. Recently LBBAP has been studied as a more physiological alternative to achieve CRT. METHOD: A search of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases were performed to identify studies examining the role of LBBAP for CRT in heart failure. Comprehensive meta-analysis version 4 was used for meta-regression to examine variables that contribute to data heterogeneity. RESULT: Eighteen studies, 17 observational and one randomized controlled trial (RCT) were examined. A total of 3906 HF patients who underwent CRT (2036 LBBAP vs. 1870 biventricular pacing [BVP]) were included. LBBAP was performed successfully in 90.4% of patients. Compared to baseline, LBBAP was associated with a reduction in QRS duration (MD: -47.23 ms 95% confidence interval [CI]: -53.45, -41.01), an increase in LVEF (MD: 15.22%, 95% CI: 13.5, 16.94), and a reduction in NYHA class (MD: -1.23, 95% CI: -1.41, -1.05). Compared to BVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in QRS duration (MD: -20.69 ms, 95% CI: -25.49, -15.88) and improvement in LVEF (MD: 4.78%, 95% CI: 3.30, 6.10). Furthermore, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in HF hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]: 0.44, 95% CI: 0.34, 0.56) and all-cause mortality (OR: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.52, 0.86) compared to BVP. CONCLUSION: LBBAP was associated with improved ventricular electrical synchrony compared to BVP, as well as better echocardiographic and clinical outcomes.

Result of the left bundle branch area pacing data collection registry, an international multicenter study of conduction system pacing with a Tendril STS 2088 stylet-driven lead.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area (LBBA) pacing (LBBAP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option in patients indicated for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LBBAP in patients implanted with a Tendril 2088 stylet-driven lead. METHODS: The international retrospective data collection registry included 11 sites from 5 countries globally. Patients with attempted implants of the Tendril lead in the LBBA were followed for at least 6 months post the implant attempt. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse events and the composite of LBBA capture threshold of ≤2.0 V and R-wave amplitudes ≥5 mV (or ≥value at implant), respectively. RESULTS: Of 221 patients with attempted implants of the Tendril 2088 lead in the LBBA, 91.4% (202/221) had successful implants for LBBAP. Regardless of the LBBAP implant success, all patients were followed for at least 6 months (8.7 ± 7.3 months). Baseline characteristics: 44% female, 84% ≥65 years old, 34% coronary artery disease, and 86% of primary indications for pacemaker implant. Both primary safety and effectiveness endpoints were met (freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse device effects of 99.5% and electrical performance composite success rate of 93%). The capture thresholds in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms and 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms. The rate of patients with capture threshold rise ≥1 V was 1.5% through 6 months. The R-wave amplitudes in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 9.3 ± 3.2 mV and 10.6 ± 3.0 mV. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter study demonstrates that the stylet-driven Tendril™ STS 2088 lead is safe and effective for LBBAP with high success and low complication rates.

Left bundle branch area pacing using a lumenless lead: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for delivering physiological pacing, data are largely limited to single-center reports. The aim of this analysis was to systematically assess the safety and efficacy of LBBAP with the Model 3830 lead among primarily bradycardia patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP using the SelectSecure Model 3830 lumenless lead. Rates and means were estimated using random- and mixed-effects models. Of 3395 articles, 53 met inclusion criteria, representing 6061 patients undergoing an implant attempt. Average patient age was 68.1 years (95% CI: 66.6, 69.6) and 53.1% were male (95% CI: 50.5%, 55.7%). The average implant success rate among bradycardia-indicated patients was 92.7% (95% CI: 89.5%, 94.9%). The overall estimated procedural adverse event rate was 2.5% (95% CI: 1.1%, 5.4%). The estimated septal perforation rate at implant was 1.6% (95% CI: 1.0%, 2.6%) with no adverse clinical sequelae reported. Pacing thresholds were low at implant (0.67 V [95% CI: 0.64, 0.70]) and remained stable through 12 months (0.76 V [95% CI: 0.72, 0.80]). Among bradycardia-indicated patients, LVEF remained stable from baseline to post-implant (59.5% [95% CI: 57.9%, 61.1%] vs. 60.1% [95% CI: 58.5%, 61.7%]). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis including 6061 patients implanted with a Model 3830 lead for LBBAP found an average implant success rate of 92.7% and a procedural adverse event rate of 2.5% with stable electrical parameters and LVEF post-implant.