Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is associated with heart failure and increased mortality. His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to RVP.
This study sought to evaluate clinical outcomes ...of HBP compared to RVP.
All patients requiring initial pacemaker implantation between October 1, 2013, and December 31, 2016, were included in the study. Permanent HBP was attempted in consecutive patients at 1 hospital and RVP at a sister hospital. Implant characteristics, all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and upgrades to biventricular pacing (BiVP) were tracked. Primary outcome was the combined endpoint of death, HFH, or upgrade to BiVP. Secondary endpoints were mortality and HFH.
HBP was successful in 304 of 332 consecutive patients (92%), whereas 433 patients underwent RVP. The primary endpoint of death, HFH, or upgrade to BiVP was significantly reduced in the HBP group (83 of 332 patients 25%) compared to RVP (137 of 433 patients 32%; hazard ratio HR: 0.71; 95% confidence interval CI: 0.534 to 0.944; p = 0.02). This difference was observed primarily in patients with ventricular pacing >20% (25% in HBP vs. 36% in RVP; HR: 0.65; 95% CI: 0.456 to 0.927; p = 0.02). The incidence of HFH was significantly reduced in HBP (12.4% vs. 17.6%; HR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.430 to 0.931; p = 0.02). There was a trend toward reduced mortality in HBP (17.2% vs. 21.4%, respectively; p = 0.06).
Permanent HBP was feasible and safe in a large real-world population requiring permanent pacemakers. His bundle pacing was associated with reduction in the combined endpoint of death, HFH, or upgrade to BiVP compared to RVP in patients requiring permanent pacemakers.
Display omitted
Introduction
His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiologic form of pacing and has been associated with reduced risk for heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and mortality compared to right ...ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a safe and effective alternative option for patients needing ventricular pacing. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between LBBAP and HBP among a large cohort of patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation.
Methods
This observational registry included consecutive patients with AV block/AV node ablation who underwent de novo permanent pacemaker implantations with successful LBBAP or HBP between April 2018 and October 2020. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death from any cause or HFH. Secondary outcomes included the composite endpoint among patients with prespecified ventricular pacing burden and individual outcomes.
Results
The study population included 359 patients who met the inclusion criteria (163 in the HBP and 196 in the LBBAP group). Paced QRSd during LBBAP was similar to HBP (125 ± 20.2 vs. 126 ± 23.5 ms, p = .643). There were no statistically significant differences in the primary composite outcome in LBBAP (17.3%) compared to HBP (24.5%) (hazard ratio HR: 1.15, 95% CI: 0.72–1.82, p = .552). Secondary outcomes of death (10% vs. 17%; HR: 1.3, 95% CI: 0.73–2.33, p = .38) and HFH (10% vs. 12%; HR: 1.02, 95% CI: 0.54–1.94, p = .94) were not different among both groups.
Conclusions
There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical outcomes of death or HFH in LBBAP when compared to HBP.
Primary composite outcome of death or heart failure hospitalization among all patients (N = 370) with His bundle pacing compared to left bundle branch area pacing showed no significant differences in this study of patients requiring ventricular pacing for AV block or AV node ablation.
His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiologic form of pacing but associated with higher thresholds and lower success in patients with His-Purkinje conduction disease. Recent reports have described ...transvenous left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).
We aimed to prospectively evaluate the feasibility and the electrophysiologic and echocardiographic characteristics of LBBAP.
Patients requiring pacing for bradycardia or heart failure indications (failed left ventricular LV lead) were prospectively enrolled. LBBAP was performed with a Medtronic 3830 lead. Presence of left bundle branch (LBB) potential, paced QRS morphology/duration, and peak LV activation time (pLVAT) were recorded at implant. Pacing threshold and sensing was assessed at implant and follow-up. Echocardiography was performed to assess the approximate lead location and impact on tricuspid valve function.
LBBAP was successful in 93 of 100 (93%) patients. Mean age was 75 ± 13 years; men 69%, left bundle branch block 24%, right bundle branch block 25%, intraventricular conduction defect 8%. Indications for pacing were atrioventricular (AV) block 54%, sinus node dysfunction 23%, AV node ablation 7%, cardiac resynchronization therapy 11%, HBP lead failure 7%. Baseline QRS duration was 133 ± 35 ms. Paced QRS duration was 136 ± 17 ms. LBB potentials were observed in 63 patients with left bundle branch - ventricle (LBB-V) interval of 27 ± 6 ms. pLVAT was 75 ± 16 ms. Pacing threshold at implant was 0.6 ± 0.4 V @ 0.5 ms and R waves were 10 ± 6 mV and remained stable at median follow-up of 3 months. The lead depth in the septum was approximately 1.4 ± 0.23 cm.
LBBAP was feasible in a high percentage of patients with low thresholds during acute follow-up. HBP and LBBAP may significantly increase the overall success of physiologic pacing.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is effective in patients with heart failure, bundle branch block (BBB), or right ventricular pacing. Permanent His-bundle ...pacing (HBP) has been reported as an alternative option for CRT.
The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of HBP in CRT eligible or failed patients.
HBP was attempted as a rescue strategy in patients with failed left ventricular lead or nonresponse to BVP (group I), or as a primary strategy in patients with AV block, BBB, or high ventricular pacing burden as an alternative to BVP (group II) in patients with indications for CRT. Implant characteristics, New York Heart Association functional class, and echocardiographic data were assessed in follow-up.
HBP was successful in 95 of 106 patients (90%): 30 in group I and 65 in group II. Mean age was 71 ± 12 years and 30% were female, with BBB in 45%, paced rhythm in 39%, and AV block in 16%. His capture and BBB correction thresholds were 1.4 ± 0.9 V and 2.0 ± 1.2 V at 1 ms, respectively. During mean follow-up of 14 months, both groups demonstrated significant narrowing of QRS from 157 ± 33 ms to 117 ± 18 ms (P = .0001), increase in left ventricular ejection fraction from 30% ± 10% to 43% ± 13% (P = .0001), and improvement in New York Heart Association functional class from 2.8 ± 0.5 to 1.8 ± 0.6 (P = .0001) with HBP. Lead-related complications occurred in 7 patients.
Permanent HBP is a promising alternative for CRT. HBP may be considered as a rescue strategy for failed BVP and may be a reasonable primary alternative to BVP for CRT.
Right ventricular pacing (RVP) has been associated with heart failure and increased mortality. His-bundle pacing (HBP) is more physiological but requires a mapping catheter or a backup right ...ventricular lead and is technically challenging.
We sought to assess the feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes of permanent HBP in an unselected population as compared to RVP.
All patients requiring pacemaker implantation routinely underwent attempt at permanent HBP using the Select Secure (model 3830) pacing lead in the year 2011 delivered through a fixed-shaped catheter (C315 HIS) at one hospital and RVP at the second hospital. Patients were followed from implantation, 2 weeks, 2 months, 1 year, and 2 years. Fluoroscopy time (FT), pacing threshold (PTh), complications, heart failure hospitalization, and mortality were compared.
HBP was attempted in 94 consecutive patients, while 98 patients underwent RVP. HBP was successful in 75 patients (80%). FT was similar (12.7 ± 8 minutes vs 10 ± 14 minutes; median 9.1 vs 6.4 minutes; P = .14) and PTh was higher in the HBP group than in the RVP group (1.35 ± 0.9 V vs 0.6 ± 0.5 V at 0.5 ms; P < .001) and remained stable over a 2-year follow-up period. In patients with >40% ventricular pacing (>60% of patients), heart failure hospitalization was significantly reduced in the HBP group than in the RVP group (2% vs 15%; P = .02). There was no difference in mortality between the 2 groups (13% in the HBP group vs 18% in the RVP group; P = .45).
Permanent HBP without a mapping catheter or a backup right ventricular lead was successfully achieved in 80% of patients. PTh was higher and FT was comparable to those of the RVP group. Clinical outcomes were better in the HBP group than in the RVP group.
Right ventricular pacing (RVP) is associated with heart failure and increased mortality. His-bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to RVP.
The purpose of this study was to report ...long-term performance and compare the clinical outcomes of permanent HBP vs RVP.
All patients requiring pacemaker implantation underwent an attempt at permanent HBP in 2011 at one hospital and RVP at the sister hospital. Patients were followed from implantation, 2 weeks, 2 months, and yearly for 5 years. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), pacing thresholds, lead revision, and generator change were tracked. Primary outcome was the combined endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) at 5 years.
HBP was attempted in 94 consecutive patients and was successful in 75 (80%); 98 patients underwent RVP. LVEF remained unchanged in the HBP group (55% ± 8% vs 57% ± 6%; P = .13), whereas significant decline was noted in the RVP group (57% ± 7% vs 52% ± 11%; P = .002). Incidence of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy was significantly lower in HBP compared to RVP patients (2% vs 22%; P = .04). At 5 years, death or HFH was significantly lower in HBP compared to RVP patients with >40% ventricular pacing (32% vs 53%; hazard ratio 1.9; P = .04). At 5 years, the need for lead revisions (6.7% vs 3%) and for generator change (9% vs 1%) were higher in the HBP group.
In patients undergoing pacemaker implantation, permanent HBP was associated with reduction in death or HFH during long-term follow-up compared to RVP. HBP was associated with higher rates of lead revisions and generator change.
Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for patients requiring ventricular pacing.
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.
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).
LBBAP resulted in improved clinical outcomes compared to RVP. Higher burden of ventricular pacing (>20%) was the primary driver of these outcome differences.
Introduction
Several single‐center short‐term studies have demonstrated the feasibility, safety, and positive clinical outcomes of permanent His bundle pacing (HBP). We performed a retrospective ...study to evaluate long‐term technical and safety performances of HBP in a large population of pacemaker patients from two different centers.
Methods and Results
The analysis includes 844 patients (345 female, mean age = 75 ± 9 years) who underwent successful permanent HBP for pacemaker indications from 2004 to 2016. The main endpoints were long term electrical performances including pacing threshold, sensing, impedance, and freedom from pacing related complications. The pacing indication was AV Block in 348 (41.2%) patients, sinus node disease in 147 (17.4%), any bradycardia indication in patients with atrial fibrillation in 335 (39.7%) patients and need for cardiac resynchronization therapy in 14 (1.7%) patients. Mean pacing capture thresholds and sensed R waves were 1.6 V and 5.8 mV, respectively at implant and 2.0 V and 6.1 mV at chronic follow‐up. During the median follow up of 3 years (interquartile range = 1‐6 years), HBP was free of any complication in 91.6% of patients. In the first 368 patients, HBP was achieved using a deflectable curve delivery system, while in 476 using the fixed curve sheath. A significant difference was found in the thresholds (2.4 ± 1.0 V and 1.7 ± 1.1 V, P < .001, respectively) and complications (11.9% and 4.2%, P < .001, respectively) between the two groups.
Conclusions
Permanent HBP was safe and effective during long‐term follow‐up. The fixed curved delivery sheath offered significantly better electrical parameters and reliability over time. The results of this multicenter study are consistent with recent studies.
Complete electrical isolation of pulmonary veins (PVs) remains the cornerstone of ablation therapy for atrial fibrillation. Entrance block without exit block has been reported to occur in 40% of the ...patients. Far-field capture (FFC) can occur during pacing from the superior PVs to assess exit block, and this may appear as persistent conduction from PV to left atrium (LA).
To facilitate accurate assessment of exit block.
Twenty consecutive patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation referred for ablation were included in the study. Once PV isolation (entrance block) was confirmed, pacing from all the bipoles on the Lasso catheter was used to assess exit block by using a pacing stimulus of 10 mA at 2 ms. Evidence for PV capture without conduction to LA was necessary to prove exit block. If conduction to LA was noticed, pacing output was decreased until there was PV capture without conduction to LA or no PV capture was noted to assess for far-field capture in both the upper PVs.
All 20 patients underwent successful isolation (entrance block) of all 76 (4 left common PV) veins: mean age 58 ± 9 years; paroxysmal atrial fibrillation 40%; hypertension 70%, diabetes mellitus 30%, coronary artery disease 15%; left ventricular ejection fraction 55% ± 10%; LA size 42 ± 11 mm. Despite entrance block, exit block was absent in only 16% of the PVs, suggesting persistent PV to LA conduction. FFC of LA appendage was noted in 38% of the left superior PVs. FFC of the superior vena cava was noted in 30% of the right superior PVs. The mean pacing threshold for FFC was 7 ± 4 mA. Decreasing pacing output until only PV capture (loss of FFC) is noted was essential to confirm true exit block.
FFC of LA appendage or superior vena cava can masquerade as persistent PV to LA conduction. A careful assessment for PV capture at decreasing pacing output is essential to exclude FFC.
PDF
