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
Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) are effective therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and rapid ventricular rates. His bundle pacing (HBP) is a ...physiologic alternative to RVP. The aim of our study is to assess the feasibility and safety of HBP in patients undergoing AVNA and its effect on left ventricular (LV) function.
Permanent HBP is the preferred form of ventricular pacing at our institute. Atrioventricular node ablation and HBP were performed in patients with AF and difficulty in rate control. His bundle pacing implant characteristics and thresholds were recorded. Fluoroscopic relationship of AVNA site to HBP lead electrodes was documented. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at baseline and during follow-up were assessed. Forty-two patients underwent HBP and AVNA: age 74 ± 11 years; men 45%; HTN 64%; DM 19%; CAD 36%; permanent AF 40%; cardiomyopathy 55%. His bundle pacing was successful in 40 of 42 patients (95%). Successful AVNA site was at or below the ring electrode in 22 (no acute change in HBP threshold); above the ring electrode in 13 and left side in 2 pts (acute increase in HBP threshold in 7 of 15 pts). Final HBP threshold at implant was 1 ± 0.8 V@1 ms and increased to 1.6 ± 1.2 V@1 ms during a mean follow-up of 19 ± 14 months. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased from 43 ± 13% to 50 ± 11% (P = 0.01). New York Heart Association functional status improved from 2.5 ± 0.5 to 1.9 ± 0.5 (P = 0.04).
Atrioventricular node ablation and HBP were successful in 95% of patients. His bundle pacing lead characteristics remained relatively stable. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly during follow-up. His bundle pacing is feasible, safe and effective in pts undergoing AVNA.
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.
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.
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.
The His-SYNC pilot trial was the first randomized comparison between His bundle pacing in lieu of a left ventricular lead for cardiac resynchronization therapy (His-CRT) and biventricular pacing ...(BiV-CRT), but was limited by high rates of crossover.
To evaluate the results of the His-SYNC pilot trial utilizing treatment-received (TR) and per-protocol (PP) analyses.
The His-SYNC pilot was a multicenter, prospective, single-blinded, randomized, controlled trial comparing His-CRT vs BiV-CRT in patients meeting standard indications for CRT (eg, NYHA II-IV patients with QRS >120 ms). Crossovers were required based on prespecified criteria. The primary endpoints analyzed included improvement in QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and freedom from cardiovascular (CV) hospitalization and mortality.
Among 41 patients enrolled (aged 64 ± 13 years, 38% female, LVEF 28%, QRS 168 ± 18 ms), 21 were randomized to His-CRT and 20 to BiV-CRT. Crossover occurred in 48% of His-CRT and 26% of BiV-CRT. The most common reason for crossover from His-CRT was inability to correct QRS owing to nonspecific intraventricular conduction delay (n = 5). Patients treated with His-CRT demonstrated greater QRS narrowing compared to BiV (125 ± 22 ms vs 164 ± 25 ms TR, P < .001;124 ± 19 ms vs 162 ± 24 ms PP, P < .001). A trend toward higher echocardiographic response was also observed (80 vs 57% TR, P = .14; 91% vs 54% PP, P = .078). No significant differences in CV hospitalization or mortality were observed.
Patients receiving His-CRT on-treatment demonstrated superior electrical resynchronization and a trend toward higher echocardiographic response than BiV-CRT. Larger prospective studies may be justifiable with refinements in patient selection and implantation techniques to minimize crossovers.
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.
Abstract
Aims
His bundle pacing (HBP) is the most physiologic form of pacing. Long-term HBP capture threshold stability and its relation to lead characteristics at the time of implantation have not ...been adequately described. The aim of this study was to characterize HB capture threshold in follow-up and to identify potential lead characteristics predictive of lead capture instability.
Methods and results
Consecutive patients with successful HBP for bradycardia indications were identified from the Geisinger HBP registry. His bundle capture thresholds, baseline comorbidities, and radiographic lead slack characteristics were analysed. An increase in HB capture threshold ≥1 V above implant values at any time during follow-up was tracked. Forty-four of the 294 studied (15%) experienced HB capture threshold increase by ≥ 1 V. Threshold increase was seen early (41% by 8 weeks, 66% by 1 year). Eighteen (6%) patients required lead revision in follow-up. Abnormal slack shape was associated with a trend toward capture threshold increase hazard ratio (HR) 2.07; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.9–4.6; P = 0.08. Non-perpendicular angle of lead insertion on radiography was associated with the capture threshold increase (HR 2.81, 95% CI 1.4–5.8; P < 0.01).
Conclusion
His bundle capture threshold remains stable in the majority (85%) of patients. Implant characteristics may predict the threshold rise. Further evaluation of the aetiology of threshold increase and design changes in lead and delivery systems may lead to chronically stable capture thresholds.
Graphical Abstract
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.
Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and bundle branch block or ...indication for pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His-bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a safe and more physiological alternative to BVP.
The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between CSP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT.
This observational study included consecutive patients with LVEF ≤35% and class I or II indications for CRT who underwent successful BVP or CSP at 2 major health care systems. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included subgroup analysis in left bundle branch block as well as individual endpoints of death and HFH.
A total of 477 patients (32% female) met inclusion criteria (BVP 219; CSP 258 HBP 87, LBBAP 171). Mean age was 72 ± 12 years, and mean LVEF was 26% ± 6%. Comorbidities included hypertension 70%, diabetes mellitus 45%, and coronary artery disease 52%. Paced QRS duration in CSP was significantly narrower than BVP (133 ± 21 ms vs 153 ± 24 ms; P <.001). LVEF improved in both groups during mean follow-up of 27 ± 12 months and was greater after CSP compared to BVP (39.7% ± 13% vs 33.1% ± 12%; P <.001). Primary outcome of death or HFH was significantly lower with CSP vs BVP (28.3% vs 38.4%; hazard ratio 1.52; 95% confidence interval 1.082-2.087; P = .013).
CSP improved clinical outcomes compared to BVP in this large cohort of patients with indications for CRT.
PDF
