His bundle pacing improves left ventricular diastolic function in patients with heart failure with preserved systolic function

Rapid reversal of right ventricular pacing–induced cardiomyopathy by His bundle pacing

His-bundle pacing is the best approach to physiological pacing.

Left bundle pacing in transposition of the great arteries with previous atrial redirection operation

Painful left bundle branch block syndrome treated successfully with permanent His bundle pacing

Hemodynamic Impact and Outcome of Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation

Contemporary and future trends in cardiac resynchronization therapy to enhance response

Left bundle branch pacing by standard stylet-driven lead: Preliminary experience of two case reports

QT interval prolongation and torsade de pointes induced by left ventricular pacing rescued by His bundle pacing

Background: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) can have adverse cardiac effects and cause pacing induced cardiomyopathy (PiCM). His bundle pacing (HBP)&Left Bundle Branch area pacing (LBBAP) mimic physiologic conduction (PhysioP) and maintain biventricular synchrony. Hypothesis and Aims: Reduced left ventricular (LV) systolic function reserve in the presence of normal baseline LV ejection fraction (EF) could precede development of RV PiCM. Our aim was to compare the effects of RVP vs. PhysioP on bicycle exercise cardiopulmonary performance in patients with normal LVEF who required pacing for bradyarrhythmias. Methods: Patients with sinus rhythm and RVP or PhysioP&ventricular pacing burden of >70% who completed cardiopulmonary exercise test and simultaneous stress echocardiography (SE) were included. Pulmonary gas exchange was calculated using Ventilation/CO2 production at rest and during exercise. Changes in LV size, EF, longitudinal strain and diastolic function and gas exchange parameters were compared post and pre exercise in the 2 groups. Results: 25 of 29 patients completed the study [68 ± 23 yrs, 48% M; LVEF 56±5%, 11 RVP, 14 PhysioP]. There was no difference in baseline demographic&clinical variables, exercise duration, rest and peak heart rate and blood pressure between 2 groups. Pacing duration was 2.61±1.48 yrs in RVP vs. 0.84±0.67 yrs (p=0.003) in the Physio group. Resting echocardiographic parameters (Table 1A) were comparable. Compared to RVP, reduction in LV end-diastolic volume (EDV) 3.4±14.1 ml vs. -23.1±18.1ml, p=0.006)&LV end-systolic volume (ESV -5.7±11.6 ml vs. -18.0±9.5ml, p=0.01) was more pronounced in the PhysioP group. Changes in LVEF, LV strain&diastolic function were not different between the 2 groups (Table 1B). There were no significant differences in changes in pulmonary gas exchange parameters in the 2 groups. Conclusions: In patients with normal LVEF and pacemaker dependent, RVP is associated with impaired but PhysioP with preserved LV systolic function reserve, which can be detected by exercise SE. SE may help identify patients at risk for RV PiCM. Benefit of PhysioP needs to be determined by larger studies with longer follow-up.

2021 PACES Expert Consensus Statement on the Indications and Management of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices in Pediatric Patients: Executive Summary.

Standard cardiac resynchronization therapy with a second right ventricular lead for severe right ventricular heart failure in 2 patients with repaired tetralogy of Fallot

Section 11: Evaluation and Management of Patients With Heart Failure and Preserved Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

The importance of leadless pacemaker positioning in relation to subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator sensing in completely leadless cardiac resynchronization and defibrillation systems

Although right ventricular pacing (RVP) may impair ventricular function, it is commonly used for advanced atrioventricular block (AVB) and normal or mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF). We aimed to compare His bundle pacing (HBP), biventricular pacing (BiVP), and RVP for advanced AVB in patients with normal or mildly reduced EF. MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Outcomes were all-cause death, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH), EF, left ventricular volumes, 6-minute walk test, and QRS duration. HBP or BiVP was compared with RVP. Subsequently, network meta-analysis compared the three pacing options. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018094132). Six studies compared BiVP and RVP (704 vs 614 patients) and four compared HBP and RVP (463 vs 568 patients). Follow-up was 6 months to 5 years. There was significantly lower mortality and HFH with HBP or BiVP as compared with RVP (odds ratio [OR], 0.66, [0.51-0.85], P = .002; OR, 0.61 [0.45-0.82], P < .001, respectively]. HBP or BiVP also showed significant increase in EF and decrease in QRS duration (mean difference [MD], 5.27 [3.86-6.69], P < .001; MD -42.2 [-51.2 to -33.3], P < .001, respectively). In network meta-analysis, HBP and BiVP were associated with significantly improved survival compared to RVP, with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability of 79.4%, 69.4%, and 1.2% for HBP, BiVP, and RVP, respectively. For HFH, SUCRA probability was 91.5%, 57.2%, and 1.3%, respectively. HBP or BiVP were the superior strategies to reduce all-cause death and HFH for advanced AVB with normal or mildly reduced EF, with no significant difference between BiVP and HBP.

Rate and nature of complications of conduction system pacing compared with right ventricular pacing: Results of a propensity score–matched analysis from a multicenter registry