Short term outcomes of distal (ventricular) His bundle pacing: A single centre retrospective study

Abstract

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Chronic right ventricular apical pacing can lead to pacing induced cardiomyopathy in a significant proportion of patients. Conduction system pacing may restore more physiological activation of the heart, and has recently been shown to have favourable outcomes in clinical trials. However there remains concern regarding the long-term outcomes due to lead displacement and high pacing thresholds. The most widely used technique in current practice is to pace the His bundle proximal to the tricuspid valve. Distal His bundle pacing has a number of advantages over proximal His pacing, including, lower capture thresholds, a more stable lead position, less far field atrial sensing and better spacing from the AV node in case ablation of this is required for AF rate control. Despite these, outcomes of distal His bundle pacing from the ventricular aspect are less well defined. Methods We performed a retrospective review of patients who underwent conduction system pacing between January 2020 and October 2021 at our centre. During this period all procedures were performed employing a distal His bundle pacing approach with the lead placed on the ventricular aspect of the tricuspid annulus. Data was collected at implant, follow-up at 1 month and then every 6 months. Results Out of 35 patients, 33 underwent successful His bundle pacing (acute success rate of 94%), 1 patient had left bundle branch pacing and another patient had an unsuccessful procedure. Mean age was 74 years, median LVEF 45% and median pre-implant QRS was 108ms. 80% of the cohort had a history of AF. The indications for pacing were as follows: AF - for pace & ablate (60%); high grade AV block with narrow QRS and mild LVSD (17%); failed LV lead (14%); and other 9%. Mean procedure duration and fluoroscopy time were 78 minutes and 12.05 minutes, respectively. Median threshold at implant was 1.00V (IQR 0.719V). Selective His bundle pacing was achieved in 60% and non-selective in 34%. Mean follow-up duration was 150 days with median threshold at last f/up of 0.75V (IQR 0.750V). There were no acute procedural complications. 1 patient had a significant rise in threshold at follow-up and therefore required upgrade to CRT-P. Discussion Our data shows that distal His bundle pacing is a safe and effective technique for conduction system pacing. Thresholds appear stable at follow-up and failure rate was found to be comparable to biventricular pacing. We noted an initial learning curve for both implanter and physiologists with relatively poorer outcomes for the earlier cases. Longer term follow-up is ongoing, including functional assessment and follow-up to assess for remodelling with echocardiography. Prospective randomised trials are needed to compare conduction system pacing vs RV pacing in AF patients with HFpEF or mild LVSD undergoing AVN ablation, and vs biventricular pacing in the severe LVSD population.