Branch Area Research Articles

Feasibility, safety, and short-term follow-up of defibrillator lead at left bundle branch area pacing location: A pilot study

BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been increasingly adopted as an alternative modality to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The feasibility and safety of using an LBBAP lead to provide sensing of ventricular arrhythmia in patients receiving an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with CRT has been demonstrated recently. ObjectivesThe purpose of our study was to analyze the feasibility, safety, and short-term follow-up of a traditional defibrillator lead at the LBBAP location. MethodsPatients who underwent successful LBBAP defibrillator using DF-1/DF-4 lead and delivery catheter were included in the study. Defibrillation threshold (DFT) testing was performed after implantation to assess the ability of the LBBAP defibrillator lead to sense and provide appropriate therapy for ventricular arrhythmia. ResultsAlthough the ICD lead could be successfully deployed in the left bundle branch area in 7 of 8 patients, it was repositioned to the right ventricular (RV) apex because of atrial oversensing in 1 patient and cheesy septum in another patient. Acute procedural success was 62.5% (5/8 patients). Mean patient age was 62.6 ± 21.6 years. Mean procedural duration was 115.6 ± 38.1 minutes, with LBBAP defibrillator lead fluoroscopy duration of 10.6 ± 3.5 minutes. Mean capture threshold was 0.58 ± 0.23V/0.4 ms, sensed R-wave amplitude 9.6 ± 2.2 mV, pacing impedance 560 ± 145 Ω, and shock impedance 65.4 ± 5.5 Ω. Defibrillation testing was successful in inducing ventricular fibrillation and could be sensed and reverted promptly by the shock delivered through the lead. During mean follow-up of 3.8 ± 2.2 months, pacing parameters remained stable. No episodes of inappropriate arrhythmia detection or therapy delivery occurred during follow-up. ConclusionLBBAP defibrillator is feasible, safe, and effective during short-term follow-up. DFT testing at the time of implantation will help to ensure appropriate sensing and treatment of ventricular arrhythmias.

Successful left bundle branch area pacing in a patient with three TriClip devices.

Successful left bundle branch area pacing in a patient with three TriClip devices.

Numerical simulation on reservoir stimulation assisted depressurization development of hydrate bearing layers based on embedded discrete fractures

As the global demand for energy escalates, the increasing severity of environmental pollution underscores the urgent need for efficient development of hydrates—a promising, clean energy source with vast reserves. It is imperative to carry out reservoir stimulation on low-permeability hydrate reservoirs to enhance fluidity. In order to simulate the geometric morphology of complex fractures, based on the bifurcation fracture morphology in existing laboratory experiments, combined with embedded discrete fracture model and tree fractal theory, the multiphase and multi-component seepage mechanism, thermal conduction, thermal convection, and hydrate phase change in hydrate-bearing layers were comprehensively considered. Based on the TOUGH code, a TOUGH-EDFM module is developed to realize numerical simulation of three-dimensional four-phase four-component hydrate reservoir stimulation assisted depressurization development. We clarify the production capacity change characteristics, main methane dissociation zones, and gas-water migration trends after reservoir stimulation. The results indicate that in the multi-level branching fracture area, the increase in hydrate production in the primary fracture area of the reservoir is greater than that in the secondary fracture branching area. When the fractal scale factor is 0.56, the increase in production in the secondary branch fracture zone is 48% of that in the primary fracture zone. The cumulative gas production after the reservoir stimulation of Class III hydrate reservoirs can surpass that of the basic depressurization scheme by a remarkable 2.21 times, and the overall hydrate dissociation proportion has increased by 60%, indicating the ability of the reservoir to effectively utilize the energy within hydrate reservoirs, thereby significantly improving its depressurization development potential.

Conduction System Pacing: Hope, Challenges, and the Journey Forward.

Cardiac pacing has evolved in recent years currently culminating in the specific stimulation of the cardiac conduction system (conduction system pacing, CSP). This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the available literature on CSP, focusing on a critical classification of studies comparing CSP with standard treatment in the two fields of pacing for bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure. The article will also elaborate specific benefits and limitations associated with CSP modalities of His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Based on a growing number of observational studies for different indications of pacing therapy, both CSP modalities investigated are advantageous over standard treatment in terms of narrowing the paced QRS complex and preserving or improving left ventricular systolic function. Less consistent evidence exists with regard to the improvement of heart failure-related rehospitalization rates or mortality, and effect sizes vary between HBP and LBBAP. LBBAP is superior over HBP in terms of lead measurements and procedural duration. With regard to all reported outcomes, evidence from large scale randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT) is still scarce. CSP has the potential to sustainably improve patient care in cardiac pacing therapy if patients are appropriately selected and limitations are considered. With this review, we offer not only a summary of existing data, but also an outlook on probable future developments in the field, as well as a detailed summary of upcoming RCTs that provide insights into how the journey of CSP continues.

Phenolic Acid-β-Cyclodextrin Complexation Study to Mask Bitterness in Wheat Bran: A Machine Learning-Based QSAR Study.

The need to solvate and encapsulate hydro-sensitive molecules drives noticeable trends in the applications of cyclodextrins in the pharmaceutical industry, in foods, polymers, materials, and in agricultural science. Among them, β-cyclodextrin is one of the most used for the entrapment of phenolic acid compounds to mask the bitterness of wheat bran. In this regard, there is still a need for good data and especially for a robust predictive model that assesses the bitterness masking capabilities of β-cyclodextrin for various phenolic compounds. This study uses a dataset of 20 phenolic acids docked into the β-cyclodextrin cavity to generate three different binding constants. The data from the docking study were combined with topological, topographical, and quantum-chemical features from the ligands in a machine learning-based structure-activity relationship study. Three different models for each binding constant were computed using a combination of the genetic algorithm (GA) and multiple linear regression (MLR) approaches. The developed ML/QSAR models showed a very good performance, with high predictive ability and correlation coefficients of 0.969 and 0.984 for the training and test sets, respectively. The models revealed several factors responsible for binding with cyclodextrin, showing positive contributions toward the binding affinity values, including such features as the presence of six-membered rings in the molecule, branching, electronegativity values, and polar surface area.

Clinical impact and predictors of periprocedural myocardial injury among patients undergoing left bundle branch area pacing.

The clinical impact of Periprocedural myocardial injury (PMI) in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation with Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) is unknown. 130 patients undergoing LBBAP from January 2020 to June 2021 and completing 12months follow up were enrolled to assess the impact of PMI on composite clinical outcome (CCO) defined as any of the following: all-cause death, hospitalization for heart failure (HHF), hospitalization for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) and ventricular arrhythmias (VAs). High sensitivity Troponin T (HsTnT) was measured up to 24-h after intervention to identify the peak HsTnT values. PMI was defined as increased peak HsTnT values at least > 99th percentile of the upper reference limit (URL: 15pg/ml) in patients with normal baseline values. PMI occurred in 72 of 130 patients (55%). ROC analysis yielded a post-procedural peak HsTnT cutoff of fourfold the URL for predicting the CCO (AUC: 0.692; p = 0.023; sensitivity 73% and specificity 71%). Of the enrolled patients, 20% (n = 26) had peak HsTnT > fourfold the URL. Patients with peak HsTnT > fourfold the URL exhibited a higher incidence of the CCO than patients with peak HsTnT ≤ fourfold the URL (31% vs. 10%; p = 0.005), driven by more frequent hospitalizations for ACS (15% vs. 3%; p = 0.010). Multiple (> 2) lead repositions attempts, the use of septography and stylet-driven leads were independent predictors of higher risk of PMI with peak HsTnT > fourfold the URL. PMI seems common among patients undergoing LBBAP and may be associated with an increased risk of clinical outcomes in case of more pronounced (peak HsTnT > fourfold the URL) myocardial damage occurring during the procedure.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing With or Without Conduction System Capture in Heart Failure Models

BackgroundLeft bundle branch area pacing includes left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), which is effective in patients with dyssynchronous heart failure (DHF). However, the basic mechanisms are unknown. ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare LBBP with LVSP and explore potential mechanisms underlying the better clinical outcomes of LBBP. MethodsA total of 24 beagles were assigned to the following groups: 1) control group; 2) DHF group, left bundle branch ablation followed by 6 weeks of AOO pacing at 200 ppm; 3) LBBP group, DHF for 3 weeks followed by 3 weeks of DOO pacing at 200 ppm; and 4) LVSP with the same interventions in the LBBP group. Metrics of electrocardiogram, echocardiography, hemodynamics, and expression of left ventricular proteins were evaluated. ResultsCompared with LVSP, LBBP had better peak strain dispersion (44.67 ± 1.75 ms vs 55.50 ± 4.85 ms; P < 0.001) and hemodynamic effect (dP/dtmax improvement: 27.16% ± 7.79% vs 11.37% ± 4.73%; P < 0.001), whereas no significant differences in cardiac function were shown. The altered expressions of proteins in the lateral wall vs septum in the DHF group were partially reversed by LBBP and LVSP, which was associated with the contraction and adhesion process, separately. ConclusionsThe animal study demonstrated that LBBP offered better mechanical synchrony and improved hemodynamics than LVSP, which might be explained by the reversed expression of contraction proteins. These results supported the potential superiority of left bundle branch area pacing with the capture of the conduction system in DHF model.

Safety and performance of conduction system pacing: Real-world experience from a product surveillance registry

BackgroundConduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has been used as an alternative for pacemaker indicated patients requiring ventricular pacing. ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to characterize the safety and performance of HBP and LBBAP among patients enrolled in the Medtronic product surveillance registry (PSR). MethodsThis observational analysis included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations for HBP or LBBAP with a Medtronic Model 3830 lead between January 2019 and December 2023 in the Medtronic PSR. The primary outcomes were lead-related complications and pacing capture threshold. Baseline characteristics, R-wave amplitude, impedance, and all-cause mortality were summarized. ResultsA total of 2342 patients were included across 77 centers (mean age 74 years; 38.9% female). Of the patients implanted with a 3830 lead for CSP, 64.1% (n = 1502) had LBBAP placement and 35.9% (n = 840) had HBP placement. The most commonly reported indications for CSP were sinus node dysfunction (67.0%) and atrioventricular block (57.2%). LBBAP had lower pacing thresholds, higher R-wave sensing, and higher impedance (all P <.001) through 30 months. At 36 months postimplant, the lead complication rate for LBBAP and HBP was 2.5% and 6.3%, ,respectively with no difference in all-cause mortality. ConclusionIn a multicenter cohort of LBBAP and HBP patients treated with the catheter-delivered 3830 lead, lead-related complication rates were low and electrical parameters were stable through 30 months.

Dual versus conventional cardiac resynchronization: A pilot study

Background: Systolic heart failure treatment now includes cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) as a necessary element. CRT has been shown to have advantageous impacts on mortality, hospitalization rates, and quality of life. Approximately 30% of patients fail to respond to traditional CRT implantation. Aims and Objectives: This study aimed to compare the outcome of dual resynchronization by placing the right ventricular pacing lead at His bundle or left bundle branch area against conventional CRT. Materials and Methods: This longitudinal follow-up study of a total of 35 patients undergoing CRT device placement for assessment of safety, efficacy, and feasibility of the procedure and post-procedural complications and correlation with parameters obtained from electrocardiogram and echocardiography parameters in a tertiary care set up in India. Results: Among this matched population (mean age 64 years) there was a higher responder rate with the newer technique of dual resynchronization compared to conventional CRT (83% vs. 70%). Conclusion: Dual resynchronization therapy is feasible and safe and provides better electrical resynchronization compared to conventional CRT and could be a better alternative, especially when suboptimal electrical resynchronization is obtained.

Outcomes of combined left bundle branch area pacing with atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and pulmonary disease.

Concomitant left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) with atrioventricular (AV) nodal ablation is emerging as a viable management option in atrial fibrillation refractory to medical management. Its viability in patients with pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation is unknown. This is a retrospective, observational cohort study in consecutive patients who underwent concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation with advanced pulmonary disease at the Cleveland Clinic Fairview Hospital between January 2019 and January 2023. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use were extracted via chart review. Rates of hospitalizations, medication use, and structural disease seen on echocardiography were compared before and after the procedure. There were 27 patients with group 3 pulmonary hypertension who underwent the procedure. In the 24 months preprocedure, there were 114 admissions for heart failure or atrial fibrillation compared to 9 admissions postprocedure (p<.001). Mean follow up was 17.3±12.1 months. There were no significant complications or lead dislodgements. Echocardiographic characteristics were similar prior to and after pacemaker implantation. Use of medications for rate and rhythm control was common preprocedure, and was reduced dramatically postprocedure. This small, retrospective cohort study suggests concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation may be safe and efficacious for management of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced pulmonary disease.

Impact of left bundle branch area pacing as the primary cardiac resynchronization strategy vs biventricular pacing on resource utilization and clinical outcomes in a community hospital

Impact of left bundle branch area pacing as the primary cardiac resynchronization strategy vs biventricular pacing on resource utilization and clinical outcomes in a community hospital

New-onset atrial high-rate episodes in left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing for patients with atrioventricular block.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) demonstrated beneficial effects on clinical outcomes. Comparative data on the risk of atrial high-rate episodes (AHREs) between LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP) are lacking. This study aimed to investigate whether LBBAP can reduce the risk of new-onset AHREs compared with RVP in patients with atrioventricular block (AVB). We enrolled 175 consecutive AVB patients with no history of atrial fibrillation undergoing dual-chamber pacemaker implantation (LBBAP or RVP). Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 43 matched pairs. The primary outcome was new-onset AHREs detected on a scheduled device follow-up. Changes in echocardiographic measurements were also compared between the groups. New-onset AHREs occurred in 42 (24.0%) of all enrolled patients (follow-up 14.1 [7.5] months) and the incidence of new-onset AHREs in the LBBAP group was lower than in the RVP group (19.8% vs. 34.7%; P = 0.04). After propensity score matching, LBBAP still resulted in a lower incidence of new-onset AHREs (11.6% vs. 32.6%; P = 0.02), and a lower hazard ratio for new-onset AHREs compared with RVP (HR, 0.274; 95% CI, 0.113-0.692). At 1 year, LBBAP achieved preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (63.0 [3.2]% to 63.1 [3.1]%; P = 0.56), while RVP resulted in reduced LVEF (63.4 [4.9]% to 60.5 [7.3]%; P = 0.01]). Changes in LVEF were significantly different between the 2 groups (by 2.6% [0.2 to 5.0]%; P = 0.03). LBBAP demonstrated a reduced risk of new-onset AHREs compared with RVP in patients with AVB.

Single-center experience of efficacy and safety of atrioventricular node ablation after left bundle branch area pacing for the management of atrial fibrillation.

Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) with permanent pacing is an effective treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) prevents cardiac dyssynchrony associated with right ventricular pacing and could prevent worsening of heart failure (HF). In this retrospective monocentric study, all patients who received AVNA procedure with LBBAP were consecutively included. AVNA procedure data, electrical and echocardiographic parameters at 6 months, and clinical outcomes at 1 year were studied and compared to a matched cohort of patients who received AVNA procedure with conventional pacing between 2010 and 2023. Seventy-five AVNA procedures associated with LBBAP were studied. AVNA in this context was feasible, with a success rate of 98.7% at first ablation, and safe without any complications. There was no threshold rise at follow-up. At 1 year, 6 (8%) patients were hospitalized for HF and 2 (2.7%) were deceased. Patients had a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (P ≤ 0.0001). When compared to a matched cohort of patients with AVNA and conventional pacing, AVNA data and pacing complications rates were similar. Patients with LBBAP had a better improvement of LVEF (+5.27 ± 9.62% vs. -0.48 ± 14%, P = 0.01), and a lower 1-year rate of composite outcome of hospitalization for HF or death (HR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.16-0.95, P = 0.037), significant on survival analysis (log-rank P-value = 0.03). AVNA with LBBAP in patients with symptomatic AF is feasible, safe, and efficient. Hospitalization for HF or death rate was significantly lower and LVEF improvement was greater.

His bundle pacing versus left bundle branch area pacing in patients undergoing atrioventricular node ablation: A prospective and comparative study

BackgroundPacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is a well-established strategy for uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias. Limited data are available regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting. AimTo compare the outcomes of HBP and LBBAP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation combined with AVN in routine clinical practice. MethodsWe prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after successful conduction system pacing (CSP) in two hospitals between September 2017 and May 2023. The primary outcome was the 1-year composite of first episode of heart failure hospitalization, symptomatic atrioventricular node reconduction requiring a second AVNA procedure, lead revision or death from any cause. ResultsA total of 164 patients underwent AVNA following successful CSP (68 HBP and 96 LBBAP). Mean pacemaker implantation and AVNA procedure times were shorter in the LBBAP group than the HBP group (46±18 vs 59±23min; P<0.001 and 31±12 vs 43±22min, respectively; P<0.001). Complete atrioventricular block was more frequently obtained in the LBBAP group (88/96 patients [92%] vs 54/68 patients [79%]; P=0.04). One-year freedom from the composite outcome was more frequent in the LBBAP group (89.7% vs 72.9%; hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14−0.72; P=0.01). The strategy was similarly effective in both groups with a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary pacing threshold elevation >1V occurred only in the HBP group (11%). ConclusionIn this prospective, comparative study, LBBAP provided better 1-year outcomes than HBP.

Closed loop stimulation in left bundle branch area pacing

Closed loop stimulation in left bundle branch area pacing

The unexpected complications of the left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) maneuver: a case report

BackgroundThe lead of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) inserted into the muscular septum will make the transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of LBBAP more challenging and because in LBBAP ventricular lead (V lead) should be inserted into the part of the septum, damage to the vessel near the lead could occur. The case reports introduced the complications of LBBAP previously introduced, but not being considered in detail.Case presentationThe two patients (76-year-old man, 90-year-old man) with a complete atrioventricular block (CAVB) undergoing the LBBAP procedure experienced complications related to the procedure. The complications were abrupt dysfunction of V lead and damage to the septal vein in the process of the procedure, respectively. Fortunately, they were discharged without any other complications.ConclusionsA deliberate approach for the procedure would be needed as well as successful insertion appropriate for the protocol of LBBAP. And long-term follow-up of complications should be needed.

Atrial standstill in a young patient treated with left bundle branch area pacing

Abstract Atrial standstill is a rare arrhythmogenic condition characterized by the absence of electrical and mechanical activity in the atria. The therapeutic options for these patients described in the current literature, in which no reversible cause is detected, are permanent cardiac pacing, anticoagulant, and heart failure treatment when the latter exists. We present a case of a young male with no personal or family history of cardiovascular disease, diagnosed with atrial standstill after multiple syncopal episodes, in whom, because of the high expected ventricular pacing percentage, we opted for conduction system pacing with left bundle branch area pacing.

Clinical and Electrophysiological Outcomes of Left Bundle Area Pacing Compared to Biventricular Pacing: An Updated Meta-analysis.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel pacing strategy that uses the conduction system distal to the left bundle branch block level for direct activation of the left bundle and right ventricular myocardium. Our meta-analysis compared the structural, electrophysiological, clinical, and procedural outcomes of LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BVP). The meta-analysis included two randomized controlled trials and showed significant reductions in the left ventricular (LV) systolic and diastolic volumes with LBBAP compared to BVP, together with statistically significant reductions in the QRS duration, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, and heart failure (HF) hospitalizations. The fluoroscopic time was also significantly shorter in the LBBAP group. However, no significant change in the LV ejection fraction was noted. Procedural complications were slightly higher in the LBBAP group, albeit not to a statistically significant degree. Our findings suggest that LBBAP may be a superior alternative to standard BVP in improving the structural, electrophysiological, and clinical components of cardiomyopathy, including the NYHA class and HF hospitalizations. LBBAP is a more physiological pacing strategy that results in normal ventricular activation and may be a viable alternative to BVP for cardiac synchronization therapy.

Complementary use of conduction system pacing techniques for the “pace and ablate” strategy in permanent atrial fibrillation - a case report

Abstract Introduction The feasibility of the conduction system pacing combined with atrioventricular node ablation was demonstrated in patients with atrial fibrillation in whom rate control can’t be achieved with medication and heart failure. Clinical case We present a case of an 82-year-old man with a personal history of permanent atrial fibrillation, admitted with symptoms of heart failure. The resting electrocardiogram showed a very fast ventricular response, and the echocardiography showed a depressed left ventricular function, raising the suspicion of a tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy. Since the patient was on maximum doses of atrioventricular nodal-blocking drugs, we opted for a physiological pacing and atrioventricular node ablation strategy. First, the His bundle capture was achieved at low pacing thresholds, and ablation of the atrioventricular node was attempted. Unfortunately, after several failed attempts, an acute increase in the His bundle capture threshold was noted, suggesting inadvertent tissue ablation beneath the pacing lead. In this scenario, we removed the lead from the His bundle area and achieved optimal left bundle branch area pacing. With the lead in this position, atrioventricular node ablation was performed during the first attempt. At the six-month follow-up, there was no recovery of atrioventricular node conduction. Device interrogation revealed stable pacing and sensing parameters, and there was a significant improvement in clinical status and left ventricular function. Conclusions Mastering both His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing offers the potential to overcome intraprocedural challenges, giving alternative strategies to achieve physiological pacing. These approaches can be used interchangeably based on the evolving dynamics of the procedure and the patient’s specific needs.

LEFT BUNDLE BRANCH AREA PACING IN COMPLETE ATRIOVENTRICULAR BLOCK DUE TO LYME CARDITIS

Lyme disease, also known as Lyme borreliosis, is caused by Borrelia bacteria. In Europe, 0.3–4% of untreated cases end up with cardiovascular complications known as Lyme carditis which are often associated with atrioventricular conduction disorders. We present the case of a 26-year-old male who was diagnosed with a complete atrioventricular block in the course of Lyme carditis. After a full course of antibiotic therapy, the block did not resolve, so the patient was qualified for permanent pacing. In the course of the procedure, the left bundle branch area pacing was achieved with no early or long-term complications. This is the first reported case of a left bundle branch area pacing in the atrioventricular complete block due to Lyme carditis.