Permanent Ventricular Pacing Research Articles

Transient phrenic nerve stimulation in a patient with single chamber pacemaker: case report

The article presents a clinical observation of a patient with episodes of phrenic nerve stimulation after inadvertent permanent ventricular pacing from the middle cardiac vein. The methods of early diagnosis of this complication and techniques for its prevention are described.

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

Abstract Introduction Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) with permanent pacing is an effective treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Permanent right ventricular pacing is associated with cardiac dyssynchrony, which can worsen heart failure (HF) symptoms. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a recent pacing technique, more physiologic and less associated with cardiac dyssynchrony. Purpose To evaluate feasibility, safety and outcomes at 6 months of AVNA associated with LBBAP in patients with symptomatic AF. Methods In this retrospective monocentric study, we included all consecutive patients treated with AVNA procedure and LBBAP. Procedures characteristics, clinical follow-up, electrical and echographic data at baseline and 6 months were studied and compared to the data of a matched cohort (1:1) of patients who received an AVNA procedure with conventional pacing between March 2010 and February 2023. Results 75 AVNA procedures and LBBAP were studied. The success rate of AVNA was 98.7% at first ablation without any complications, especially no lead dislodgement or threshold rise. Pacing electrical parameters at implant were good, and stable at 6 months follow-up, with no threshold rise. At 6 months, 4 (5%) patients were hospitalized for heart failure and 1 (1.3%) was deceased. Patients had a significative improvement in NYHA class, palpitations symptoms, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (p ≤ 0.0001 for all). After matching with a cohort of patients with AVNA and conventional pacing (n=68), patients with LBBAP had a significantly better improvement of LVEF (+5.27±9.62% versus -0.48±14%; p = 0.01), and a lower rate of a composite endpoint (all cause death and hospitalization for HF) (HR 0.34, 95%CI: 0.1-1.06; p = 0.064). Conclusions AVNA with LBBAP in patients with symptomatic AF was feasible and safe. Complication rate and adverse outcomes at 6 months were similar to AVNA with conventional pacing, and LVEF improvement was significantly greater.Matched populationsOutcomes at 6 months

The effect of cardiac resynchronisation therapy upgrade from right ventricular pacing on symptoms and functional clinical outcomes, results from the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial

Abstract Background Based on the results of the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial, in patients with intermittent or permanent right ventricular (RV) pacing and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF) upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality. Purpose Whether the substantial treatment effect of the CRT upgrade could also be detected in a better functional and exercise capacity is scarcely investigated. We examined the changes of the prespecified tertiary endpoints such as symptoms, quality of life (QoL), exercise capacity and natriuretic peptide measurement from baseline to 12 months. Methods In the BUDAPEST CRT Upgrade trial 360 HFrEF patients with a priorly implanted PM or ICD and >20% of RV pacing burden were randomly assigned to CRT-D upgrade (n=215) or ICD (n=145) in a 3:2 ratio. The prespecified tertiary endpoints were changes in quality of life measured by EQ-5D-3L, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class, 6-minute walk test (6-MWT), and NT-proBNP. When data of trial patients were unavailable due to death at 12 months, imputed values were used as 0 (6MWT) and 0 score (EQ-5D-3L) or a 5th grade (NYHA class). Responders were defined as >15% change of left ventricular end-systolic volume at 12 months. Results From baseline to 12 months, NYHA functional class improved in the CRT-D upgrade arm compared with the ICD only group [adjusted odds ratio (OR) 0.50; 95% CI 0.32-0.80; P=0.003]. According to the adjusted model there was a statistically significant decrease in the NT-proBNP [adjusted difference -1257 pg/mL; 95% CI -2287 – (-228); P=0.017]. In responders, the changes in NT-proBNP levels were significantly greater than in non-responders [adjusted difference -1635 pg/mL; 95% CI -2811 - (-459); P=0.007]. The progression of worsening of QoL attributed to ageing was moderated only by CRT-D upgrade [EQ-5D-3L difference by age -0.01; 95% CI -0.02 - (-0.003); P=0.004; interaction P=0.003]. 6MWT did not improve significantly in either group. Conclusions Patients receiving CRT upgrade showed a substantial improvement in symptoms and a significant decrease in natriuretic peptide levels, as compared to ICD alone, which was more pronounced in responders. Moreover, CRT-D upgrade could moderate the progression of worsening of quality of life attributed to ageing in this vulnerable, older patient population.

Clinical/electrophysiologic characteristics of infranodal Wenckebach in patients with indication for permanent ventricular pacing: A prospective study

BackgroundInfranodal Wenckebach is rare and not well characterized. ObjectiveWe prospectively studied clinical and electrophysiologic characteristics of patients with atrioventricular (AV) Wenckebach with an indication for permanent ventricular pacing. MethodsDuring a 2-year period, all patients with an indication for permanent ventricular pacing underwent targeted preimplantation electrophysiologic study. Clinical and electrophysiologic characteristics at presentation and ventricular pacing percentage at 6-month follow-up were evaluated. ResultsA total of 163 patients (median age, 68 [interquartile range, 60–74] years; male, 59%; median QRS duration, 110 [90–130] ms; complete AV block in 123 [75.5%]) were included. AV Wenckebach was noted in 22 (13.4%) patients (median age, 70 [63–76.5] years; male, 54%; median QRS duration, 120 [110–140] ms) and classified as infranodal (12/163 [7.3%]) vs AV nodal (10/163 [6.1%]). Patients with infranodal Wenckebach (infrahisian in all), compared with AV nodal Wenckebach, demonstrated higher frequency with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% (41.7% vs 0%; P = .04), longer median HV interval (90 vs 49 ms; P = .005), lower frequency of isolated first-degree AV block (8.3% vs 60%; P = .02), higher frequency of right bundle branch block with left anterior fascicular block (75% vs 10%; P = .003), lesser PR increment at onset of AV Wenckebach (20.5 vs 80 ms; P = .002), and onset of 2:1 AV block at longer cycle lengths (91.7% vs 20%; P = .002). ConclusionOf patients referred for pacemaker implantation, infranodal Wenckebach was present in 27.5% (11/40) without complete AV block. It was as frequent as AV nodal Wenckebach and associated with characteristic electrophysiologic findings.

Permanent Cardiac Pacing of the Right Ventricular Outflow Tract Guided by Real-time Assessment of Electromechanical Synchrony.

Permanent right ventricular apical pacing deteriorates cardiac systolic function in some patients. We investigated an alternative site for permanent pacemaker (PPM) lead positioning with the goal of achieving more physiological pacing. A total of 132 patients with bradyarrhythmias underwent PPM implantation at the right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) with conventional active-fixation leads. A real-time cross-correlation analysis (CCA) was performed using the Synchromax® software (EXO Health, Seattle, WA, USA) to determine the optimal site for ventricular lead implantation based on the cardiac synchrony index. The follow-up period ranged from 6-36 months, and the following parameters were assessed: pacing capture threshold, lead stability, and the need for lead repositioning. Adequate parameters were achieved in 129 patients (98%), and there were no procedure-related complications. At follow-up, no leads were dislodged, pacing thresholds remained stable, and no lead required repositioning. Using real-time CCA as an intraoperative parameter during PPM implantation at the septal RVOT helps to achieve cardiac synchrony in the vast majority of cases. This technique is a simple, effective, and safe way to simplify and standardize PPM implantation at the RVOT.

Cardiomyopathy prediction in patients with permanent ventricular pacing using machine learning methods

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy is a notable issue in patients needing permanent ventricular pacing. Identifying risk groups early and swiftly preventing the ailment can reduce patient harm. However, current prognostic methods require clarity. We employed machine learning to develop predictive models using medical data. Three algorithms — decision tree, group method of data handling, and logistic regression — formed models that forecast pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. These models displayed high accuracy in predicting development, signifying soundness. Factors like age, paced QRS width, pacing mode, and ventricular index during implantation significantly influenced predictions. Machine learning can enhance pacing-induced cardiomyopathy prediction in ventricular pacing patients, aiding medical practice and preventive strategies.

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LONG-TERM OUTCOMES FOLLOWING THE STIMULATION OF CARDIAC CONDUCTION SYSTEM AND RIGHT VENTRICULAR PACING IN PATIENTS WITH BRADYARRHYTHMIAS

Introduction. Right ventricular myocardial pacing induces asynchronous ventricular contraction, potentially resulting in pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and adverse long-term clinical outcomes. Conduction system pacing is a physiological alternative to right ventricular myocardial pacing. The objective of this study is to analyze the long-term outcomes of the conduction system pacing in comparison with right ventricular myocardial pacing in patients requiring permanent ventricular pacing and who have preserved initial left ventricular ejection fraction (≥ 50%). Materials and methods. 48 patients with indications for permanent ventricular pacing were selected for comparative analysis. Of these, 18 patients had cardiac conduction system pacing and 30 patients had right ventricular myocardial pacing. Permanent pacemaker implantation in both groups of this study was performed from 2012 to 2022. Patients in both groups had to meet the following selection criteria for this study: 1) preserved systolic function of the left ventricle at the time of pacemaker implantation (≥ 50%); 2) total percentage of ventricular pacing from the time of implantation had to be not less than 90%.
 Results. The observation period was 35.3 ± 37 months in the conduction system pacing group and 46 ± 28.73 months in the right ventricular pacing group. Since the time of pacemaker implantation, pacing-induced cardiomyopathy occurred in 7 (23%) patients in the right ventricular pacing group and in none in the conduction system pacing group. The mean left ventricular ejection fraction at the control visit was significantly lower in the right ventricular pacing group (51.59 ± 8.55 vs. 58.64 ± 4.58%, p =.004). A significant reduction in global longitudinal strain was observed in the right ventricular pacing group compared to the conduction system pacing group (14.22 ± 3.66 vs. 18.49 ± 2.5%, p = <.001). Paced QRS width was significantly greater in the right ventricular pacing group (152.32 ± 18.13 vs. 119.12 ± 8.8 ms, p <.001). Conclusions. Applying new physiological methods of cardiac pacing enables to avoid the negative consequences of an asynchronous pattern of ventricular activation during conventional right ventricular pacing.

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing and preserved left ventricle systolic function: characteristics, methods of treatment and prevention

The aim – to determine the frequency of occurrence and describe the characteristics of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing (at least 90 %) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (≥ 50 %).Materials and methods. The study included 34 patients with indications for permanent ventricular pacing who had pacemaker implantation from 2012 to 2022 (mean follow-up period was 44.97±28.45 months). PICM was defined as a decrease in LVEF < 45 % during follow-up.Results and discussion. The incidence of PICM in this study was 26 %. The average value of LVEF and EDI at the time of the control follow-up was significantly different in the PICM group and non-PICM group: 38.6±5.9 vs. 53.5±5.7 % (p<0.001) and 97.90±20.75 vs. 60.90±19.32 ml/m2 (p<0.001). All patients from the study group during follow-up went through protocol echocardiography, at which intraventricular and interventricular asynchrony were examined, the number of left ventricular segments with reduced deformation were fixed, and the global longitudinal deformation of the left ventricle (GLS) was calculated. The values of these parameters differed significantly in the PICM group and non-PICM group: intraventricular asynchrony was 261.1±61.0 vs. 146.1±62.8 ms (p<0.001), interventricular asynchrony 91.0±36.4 vs. 54.2±22.2 ms (p=0.014), the number of segments with reduced deformation 8.1±2.6 vs. 3.91±2.30 (p<0.001), GLS -9.7±2.6 vs. -14.9±3.4 (p<0.001). At the time of the follow-up examination, sensitivity on ventricular lead in the PICM group was significantly reduced compared to patients with preserved LVEF (6.26±4.02 vs. 11.56±3.86 mV; p=0.045). The paced QRS width in the PICM group was significantly greater (163.0±22.7 vs. 150.8±14.5; p=0.046) and there were more patients with rate-adapted cardiac pacing in the PICM group (4 (40 %) vs. 2 (8 %)), p=0.0305).Conclusions. According to the obtained data, cardiomyopathy due to right ventricular pacing develops rather instantaneously in the first years after PM implantation, rather than slowly progressing over time, although a multivariate regression analysis of risk factors for the development of PICM has yet to be performed on the obtained clinical data. Biventri­­­cular paicng effectively eliminates the consequences of non-physiological right ventricular myocardial paicng, improves LV systolic function. Conduction system pacing may potentially reduce the risk of right ventricular pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in patients with preserved LVEF.

Predictors of Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy in Patients with Permanent Right Ventricular Pacing and Preserved Left Ventricular Systolic Function

Right ventricular pacing may impair left ventricular systolic function in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).
 The aim. To determine the frequency of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in patients with permanent right ventricular pacing (at least 90%) and preserved LVEF (≥50%). To determine the risk factors for the occurrence of PICM.
 Materials and methods. The study included 34 patients with indications for permanent ventricular pacing in whom pacemaker was implanted from 2012 to 2022 (mean follow-up period 44.97 ± 28.45 months). PICM was defined as a decrease in LVEF <45% during follow-up regardless of clinical manifestations. Risk factors for PICM were determined through univariate and multivariate regression analysis.
 Results. The incidence of PICM in this study was 26% during the mean observation period of 44.9 ± 28.4 months. The mean time to the onset of PICM was 29 months in 5 out of 9 patients (55%), the time from implantation to diagnosis of PICM was less than a year. The mean LVEF and end-diastolic volume index at the time of follow-up differed significantly in the groups with and without PICM: 38.6 ± 5.9% vs. 53.5 ± 5.7% (p<0.001) and 97.9 ± 20.75 ml/m2 vs. 60.9 ± 19.32 ml/m2 (p<0.001), respectively. In the PICM group intraventricular asynchrony was 261.1 ± 61 ms vs. 146.1 ± 62.8 ms (p<0.001), interventricular asynchrony 91 ± 36.4 ms vs. 54.2 ± 22.2 ms (p = 0.014), the number of segments with reduced deformation 8.1 ± 2.6 vs. 3.91 ± 2.3 (p<0.001), global longitudinal strain –9.7 ± 2.6 % vs. –14.9 ± 3.4 % (p<0.001). At the time of the follow-up examination, the signal of sensitivity on ventricular lead in the PICM group was significantly reduced compared to patients without PICM (6.26 ± 4.02 mV vs. 11.56 ± 3.86 mV, p = 0.045). Paced QRS width in the PICM group was significantly larger (163 ± 22.7 ms vs. 150.8 ± 14.5 ms) and there were more patients with rate-adapted cardiac pacing in the PICM group: 4 (40%) vs. 2 (8%) (p = 0.0428). In multivariate regression analysis, a wider paced QRS (hazard ratio 1.09 for every 1 ms increment in QRS width, 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.17, p = 0.025) was an independent predictor of PICM. In two patients from PICM group, upgrade of pacemaker system to biventricular pacing was performed with an improvement in the left ventricular contractility: in one patient from 37% to 44%, in another from 34% to 51% in one and two month, respectively.
 Conclusions. Cardiomyopathy due to right ventricular pacing tends to occur instantaneously in the first years after pacemaker implantation, rather than slowly progressing over time. A wider paced QRS complex is an independent predictor of PICM. Biventricular pacing effectively eliminates the consequences of non-physiological right ventricular pacing, improves left ventricular systolic function.

Long-term impact of pacemaker implantation after TAVI: a subgroup analysis according to previous intraventricular conduction disturbances

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a worldwide accepted treatment for severe aortic stenosis (AS). Conduction system disturbances, frequently requiring permanent pacemaker (PM) implantation, remain one of the most common procedural complication. Whether the permanent ventricular pacing has a deleterious impact on the prognosis of this population remains unclear. Objectives To assess the long-term impact of permanent PM implantation in clinical outcomes after TAVI. Methods We performed a retrospective analysis of consecutive patients (P) who underwent TAVI between 2009 and 2021 in a single tertiary center.P with a PM implanted before TAVI or with in-hospital mortality were excluded from the analysis. PM implantation post-TAVI was defined as an implant during hospital stay after TAVI or in the first month after discharge. Kaplan Meier survival curves were used to estimate the impact of permanent PM after TAVI, regarding the composite endpoint of all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization during a 4 years follow-up period, and a comparison performed according to the presence or absence of baseline intraventricular conduction disturbances. Results 549 P (82±6.6 years, 56.8% female, left ventricular ejection fraction 53±10%, peak gradient 51±15.6 mmHg, aortic valve area 0.7± 0.2 cm2) were included. At baseline, 108 P (20%) had intraventricular conduction disturbances on ECG (50 P with right bundle branch block [RBBB] and 58 P with left bundle branch block [LBBB]). 127 P (23%) required PM implantation after TAVI. Baseline characteristics were similar between P with and without PM implantation, except for age, gender, previous valvular surgery and RBBB (Table 1). At 48 months follow-up, 35% (n=193) met the composite endpoint, that was similar between both groups (35.8% vs. 34.1%, p=0.731). Kaplan-Meier survival curves revealed no difference in the composite endpoint between the two groups (log-rank p=0.170). Further analysis of subgroups according to the presence or absence of baseline intraventricular conduction disturbances revealed a significant difference among the subgroup of P without previous intraventricular conduction disturbances that underwent PM implantation after TAVI (log rank p=0.02) (Fig 1). This difference in the composite endpoint after PM was not found in the subgroups of P with RBBB (log rank p=0.656) or LBBB (log rank p=0.975) at baseline (Fig 2).* Conclusions Permanent PM implant after TAVI does not have an impact on long-term HF hospitalization and mortality. However, in the specific subgroup of P without previous intraventricular conduction disturbances, PM implantation seems to be associated with worse prognosis.

His bundle pacing and AV nodal ablation for non-controlled atrial arrhythmia: a technical challenge with major clinical benefits

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Background His bundle pacing (HBP) is an appealing alternative to right ventricular pacing in patients referred for permanent ventricular pacing and AV nodal ablation (AVNA) as it preserves physiological ventricular activation. Only limited amount of data is available in the literature regarding HBP combined with AVNA. Purpose To provide further evidence on the feasibility and efficacy of this therapeutic approach in patients with uncontrolled atrial arrhythmia. Methods We prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after HBP in three different hospitals between 2017 and 2022. Results AVNA following HBP lead implantation was performed in 75 patients. A complete AV block was obtained in 58 patients (77%) whereas significant modulation of the AV node conduction (heart rate < 60bpm) was obtained in 12 (16%). AVNA failure was observed in 5 (7%). The recording of an atrial signal by the HBP lead was more frequently observed in patients with AVNA modulation/failure compared to patients with complete AV block (11/17 vs 5/58; p < 0.001). There was no lead dislodgment during the AVNA procedures. Acute HB capture threshold increase > 1V occurred in 11 patients (15%) with return to baseline value at day one in 9. NYHA class and LVEF significantly improved from baseline to last follow-up (3.0 ± 0.7 vs 1.6 ± 0.5, p < 0.001; 47 ± 14% vs 60 ± 9%; p < 0.0001, respectively), Conclusion AVNA combined with HBP for non-controlled atrial arrhythmia was feasible and clinically efficient. Implanting the HB lead on the ventricular aspect of the tricuspid annulus avoiding atrial signal recording can facilitate AVNA.

Left bundle branch area pacing: How to prevent a coronary venous fistula.

Left bundle branch area pacing: How to prevent a coronary venous fistula.

Inadvertent Lead Malposition in the Left Ventricle during Permanent Ventricular Pacing about One Case

Inadvertent Lead Malposition in the Left Ventricle during Permanent Ventricular Pacing about One Case

Results of Using Various Conduction System Pacing Options in Patients with Bradyarrhythmia

Chronic right ventricular myocardial pacing causes an asynchronous pattern of left ventricular activation, reduces left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and may be associated with worsening of clinical outcomes in the long term. Although with the emergence of algorithms that minimize ventricular pacing it became possible to reduce the percentage of paced complexes in patients with sinus node dysfunction, permanent ventricular pacing is still inevitable in patients with high-degree atrioventricular (AV) block. The use of permanent conduction system pacing is a promising method for preserving the physiological activation of the ventricular myocardium and preventing the development of heart failure due to ventricular dyssynchrony.
 The aim. To analyze the immediate and long-term results of the use of conduction system pacing in patients with indications for permanent ventricular pacing.
 Materials and methods. This study included 18 patients with indications for permanentventricular pacing who were operated at the National Amosov Institute of Cardiovascular Surgery of the National Academy of Medical Sciences of Ukraine in the period from 01/01/2013 to 12/31/2022, in whom permanent conduction system pacing was used. There were 17 patients with bradyarrhythmias, of these 16 (88%) suffered from high-degree AV block (including 1 patient with Frederick’s syndrome and 1 (5%) patient with atrial ϐibrillation with slow ventricular response) and 1 (5%) patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy with left bundle branch block and ϐirstdegree AV block with indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy. The mean age of the patients was 55 ± 16 years (8 men, 10 women), LVEF at the time of the intervention was 56.42 ± 9.13 %, end diastolic volume 130.2 ± 23.8 ml, end systolic volume 55.1 ± 17.7 ml, diameter of the left atrium 4.01 ± 0.6 cm. The average QRS width before implantation was 116.5 ± 27.7 ms. In 6 (33%) patients, a special delivery system (С304-L69, Medtronic in 1 patient [5%], C315HIS in 5 [27%] patients) and 4.1F active ϐixation lead Medtronic 3830 Select Secure (69 or 74 cm) were used; in other cases (66%) standard 6F leads with active ϐixation and a lumen for a stylet without a delivery system were used.
 Results. The average follow-up period after implantation of pacemaker was 36.35 ± 29.65 months. During the observation period, LVEF was 57.07 ± 5.38 %, end diastolic volume111.5 ± 18.09 ml, end systolic volume 49.5 ± 13.4 ml, diameter of the left ventricle 3.9 ± 0.5 cm. The mean duration of paced QRS was 119.1 ± 10.09 ms. In 6 patients (33%), it was possible to demonstrate a change in the QRS width when the amplitude of ventricular stimulation was reduced, with 2 variants of transitions: 1) 4 (22%) patients with a transition from non-selective His bundle pacing (NSHBP) to selective His bundle pacing (SHBP), in 2 (11%) of these patients with a transition from SHBP with correction of right bundle branch block (RBBB) to SHBP without correction of RBBB, and then loss of capture of the myocardium of the ventricles; 2) 2 patients (11%) with a transition from NSHBP to myocardial septal ventricular pacing and further with a decrease in amplitude to the loss of capture of the myocardium of the ventricles. One (5%) patient with complete heart block had permanent non-selective left bundle branch area pacing. The other 11 (61%) patients met the criteria for parahisian pacing without visible transitions with a change in the amplitude of ventricular pacing. The average global longitudinal strain was -17.6 ± 2.7 %. The average interval from the stimulus to the peak of the R-wave in lead V6, which indicated the time of left ventricular activation, was 73.2 ± 8.7 ms. Pacing parameters were standardly set according to the primary indications, but with correction of the amplitude of ventricular stimulation relative to the thresholds of pacing of the conduction system. AV delay was corrected for the latency from the stimulus to the onset of the QRS in SHBP or for the duration of the “pseudodelta” wave in NSHBP which in both cases was the duration of the H-V interval. There were no complications in the acute or long-term postoperative period.
 Conclusions. Conduction system pacing is a challenge in the practice of cardiologist for treating life-threatening bradyarrhythmias and heart failure, but at the same time it is a safe method that provides physiological electrical and mechanical activation of the myocardium of the ventricles, that allows to effectively avoid the consequences of dyssynchrony due to permanent myocardial ventricular pacing.

His-bundle pacing and atrioventricular nodal ablation for noncontrolled atrial arrhythmia: A technical challenge with major clinical benefits

His-bundle pacing (HBP) is an appealing alternative to right ventricular pacing in patients referred for permanent ventricular pacing and atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) because it preserves physiological ventricular activation. Only limited data regarding HBP combined with AVNA are available in the literature. The purpose of this study was to provide further evidence on the feasibility and efficacy of this therapeutic approach in patients with uncontrolled atrial arrhythmia. We prospectively included all patients who had undergone AVNA after HBP in 3 different hospitals between 2017 and2022. AVNA following HBP lead implantation was performed in 75 patients. Complete atrioventricular (AV) block was obtained in 58 patients (77%), and significant modulation of AV nodal conduction (heart rate <60 bpm) was obtained in 12 patients (16%). AVNA failure was observed in 5 patients (7%). Recording of an atrial signal by the HBP lead was more frequently observed in patients with AVNA modulation/failure than in patients with complete AV block (11/17 vs 5/58; P <.001). No lead dislodgment occurred during the AVNA procedures. Acute His-bundle (HB) capture threshold increase >1 V occurred in 11 patients (15%), with return to baseline value on day 1 in 9 patients. New York Heart Association functional class and left ventricular ejection fraction significantly improved from baseline to last follow-up (3.0 ± 0.7 vs 1.6 ± 0.5; P <.001; and 47% ± 14% vs 60% ± 9%; P <.0001, respectively). AVNA combined with HBP for noncontrolled atrial arrhythmia was feasible and clinically efficient. Implanting the HB lead on the ventricular aspect of the tricuspid annulus avoiding atrial signal recording can facilitate AVNA.

Impact and Modifiers of Ventricular Pacing in Patients With Single Ventricle Circulation

BackgroundPalliation of the single ventricle (SV) circulation is associated with a burden of lifelong complications. Previous studies have identified that the need for a permanent ventricular pacing system (PPMv) may be associated with additional adverse long-term outcomes. ObjectivesThe goal of this study was to quantify the attributable risk of PPMv in patients with SV, and to identify modifiable risk factors. MethodsThis international study was sponsored by the Pediatric and Congenital Electrophysiology Society. Centers contributed baseline and longitudinal data for functionally SV patients with PPMv. Enrollment was at implantation. Controls were matched 1:1 to PPMv subjects by ventricular morphology and sex, identified within center, and enrolled at matched age. Primary outcome was transplantation or death. ResultsIn total, 236 PPMv subjects and 213 matched controls were identified (22 centers, 9 countries). Median age at enrollment was 5.3 years (quartiles: 1.5-13.2 years), follow-up 6.9 years (3.4-11.6 years). Median percent ventricular pacing (Vp) was 90.8% (25th-75th percentile: 4.3%-100%) in the PPMv cohort. Across 213 matched pairs, multivariable HR for death/transplant associated with PPMv was 3.8 (95% CI 1.9-7.6; P < 0.001). Within the PPMv population, higher Vp (HR: 1.009 per %; P = 0.009), higher QRS z-score (HR: 1.19; P = 0.009) and nonapical lead position (HR: 2.17; P = 0.042) were all associated with death/transplantation. ConclusionsPPMv in patients with SV is associated with increased risk of heart transplantation and death, despite controlling for increased associated morbidity of the PPMv cohort. Increased Vp, higher QRS z-score, and nonapical ventricular lead position are all associated with higher risk of adverse outcome and may be modifiable risk factors.

Baseline clinical characteristics of heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction enrolled in the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial.

The BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade study is the first prospective, randomized, multicentre clinical trial investigating the outcomes after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) upgrade in heart failure (HF) patients with intermittent or permanent right ventricular (RV) pacing with wide paced QRS. This report describes the baseline clinical characteristics of the enrolled patients and compares them to cohorts from previous milestone CRT studies. This international multicentre randomized controlled trial investigates 360 patients having a pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) device for at least 6 months prior to enrolment, reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤35%), HF symptoms (New York Heart Association [NYHA] functional class II-IVa), wide paced QRS (&gt;150 ms), and ≥20% of RV pacing burden without having a native left bundle branch block. At enrolment, the mean age of the patients was 73 ± 8 years; 89% were male, 97% were in NYHA class II/III functional class, and 56% had atrial fibrillation. Enrolled patients predominantly had conventional PM devices, with a mean RV pacing burden of 86%. Thus, this is a patient cohort with advanced HF, low baseline LVEF (25 ± 7%), high N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) levels (2231 pg/ml [25th-75th percentile 1254-4309 pg/ml]), and frequent HF hospitalizations during the preceding 12 months (50%). When compared with prior CRT trial cohorts, the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade study includes older patients with a strong male predominance and a high burden of atrial fibrillation and other comorbidities. Moreover, this cohort represents an advanced HF population with low LVEF, high NT-proBNP, and frequent previous HF events. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02270840.

Conduction System Pacing Using Stylet-Driven Leads. What Is the Difference?

Abstract His bundle and left bundle branch pacing are regarded as physiological options for permanent ventricular pacing because they use the fast-conducting specialized tissue for depolarization. The development, more than a decade ago, of a dedicated delivery kit using a lumenless lead, revolutionized the procedures and dramatically increased the success rate. After these consistent results, the industry is focusing now on releasing more tools for conduction system pacing. We present two cases of conduction system pacing using a new delivery system based on stylet-driven leads and share our first impressions on the advantages and disadvantages compared to the lumenless technique.

Septal versus apical pacing sites in permanent right ventricular pacing: The multicentre prospective SEPTAL-PM study

The optimal right ventricular pacing site for patients requiring pacemaker implantation for permanent atrioventricular block is a matter of debate. Long-term right ventricular apical pacing has been associated with left ventricular ejection fraction impairment and heart failure. Right ventricular septal pacing has been proposed as an alternative. The aim of this randomized prospective multicentre trial was to compare left ventricular remodelling and outcomes between right ventricular apical and septal pacing after mid-term follow-up. Patients requiring pacemaker implantation for high-degree atrioventricular block were enrolled and randomized in a 1:1 fashion to receive a right ventricular apical or septal lead. A total of 141 patients were included, 69 in the septal group and 72 in the apical group. Both groups exhibited similar left ventricular ejection fractions after 18 months of follow-up (septal 57.1±11.9% vs. apical 57.4±13.4%), and left ventricular ejection fraction variation was similar in the two groups at the end of follow-up (septal -1.5±13.2% vs. apical 0.3±13.3%). Additionally, left ventricular volume, quality of life and 6-minute walk distance were similar in the two groups. However, patients in the septal group were more likely to be asymptomatic, with a significantly lower concentration of N-terminal prohormone of brain natriuretic peptide. Lastly, lead position did not impact 18-month survival. Pacing from the right ventricular apex does not have any detrimental effect on left ventricular systolic function compared with septal pacing over an 18-month period.

Acute right systolic ventricular dysfunction in permanent cardiac pacing. Insight from RV PACE trial (Right Ventricular function assessment in Permanent cArdiac paCing by Echography)

Permanent right ventricular (RV) pacing is now clearly linked to heart failure and decrease in LVEF, in non neglected proportion. Several trials and observations reported the worse impact of this heart pacing mode on left ventricular functions, but rare are those that studied RV systolic function. In this observational prospective trial, we evaluate echographic systolic RV function, before and immediately after cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation and at 6 months of follow-up. In this intermediate analysis, we report impact of RV pacing on systolic RV function. Between February 2020 and February 2021, we enrolled 174 [114 (65%) male, 38 (21%) with AF] consecutive patients underwent RV permanent pacing (CRT, Hisian and left bundle branch pacing excluded) in prospective study for evaluation of echographic parameters of RV systolic function (TAPSE, RV S’, RV global longitudinal strain and RV free wall strain) and severity of tricuspid regurgitation (TR). Transthoracic echography (TTE) was performed (by 3 physicians) at baseline (just before procedure) and immediately after implantation. At baseline, mean LVEF was 56% ± 15.6. TAPSE (22.8 ± 6.29 vs. 19.3 ± 5.47 mm; P < 0.001) and tissue Doppler on lateral tricuspid annular (RV S’) (12.1 ± 3.28 vs. 11.2 ± 3.28 cm/s; P < 0.001) measured before and immediately after implantation show a significant decrease in RV function. The same finding is reported for Global RV Strain (−20 ± 0.6 vs. −18 ± 0.5%; P < 0.001) and RV free wall strain (−25 ± 0.7 vs. −23 ± 0.6%; P < 0.001). TR after CEID implantation is more severe in comparison with basal echography [TR stage 1/2: 132 (89%) vs. 110 (79%); P < 0.01] (Fig. 1). Permanent RV pacing immediately decrease RV systolic function assessed traditional echocardiographic parameters and RV strain. TR also gets worsened.