His-bundle and left bundle pacing with optimized atrioventricular delay achieve superior electrical synchrony over endocardial and epicardial pacing in left bundle branch block patients.

His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are emerging as novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). HBP and LBP have never been compared to biventricular endocardial (BiV-endo) pacing. Furthermore, there are indications of negative effects of LBP on right ventricular (RV) activation times (ATs), but these effects have not been quantified. The purpose of this study was to compare changes in ventricular activation induced by HBP, LBP, left ventricular (LV) septal pacing, BiV-endo, and biventricular epicardial (BiV-epi) pacing using computer simulations. We simulated ventricular activation on 24 four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of the His-Purkinje network in the presence of LBBB. We simulated BiV-epi pacing, BiV-endo pacing with left ventricular (LV) lead at the lateral wall, BiV-endo pacing with LV lead at the LV septum, HBP, and LBP. HBP was superior to BiV-endo and BiV-epi in terms of reduction in LV ATs and interventricular dyssynchrony (P <.05). LBP reduced LV ATs but not interventricular dyssynchrony compared to BiV-epi and BiV-endo pacing. RV latest AT was higher with LBP than with HBP (141.3 ± 10.0 ms vs 111.8 ± 10.4 ms). Optimizing AV delay during LBP reduced RV latest AT (104.7 ± 8.7 ms) and led to comparable response to HBP. In case of complete AV block, BiV-endo septal pacing was equivalent to LBP. HBP is superior to BiV-epi and BiV-endo. To achieve comparable response to HBP, AV delay optimization during LBP is required in order to reduce RV ATs.

Strocchi M ，Lee AWC ，Neic A ，Bouyssier J ，Gillette K ，Plank G ，Elliott MK ，Gould J ，Behar JM ，Sidhu B ，Mehta V ，Bishop MJ ，Vigmond EJ ，Rinaldi CA ，Niederer SA ... -  《-》

Leadless biventricular left bundle and endocardial lateral wall pacing versus left bundle only pacing in left bundle branch block patients.

Biventricular endocardial (BIV-endo) pacing and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Both pacing methods can be delivered through leadless pacing, to avoid risks associated with endocardial or transvenous leads. We used computational modelling to quantify synchrony induced by BIV-endo pacing and LBP through a leadless pacing system, and to investigate how the right-left ventricle (RV-LV) delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect response. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of His-Purkinje networks with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Leadless biventricular (BIV) pacing was simulated by adding an RV apical stimulus and an LV lateral wall stimulus (BIV-endo lateral) or targeting the left bundle (BIV-LBP), with an RV-LV delay set to 5 ms. To test effect of prolonged RV-LV delays and RV pacing location, the RV-LV delay was increased to 35 ms and/or the RV stimulus was moved to the RV septum. BIV-endo lateral pacing was less sensitive to increased RV-LV delays, while RV septal pacing worsened response compared to RV apical pacing, especially for long RV-LV delays. To investigate how left bundle capture affects response, we computed 90% BIV activation times (BIVAT-90) during BIV-LBP with selective and non-selective capture, and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), simulated by pacing 1 cm below the left bundle. Non-selective LBP was comparable to selective LBP. LBBAP was worse than selective LBP (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 62.7 ± 6.5, p < 0.01), but it still significantly reduced activation times from baseline. Finally, we compared leadless LBP with RV pacing against optimal LBP delivery through a standard lead system by simulating BIV-LBP and selective LBP alone with and without optimized atrioventricular delay (AVD). Although LBP alone with optimized AVD was better than BIV-LBP, when AVD optimization was not possible BIV-LBP outperformed LBP alone, because the RV pacing stimulus shortened RV activation (BIVAT-90: 54.2 ± 5.7 ms vs. 66.9 ± 5.1 ms, p < 0.01). BIV-endo lateral pacing or LBP delivered through a leadless system could potentially become an alternative to standard CRT. RV-LV delay, RV lead location and type of left bundle capture affect leadless pacing efficacy and should be considered in future trial designs.

Strocchi M ，Wijesuriya N ，Elliott MK ，Gillette K ，Neic A ，Mehta V ，Vigmond EJ ，Plank G ，Rinaldi CA ，Niederer SA ... -  《Frontiers in Physiology》

Biventricular endocardial pacing and left bundle branch area pacing for cardiac resynchronization: Mechanistic insights from electrocardiographic imaging, acute hemodynamic response, and magnetic resonance imaging.

Biventricular endocardial pacing (BiV-endo) has demonstrated superior cardiac resynchronization compared to conventional biventricular epicardial pacing (BiV-epi). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may also achieve effective cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The purpose of this study was to compare the acute electrical and hemodynamic effects of BiV-epi, BiV-endo, and LBBAP delivered from the LV endocardium and to assess how myocardial scar affects response. Eleven patients with heart failure and indications for CRT underwent a temporary pacing study with electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) and hemodynamic assessment. BiV-endo was delivered by stimulation of the left ventricular (LV) lateral wall, and LBBAP was delivered by stimulation of the LV septum, at the site of a Purkinje potential. LV activation time (LVAT-95), LV dyssynchrony index (LVDI), biventricular activation time (BIVAT-90), and biventricular dyssynchrony index (BIVDI) were calculated. Myocardial scar was assessed using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). The protocol was completed in 10 patients. Compared to BiV-epi (LVAT-95: 79.2 ± 13.1 ms; LVDI: 26.6 ± 3.4 ms) LV resynchronization was superior during BiV-endo (LVAT-95: 48.5 ± 14.9 ms; P = .001; LVDI: 16.6 ± 6.4 ms; P = .002) and LBBAP (LVAT-95: 48.9 ± 12.5 ms; P = .001; LVDI: 15.3 ± 3.4 ms; P = .001). Biventricular resynchronization was similarly superior during BiV-endo and LBBAP vs BiV-epi (BIVAT-90 and BIVDI; P <.05). The rate of acute hemodynamic responders was higher during BiV-endo (90%) and LBBAP (70%) vs BiV-epi (50%). The benefits of LBBAP (but not BiV-endo) on LV resynchronization were attenuated when septal scar was present in a subset of 8 patients who underwent MRI. Our findings suggest superior electrical resynchronization and a higher proportion of acute hemodynamic responders during BiV-endo and LBBAP compared to BiV-epi. Electrical resynchronization was similar between BiV-endo and LBBAP; however, septal scar seemed to attenuate response to LBBAP.

Elliott MK ，Strocchi M ，Sieniewicz BJ ，Sidhu B ，Mehta V ，Wijesuriya N ，Behar JM ，Thorpe A ，Martic D ，Wong T ，Niederer S ，Rinaldi CA ... -  《-》

[Influence of pacing site on myocardial transmural dispersion of repolarization in intact normal and dilated cardiomyopathy dogs].

Bai R ，Pu J ，Liu N ，Lu JG ，Zhou Q ，Ruan YF ，Niu HY ，Wang L ... -  《-》

Left bundle branch area pacing reduces epicardial dispersion of repolarization compared with biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Biventricular endocardial pacing (BiV-endo) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are novel methods of delivering cardiac resynchronization therapy. These techniques are associated with improved activation times and acute hemodynamic response compared with conventional biventricular epicardial pacing (BiV-epi); however, the effects on repolarization and arrhythmic risk are unknown. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of temporary BiV-epi, BiV-endo, and LBBAP on epicardial left ventricular (LV) repolarization using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi). Eleven patients indicated for cardiac resynchronization therapy underwent a temporary pacing protocol with ECGi. BiV-endo was delivered via endocardial stimulation of the LV lateral wall. LBBAP was delivered by pacing the LV septum. Epicardial LV repolarization time (LVRT-95; time taken for 95% of the LV to repolarize), LV RT dispersion, mean LV activation recovery interval (ARI), LV ARI dispersion, and RT gradients were calculated. The protocol was completed in 10 patients. During LBBAP, there were significant reductions in LVRT-95 (94.9 ± 17.4 ms vs 125.0 ± 29.4 ms; P = .03) and LV RT dispersion (29.4 ± 6.3 ms vs 40.8 ± 11.4 ms; P = .015) compared with BiV-epi. In contrast, there were no significant differences between baseline, BiV-epi, or BiV-endo. There was a nonsignificant reduction in mean RT gradients between LBBAP and baseline rhythm (0.74 ± 0.22 ms/mm vs 1.01 ± 0.31 ms/mm; P = .07). There were no significant differences in mean LV ARI or LV ARI dispersion between groups. Temporary LBBAP reduces epicardial dispersion of repolarization compared with conventional BiV-epi. Further study is required to determine whether these repolarization changes on ECGi translate into a reduced risk of ventricular arrhythmia in clinical practice.

Elliott MK ，Strocchi M ，Sieniewicz BJ ，Mehta V ，Wijesuriya N ，deVere F ，Howell S ，Thorpe A ，Martic D ，Bishop MJ ，Niederer S ，Rinaldi CA ... -  《-》