Comparison between conduction system pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy in right bundle branch block patients.

A significant number of right bundle branch block (RBBB) patients receive cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), despite lack of evidence for benefit in this patient group. His bundle (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are novel CRT delivery methods, but their effect on RBBB remains understudied. We aim to compare pacing-induced electrical synchrony during conventional CRT, HBP, and LBP in RBBB patients with different conduction disturbances, and to investigate whether alternative ways of delivering LBP improve response to pacing. We simulated ventricular activation on twenty-four four-chamber heart geometries each including a His-Purkinje system with proximal right bundle branch block (RBBB). We simulated RBBB combined with left anterior and posterior fascicular blocks (LAFB and LPFB). Additionally, RBBB was simulated in the presence of slow conduction velocity (CV) in the myocardium, left ventricular (LV) or right ventricular (RV) His-Purkinje system, and whole His-Purkinje system. Electrical synchrony was measured by the shortest interval to activate 90% of the ventricles (BIVAT-90). Compared to baseline, HBP significantly improved activation times for RBBB alone (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 42.6 ± 3.8 ms, p < 0.01), with LAFB (69.5 ± 5.0 ms vs. 58.1 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. 62.9 ± 6.2 ms, p < 0.01), with slow myocardial CV (119.4 ± 11.4 ms vs. 97.2 ± 10.0 ms, p < 0.01) or slow CV in the whole His-Purkinje system (102.3 ± 7.0 ms vs. 75.5 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). LBP was only effective in RBBB cases if combined with anodal capture of the RV septum myocardium (BIVAT-90: 66.9 ± 5.5 ms vs. 48.2 ± 5.2 ms, p < 0.01). CRT significantly reduced activation times in RBBB in the presence of severely slow RV His-Purkinje CV (95.1 ± 7.9 ms vs. 84.3 ± 9.3 ms, p < 0.01) and LPFB (81.8 ± 6.6 ms vs. CRT: 72.9 ± 8.6 ms, p < 0.01). Both CRT and HBP were ineffective with severely slow CV in the LV His-Purkinje system. HBP is effective in RBBB patients with otherwise healthy myocardium and Purkinje system, while CRT and LBP are ineffective. Response to LBP improves when LBP is combined with RV septum anodal capture. CRT is better than HBP only in patients with severely slow CV in the RV His-Purkinje system, while CV slowing of the whole His-Purkinje system and the myocardium favor HBP over CRT.

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

Effect of scar and His-Purkinje and myocardium conduction on response to conduction system pacing.

Conduction system pacing (CSP), in the form of His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), is emerging as a valuable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery method. However, patient selection and therapy personalization for CSP delivery remain poorly characterized. We aim to compare pacing-induced electrical synchrony during CRT, HBP, LBBP, HBP with left ventricular (LV) epicardial lead (His-optimized CRT [HOT-CRT]), and LBBP with LV epicardial lead (LBBP-optimized CRT [LOT-CRT]) in patients with different conduction disease presentations using computational modeling. We simulated ventricular activation on 24 four-chamber heart geometries, including His-Purkinje systems with proximal left bundle branch block (LBBB). We simulated septal scar, LV lateral wall scar, and mild and severe myocardium and LV His-Purkinje system conduction disease by decreasing the conduction velocity (CV) down to 70% and 35% of the healthy CV. Electrical synchrony was measured by the shortest interval to activate 90% of the ventricles (90% of biventricular activation time [BIVAT-90]). Severe LV His-Purkinje conduction disease favored CRT (BIVAT-90: HBP 101.5 ± 7.8 ms vs. CRT 93.0 ± 8.9 ms, p < .05), with additional electrical synchrony induced by HOT-CRT (87.6 ± 6.7 ms, p < .05) and LOT-CRT (73.9 ± 7.6 ms, p < .05). Patients with slow myocardium CV benefit more from CSP compared to CRT (BIVAT-90: CRT 134.5 ± 24.1 ms; HBP 97.1 ± 9.9 ms, p < .01; LBBP: 101.5 ± 10.7 ms, p < .01). Septal but not lateral wall scar made CSP ineffective, while CRT was able to resynchronize the ventricles in the presence of septal scar (BIVAT-90: baseline 119.1 ± 10.8 ms vs. CRT 85.1 ± 14.9 ms, p < .01). Severe LV His-Purkinje conduction disease attenuates the benefits of CSP, with additional improvements achieved with HOT-CRT and LOT-CRT. Septal but not lateral wall scars make CSP ineffective.

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

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》

Evaluation of electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony: An intrapatient-controlled study during His-Purkinje conduction system pacing versus right ventricular pacing.

To compare electromechanical ventricular synchrony when pacing from different sites, including right ventricular apex pacing (RVAP), right ventricular septum pacing (RVSP), His bundle pacing (HBP), left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), and RVSP during unipolar pacing from the ring electrode of LBBP lead (RVSPring ) in each patient and evaluate the correlations between electrophysiological characteristics and ventricular synchrony. Twenty patients with complete atrioventricular block indicated for dual-chamber pacemaker implantation were included in the study. Unipolar pacing at different sites, including RVAP, RVSP, HBP, LBBP, and RVSPring , was successively performed in each patient. The pacing characteristics and echocardiogram parameters were collected and compared among intrinsic rhythm and pacing at different sites. Similar to HBP (114.84 ± 18.67 ms), narrower paced QRSd was found in LBBP (116.15 ± 11.60 ms) as compared to RVSPring (135.11 ± 13.68 ms), RVSP (141.65 ± 14.26 ms), and RVAP (160.15 ± 19.35 ms) (p < .001). LBBP showed comparable pacing parameters to RVAP or RVSP and was significantly better than HBP, with maintained cardiac function. TS-12-SD was significantly improved in LBBP (41.80 ± 20.97 ms) than RVAP (69.70 ± 32.42 ms, p = .003) and RVSP (63.30.56 ± 32.53 ms, p = .018) but similar to HBP (51.50 ± 25.67 ms, p = .283) or RVSPring (57.80 ± 25.65 ms, p = .198). Among these pacing strategies, negative values of interventricular mechanical delay (IVMD) were only identified in LBBP (-19.25 ± 18.43 ms), significantly different from RVAP (35.00 ± 30.72 ms), RVSP (22.85 ± 22.05 ms), HBP (5.20 ± 18.64 ms), and RVSPring (16.00 ± 26.76 ms (all p < .05). Using Pearson's analysis, Sti-LVAT was positively correlated with QRS duration, IVMD, TS-12-SD, LVEDV, and LVESV, while a negative relationship could be observed for left ventricular ejection fraction. His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) achieved better electrical and mechanical synchrony than conventional RV pacing. For interventricular synchrony, only LBBP initiated earlier LV activation than RV, in accordance with the right bundle branch block (RBBB) pattern of paced QRS during LBBP. Sti-LVAT might be a good parameter correlating with LV systolic function and mechanical synchrony.

Chen X ，Zhou X ，Wang Y ，Jin Q ，Chen Y ，Wang J ，Qin S ，Bai J ，Wang W ，Liang Y ，Chen H ，Su Y ，Ge J ... -  《-》