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》

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 ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

Optimizing electrical efficacy of leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy and leadless left ventricular septal pacing: Insights on left and right ventricular activation from electrocardiographic imaging.

Leadless cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an emerging heart failure treatment. An implanted electrode delivers lateral or septal endocardial left ventricular (LV) pacing (LVP) upon detection of a right ventricular (RV) pacing stimulus from a coimplanted device, thus generating biventricular pacing (BiVP). Electrical efficacy data regarding this therapy, particularly leadless LV septal pacing (LVSP) for potential conduction system capture, are limited. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute performance of leadless CRT using electrocardiographic imaging (ECGi) and assess the optimal pacing modality (OPM) of LVSP on the basis of RV and LV activation. Ten WiSE-CRT recipients underwent an ECGi study testing: RV pacing, BiVP, LVP only, and LVP with an optimized atrioventricular delay (LV-OPT). BiV, LV, and RV activation times (shortest time taken to activate 90% of the ventricles [BIVAT-90], shortest time taken to activate 95% of the LV, and shortest time taken to activate 90% of the RV) plus LV and BiV dyssynchrony index (standard deviation of LV activation times and standard deviation of all activation times) were calculated from reconstructed epicardial electrograms. The individual OPM yielding the greatest improvement from baseline was determined. BiVP generated a 23.7% improvement in BiVAT-90 (P = .002). An improvement of 43.3% was observed at the OPM (P = .0001), primarily through reductions in shortest time taken to activate 90% of the RV. At the OPM, BiVAT-90 improved in patients with lateral (43.3%; P = .0001; n = 5) and septal (42.4%; P = .009; n = 5) LV implants. The OPM varied by individual. LVP and LV-OPT were mostly superior in patients with LVSP, and in those with sinus rhythm and left bundle branch block (n = 4). Leadless CRT significantly improves acute ECGi-derived activation and dyssynchrony metrics. Using an individualized OPM improves efficacy in selected patients. Effective LVSP is feasible, with fusion pacing at LV-OPT mitigating the potential deleterious effects on RV activation.

Wijesuriya N ，Strocchi M ，Elliott M ，Mehta V ，De Vere F ，Howell S ，Mannakkara N ，Sidhu BS ，Kwan J ，Bosco P ，Niederer SA ，Rinaldi CA ... -  《-》

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》