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 ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

Predictors of failed left bundle branch pacing implant in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: Importance of left ventricular diameter and QRS morphology.

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is considered an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, LBBP is not suitable for all patients with heart failure. The aim of our study was to identify predictors of unsuccessful LBBP implantation in CRT candidates. A cohort of consecutive patients with indications for CRT were included. Clinical, echocardiographic, and electrocardiographic variables were prospectively recorded. A total of 187 patients were included in the analysis. LBBP implantation was successful in 152 of 187 patients (81.2%) and failed in 35 of 187 patients (18.7%). The causes of unsuccessful implantation were unsatisfactory paced QRS morphology (28 of 35 [80%]), inability to screw the helix (4 of 35 [11.4%]), lead instability (2 of 35 [5.7%]), and high pacing thresholds (1 of 35 [2.8%]). The left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), non-LBBB (left bundle branch block) QRS morphology, and QRS width were predictors of failed implantation according to the univariate analysis. According to the multivariate regression analysis, LVEDD (odds ratio 1.31 per 5-mm increase; 95% confidence interval 1.05-1.63 per 5-mm increase; P = .02) and non-LBBB (odds ratio 3.07; 95% confidence interval 1.08-8.72; P = .03) were found to be independent predictors of unsuccessful LBBP implantation. An LVEDD of 60 mm has 60% sensitivity and 71% specificity for predicting LBBP implant failure. When LBBP was used as CRT, LVEDD and non-LBBB QRS morphology predicted unsuccessful implantation. Non-LBBB triples the likelihood of failed implantation independent of LVEDD. Caution should be taken when considering these parameters to plan the best pacing strategy for patients.

Graterol FR ，Pujol-López M ，Borràs R ，Ayala B ，Uribe L ，Guasch E ，Regany-Closa M ，Niebla M ，Carro E ，Guichard JB ，Castel MÁ ，Arbelo E ，Porta-Sánchez A ，Sitges M ，Brugada J ，Roca-Luque I ，Doltra A ，Mont L ，Tolosana JM ... -  《-》

Efficacy on resynchronization and longitudinal contractile function comparing His-bundle pacing with conventional biventricular pacing: a substudy to the His-alternative study.

His-bundle pacing has emerged as a novel method to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, there are no data comparing conventional biventricular (BiV)-CRT with His-CRT with regard to effects on mechanical dyssynchrony and longitudinal contractile function. Patients with symptomatic heart failure, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 35%, and left bundle branch block (LBBB) by strict ECG criteria were randomized 1:1 to His-CRT or BiV-CRT. Two-dimensional strain echocardiography was performed prior to CRT implantation and at 6 months after implantation. Differences in changes in mechanical dyssynchrony (standard deviation of time-to-peak in 12 midventricular and basal segments) and regional longitudinal strain in the six left ventricular walls were compared between the BiV-CRT and His-CRT groups.In the on-treatment analysis, 31 received BiV-CRT and 19 His-CRT. In both groups, mechanical dyssynchrony was significantly reduced after 6 months [BiV group from 120 ms (±45) to 63 ms (±22), P < 0.001, and His group from 116 ms (±54) to 49 ms (±11), P < 0.001] but no significant differences in changes could be demonstrated between groups [-9.0 ms (-36; 18), P = 0.50]. Global longitudinal strain (GLS) improved in both groups [BiV group from -9.1% (±2.7) to -10.7% (±2.6), P = 0.02, and His group from -8.6% (±2.1) to -11.1% (±2.0), P < 0.001], but no significant differences in changes could be demonstrated from baseline to follow-up [-0.9% (-2.4; -0.6), P = 0.25] between groups. There were no regional differences between groups. In heart failure, patients with LBBB, BiV-CRT, and His-CRT have comparable effects with regard to improvements in mechanical dyssynchrony and longitudinal contractile function.

Højgaard EV ，Philbert BT ，Linde JJ ，Winsløw UC ，Svendsen JH ，Vinther M ，Risum N ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》