Search

Non-responders to Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) represent a high-risk, and difficult to treat population of heart failure patients. Studies have shown that these patients have a lower quality of life and reduced life expectancy compared to those who respond to CRT. Whilst the first-line treatment for dyssynchronous heart failure is "conventional" biventricular epicardial CRT, a range of novel pacing interventions have emerged as potential alternatives. This has raised the question whether these new treatments may be useful as a second-line pacing intervention for treating non-responders, or indeed, whether some patients may benefit from these as a first-line option. In this review, we will examine the current evidence for four pacing interventions in the context of treatment of conventional CRT non-responders: CRT optimization; multisite left ventricular pacing; left ventricular endocardial pacing and conduction system pacing., Competing Interests: NW, ME, VM, FD, JB, and CR were employed by the Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 Wijesuriya, Elliott, Mehta, De Vere, Strocchi, Behar, Niederer and Rinaldi.)

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., Competing Interests: AN is employed by NumeriCor GmbH, Graz, Austria. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial of financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Strocchi, Wijesuriya, Elliott, Gillette, Neic, Mehta, Vigmond, Plank, Rinaldi and Niederer.)

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., Competing Interests: Author AN is employed by NumeriCor GmbH, Graz, Austria. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Strocchi, Gillette, Neic, Elliott, Wijesuriya, Mehta, Vigmond, Plank, Rinaldi and Niederer.)

Conduction System Pacing (CSP) delivered by His Bundle Pacing (HBP) or Left Bundle Pacing (LBP) are exciting novel interventions in the field of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT). As the evidence base for CSP grows, the volume of implants worldwide is projected to rise significantly in the coming years. As such, physicians will be confronted with increasingly prevalent and vital issues arising in long-term follow up, including the management of infected, malfunctioning, or redundant CSP leads. Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is the first-line option for removal of pacing leads when indicated in these circumstances. The evidence base for TLE in the context of CSP is still in its infancy. In this article, we first provide a brief overview of TLE. We then examine the data on the long-term performance of HBP leads. Next, we describe the features of the Medtronic Select Secure 3,830 lead, and how experience of TLE of this lead in the paediatric population has informed our practice. Finally, we review the current evidence for TLE in HBP and LBP, and discuss how future studies can address gaps in our current knowledge., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wijesuriya, Elliott, Mehta, Behar, Niederer, Wilkoff and Rinaldi.)

Leadless left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) represents the merger of two rapidly progressing areas in the field of cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT). It combines the attractive concepts of pacing the native conduction system to allow more physiological activation of the myocardium than conventional biventricular pacing, with the potential added benefits of avoiding long-term complications associated with transvenous leads via leadless left ventricular endocardial pacing. This perspective article will first review the evidence for the efficacy of leadless pacing in CRT. We then summarise the procedural steps and pilot data for leadless LBBAP, followed by a discussion of the safety and efficacy of this novel technique. Finally, we will examine how further mechanistic evidence may shed light to which patients may benefit most from leadless LBBAP, and how improvements in current experience and technology could promote widespread uptake and expand current clinical indications., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wijesuriya, Elliott, Mehta, Sidhu, Strocchi, Behar, Niederer and Rinaldi.)