Search

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT are lacking., Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of procedure-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT., Methods: This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled 668 consecutive patients (mean age 71.2 ± 10.0 years; 52.2% male; 59.4% with New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure symptoms) with left ventricular ejection fraction 33.4% ± 4.3% who underwent BVP (n = 561) or LBBAP (n = 107) for a class I or II indication for CRT. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 93 matched pairs. The rate and nature of intraprocedural and long-term post-procedural complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups., Results: During a mean follow-up of 18 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 16 patients: 12 in BVP (12.9%) and 4 in LBBAP (4.3%) (P = .036). Compared with patients who underwent LBBAP, those who underwent BVP showed a lower complication-free survival (P = .032). In multivariate analysis, BVP resulted an independent predictive factor associated with a higher risk of complications (hazard ratio 3.234; P = .042). Complications related to the coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in patients who underwent BVP (50.0% of all complications)., Conclusion: LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT., Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), have been proposed as alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients scheduled for ablate and pace (A&P) strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes, including the rate and nature of device-related complications, between BVP and CSP in a cohort of patients undergoing A&P., Methods: Prospective, multicenter, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing A&P. The risk of device-related complications and of heart failure (HF) hospitalization was prospectively assessed., Results: A total of 373 patients (75.3 ± 8.7 years, 53.9% male, 68.9% with NYHA class ≥III) were enrolled: 263 with BVP, 68 with HBP, and 42 with LBBAP. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were similar. Compared to BVP and HBP, LBBAP was associated with the shortest mean procedural and fluoroscopy times and with the lowest acute capture thresholds (all p < .05). At 12-month follow-up LBBAP maintained the lowest capture thresholds and showed the longest estimated residual battery longevity (all p < .05). At 12-months follow-up the three study groups showed a similar risk of device-related complications (5.7%, 4.4%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .650), and of HF hospitalization (2.7%, 1.5%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .850)., Conclusions: In the setting of A&P, CSP is a feasible pacing modality, with a midterm safety profile comparable to BVP. LBBAP offers the advantage of reducing procedural times and obtaining lower and stable capture thresholds, with a positive impact on the device longevity., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality in HF patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the gold standard for achieving CRT, but about 30%-40% of patients do not respond to BVP-CRT. Recent studies showed that left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provided remarkable results in CRT. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients., Methods: We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to December 29, 2022 and focusing on LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients. The primary endpoint was HF hospitalization. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Risk Ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD)., Results: Ten studies enrolling 1063 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to BVP-CRT, LBBP-CRT led to significant reduction in HF hospitalization [7.9% vs.14.5%; RR: 0.60 (95%CI: 0.39-0.93); p = .02], QRSd [MD: 30.26 ms (95%CI: 26.68-33.84); p < .00001] and pacing threshold [MD: -0.60 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.48); p < .00001] at follow up. Furthermore, LBBP-CRT improved LVEF [MD: 5.78% (95%CI: 4.78-6.77); p < .00001], the rate of responder [88.5% vs.72.5%; RR: 1.19 (95%CI: 1.07-1.32); p = .002] and super-responder [60.8% vs. 36.5%; RR: 1.56 (95%CI: 1.27-1.91); p < .0001] patients and the NYHA class [MD: -0.42 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.14); p < .00001] compared to BVP-CRT., Conclusion: In HF patients, LBBP-CRT was superior to BVP-CRT in reducing HF hospitalization. Further significant benefits occurred within the LBBP-CRT group in terms of QRSd, LVEF, pacing thresholds, NYHA class and the rate of responder and super-responder patients., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: In patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (PEAF) and narrow QRS, atrio-ventricular junction ablation (AVJA) plus cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is superior to medical therapy in reducing heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality. To compare the mortality of a population of patients with HF, reduced EF (rEF), and PEAF treated with AVJA plus CRT with that of a contemporary cohort of patients in sinus rhythm (SR) with similar baseline characteristics., Methods and Results: In this prospective, multicentre, observational study, all-cause mortality in a group of consecutive patients undergoing AVJA and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) combined with CRT implantation for HFrEF, narrow QRS, and PEAF with uncontrolled ventricular rate was compared with that of a contemporary cohort of patients in SR undergoing ICD implantation (not combined with CRT) for HFrEF and narrow QRS. Individual 1:1 propensity matching of baseline characteristics was performed. A total of 824 patients were enrolled. Propensity matching yielded 107 matched pairs. After a median follow-up of 52 months, all-cause mortality was similar in patients treated with AVJA plus CRT and in the control group (p = .434). In AVJA plus CRT patients, mortality was significantly lower than in control group patients with a history of paroxysmal/persistent AF (n = 45, p = .020), and similar to that of patients without a history of AF (n = 62, p = .459)., Conclusions: After adjustment for patient characteristics, the long-term prognosis of patients with HFrEF, narrow QRS, and PEAF who underwent AVJA plus CRT was similar to that of a population of patients in SR with similar characteristics., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Background: His bundle pacing (HBP), alone or optimized in association with coronary sinus pacing (HBP+LV) has recently been proposed as an alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, there is lack of controlled studies that assessed clinical outcome., Methods: We did a single-center, propensity-score matched, case-control study of comparison of HBP and HBP+LV versus conventional CRT in patients with heart failure (HF) and standard indications for CRT. The study group patients were consecutively enrolled in the year 2019. The control group patients were selected, by propensity score matching, among those CRT implantations performed in the years 2015-2018., Results: There were 27 patients in each group. In the active group, 12 (44%) patients received HBP alone and 12 (44%) patients HBP+LV pacing. HBP failed in three (11%) patients. In the control group, conventional CRT was achieved in 26 (96%) patients and failed in one. Paced QRS width was shorter in the active than in the control group (128 ± 18 vs. 148 ± 27 ms, p = .004). During a mean of 9.6 months of follow-up, a composite clinical outcome of death, hospitalization for HF or worsening HF occurred in three (11%) in the active group and in four (15%) in the control group, p = .58. No difference was also observed with softer endpoints: NYHA class (1.9 ± 0.7 vs. 2.1 ± 0.7), subjective improvement (74% vs. 74%) and LV ejection fraction (40.7% vs. 40.7%)., Conclusion: Compared with conventional CRT, a shorter QRS width can be obtained with HBP alone or in association with coronary sinus pacing but we were unable to show a better clinical outcome. There is urgent need for large, randomized trials., (© 2021 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Dyssynchrony persists in many patients despite cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Aim of this proof-of-concept study was to achieve better CRT, with a QRS approximating the normal width and axis, by using His bundle pacing (HBP) and nonconventional pacing configurations., Methods and Results: In 20 patients with CRT indications, we performed an acute intrapatient comparison between conventional biventricular (CONV) and three nonconventional pacing modalities: HBP alone, His bundle, and coronary sinus pacing (HBP + CS), and HBP + CS plus right ventricular pacing (TRIPLE). Electrical dyssynchrony was assessed by means of QRS width and axis; "quasi-normal" axis meant an R/S ratio ≥ 1 in leads I and V6 and ≤1 in V1. Mechanical dyssynchrony was assessed by speckle tracking echocardiography. QRS width was 153 ± 18 ms on CONV, shortened to 137 ± 16  ms on HBP + CS (P = .001) and to 130 ± 14 ms on TRIPLE (P = .001), while it remained unchanged on HBP (159 ± 32 ms; P = .17). The rate of patients with "quasi-normal" axis was 5% on CONV, and increased to 90% on HBP (P = .0001), to 63% on HBP + CS (P = .001), and to 44% on TRIPLE (P = .02). On radial strain analysis, the time-to-peak difference between anteroseptal and posterolateral segments was 143 ± 116 ms on CONV, shortened to 121 ± 127 ms on HBP (P = .79), to 67 ± 70 ms on HBP + CS (P = .02), and to 76 ± 55 ms on TRIPLE (P = .05). On discharge, HBP was chosen in 15% of patients, HBP + CS in 55%, and TRIPLE in 30%; CONV was never chosen., Conclusion: Nonconventional modalities of CRT provide acute additional electrical and mechanical resynchronization. An interpatient variability exists., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Aims: Few data are available on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) after coronary sinus (CS) lead extraction. We aimed to evaluate the feasibility and mid-term outcome of transvenous CS lead reimplantation in a tertiary referral centre., Methods and Results: We enrolled all patients who were referred to our hospital for CS lead removal from December 2000 through to May 2009 and were transvenously reimplanted with a CRT system before June 2009. One-year follow-up was performed to evaluate the incidence of infections, malfunctions, and mortality. We studied 113 consecutive patients undergoing successful CS lead extraction; 90 patients (75 male, mean age 69.2, range 35-84) underwent CS lead reimplantation (success rate: 95.6%; right-sided approach: 64.4%). In these patients, cardiac device infection was the usual indication for extraction (74.4%) and the subsequent reimplantation was performed after a median time of 3 days. The coronary sinus lead was usually positioned in the left ventricular (LV) postero-lateral region (62.2%); two procedures were required in two cases (2.2%). Balloon angioplasty was necessary for two patients (failure in one), whereas for the others we used a conventional implant technique. During follow-up, we observed four cases (4.4%) of local infection and six cases (6.7%) of system malfunction, requiring reintervention (two cases during the same hospitalization). One-year mortality was 5.5%., Conclusion: Left ventricular lead reimplantation is in our experience an effective and safe procedure, also in the case of right-sided approach. During follow-up, 1-year mortality was particularly low, whereas overall infection rate was higher than first implant procedures.