Search Results (39)

Right ventricular apex (RVA) pacing has historically been the default approach for cardiac pacing; however, it is associated with the development of progressive left ventricular dysfunction and heart failure (HF), particularly in patients with high pacing burdens. While advances in device programming and modern algorithms have sought to mitigate these effects, preserving physiological activation has proven to be more critical than reducing ventricular pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP) techniques—namely, His-bundle pacing (HBP) and particularly left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP)—have emerged as superior alternatives, enabling improved left ventricular function and reduced rates of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM). Nevertheless, despite the clinical advantages of these procedures over RVA, they face limitations including variable implantation success rates, increased pacing thresholds and lead revision rates, technical challenges, and occasional procedure prolongation. Thus, while CSP approaches represent the future of physiological pacing, RVA pacing continues to provide a necessary and reliable option in the current clinical practice. Full article

Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP), encompassing His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has emerged as an alternative to conventional pacing methods such as right ventricular pacing (RVP) and biventricular pacing (BVP). This meta-analysis aimed to compare the effects of CSP versus conventional pacing on left ventricular function and selected clinical and electrophysiological outcomes. Methods: Prospective and retrospective studies (randomized, observational, registry-based) reporting pre-post data or direct comparisons between CSP (HBP, LBBAP) and conventional methods (BVP, RVP) for at least one of LVEF, LVESV, LVEDV, QRS duration, NYHA class, NT-proBNP, R-wave, or pacing threshold were included. PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched up to 31 March 2025. Quality assessment (QualSyst), publication bias (Egger’s test, trim-and-fill), subgroup analyses, and meta-regression (follow-up duration) were performed. The review was registered in the INPLASY database (INPLASY202540050). Results: 28 studies (8777 patients, 47 comparisons) were included. CSP significantly improved LVEF (SMD = 1.16; 95%CI: 0.94–1.38), shortened QRS duration (SMD = 0.75; 95%CI: 0.24–1.26), and reduced NYHA class (SMD = 1.94; 95%CI: 1.59–2.29), NT-proBNP levels (SMD = 1.27; 95%CI:0.85–1.69), LVEDV (SMD = 0.90; 95%CI: 0.42–1.38), and LVESV (SMD = 1.31; 95%CI: 0.81–1.81). In head-to-head comparisons, LBBAP and HBP showed similar efficacy, both superior to conventional pacing. Improvement in LVEF significantly correlated with longer follow-up (p = 0.004). Publication bias was non-significant (Egger p = 0.15), despite high heterogeneity (I² > 90%). Conclusions: CSP demonstrated superior clinical and echocardiographic outcomes compared to conventional pacing. Limitations include the predominance of non-randomized studies, high heterogeneity, and variability in follow-up duration, supporting the need for high-quality randomized trials. Full article

Conduction system pacing started with His bundle pacing (HBP) and then rapidly switched gears into left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). We describe our center’s experience with LBBP using either lumenless leads (LLLs) or stylet-driven leads (SDLs). Patients who were admitted to two tertiary centers between 1 April 2021 and 30 June 2024 and met the guidelines for pacing were recruited and prospectively followed up. A total of 124 patients underwent permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation using the LBBP technique with a mean follow-up of 19.7 ± 13.3 months. In total, 90 patients were implanted with LLLs and 34 with SDLs. There was no significant difference in the procedural time and final paced QRS duration, but fluoroscopy time was significantly longer in the SDLs (26.2 ± 17.7 min vs. 17.5 ± 13.0 min, respectively, p = 0.026). The on-table impedance values were also significantly higher in the LLLs, and this persisted throughout the follow-up. There were no differences in the rates of complications. The success of conduction system pacing implantation with SDLs and LLLs is comparable with reasonable safety and reliable outcomes. Good pre-implant patient selection will contribute to improved outcomes. Full article

Background: Permanent atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently coexists with heart failure (HF), leading to structural remodeling and progressive sinus node dysfunction. As the condition advances, bradyarrhythmia or tachy-brady syndrome may develop. Right ventricular pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy may impair left ventricular function due to non-physiological ventricular activation. His bundle pacing (HBP) offers a more physiological alternative. This study evaluates HBP’s impact on left ventricular function in patients with bradyarrhythmia or tachy-brady syndrome and permanent AF. Methods: A retrospective analysis included 41 patients with HF who underwent HBP implantation due to bradyarrhythmia or tachy-brady syndrome in permanent AF. LVEF, LVEDD, and MR were assessed before and after implantation, alongside the impact of comorbidities (e.g., ischemic heart disease and chronic kidney disease) and pharmacotherapy (digoxin, metoprolol, and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists). Statistical analyses included the Wilcoxon test (LVEF and MR), paired Student’s t-test (LVEDD), Spearman’s correlation, and linear regression. Significance was set at p < 0.05. Results: HBP significantly improved LVEF (median increase: 14.58%; p < 0.001) and reduced LVEDD (mean reduction: 5.41 ± 1.30 mm; p < 0.001). MR severity also decreased (p < 0.001). Patients with lower baseline LVEF showed greater improvement in this parameter after HBP (ρ = −0.671, p < 0.001). Only chronic kidney disease was associated with a lower likelihood of MR improvement (p = 0.0486). Conclusions: HBP improves left ventricular function and reduces MR severity in patients with permanent AF and bradyarrhythmia or tachy-brady syndrome. A low baseline LVEF was the strongest predictor of subsequent improvement. Further studies are needed to confirm long-term benefits. Full article

Background and aims: His bundle pacing (HBP) is considered the most physiological form of cardiac pacing. Although feasibility studies have included older patients, specific data for HBP in this population are scarce. This study aimed to evaluate gender differences in HBP long-term performance in elderly patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. Methods: This retrospective study included 73 patients aged over 65 years with successful HBP and at least 2 years of follow-up. The patients’ baseline and follow-up clinical and procedural characteristics were recorded. Results: The mean age of the cohort was 72.8 ± 6.3 years, with 43 males and 30 females. The paced QRS complex was significantly narrower than the baseline value for both genders. Females had a narrower-paced QRS complex without differences in detection, type of His bundle capture, impedance, or fluoroscopy time. The pacing threshold increased progressively, reaching statistical significance compared to the baseline values at the two-year follow-up. The pacing threshold increased by more than 1 V over the follow-up period in twenty-four patients (32.9%) and by more than 2 V in six patients (8.2%), with no significant difference between genders. The pacing threshold increase occurred within the first year for most patients, without gender differences. Multivariate Cox regression analysis demonstrated that the paced QRS duration, left ventricular ejection fraction, and ischemic cardiomyopathy were significantly associated with the pacing threshold increase over time. Conclusion: In elderly patients with AV block, HBP remains a feasible pacing method, without significant gender differences, over a long-term follow-up period. Pacing threshold increases are expected in up to one-third of the patients, requiring regular follow-ups to adjust the programmed parameters and optimize battery longevity. Full article

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a cornerstone in the treatment of dyssynchronous heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. However, the phenomenon of non-response has plagued CRT since its initial application. Notwithstanding issues such as failure to capture the left ventricle, lower-than-required pacing delivery percent, and failure to optimize atrioventricular and interventricular delays, there are patients who fail to exhibit an adequate response to CRT in its classical biventricular pacing (BiVP) form. Several modalities have been proposed as a means to remedy this issue, including pacing the conduction system itself—His or left bundle branch pacing, allowing for intrinsic conduction in some myocardial segments, pacing the left ventricle from multiple points in the coronary sinus (multipoint pacing), or even combining the above (e.g., His/left bundle pacing and BiVP leading to His/left bundle-optimized CRT). In the present review, we present recent evidence for the advantages and disadvantages of each modality and attempt to formulate a pathophysiology and simulation-based strategy to determine the best way forward for delivering CRT in non-responders to BiVP. Full article

Background/Objectives: Right ventricular pacing (RVP), leadless pacing (LL), and conduction system pacing (CSP) are treatment options for atrioventricular block (AVB), each with distinct characteristics. However, the long-term outcomes of these pacing strategies remain insufficiently compared. This study evaluates clinical and echocardiographic outcomes of patients with AVB treated with dual chamber RVP, His bundle pacing (HBP), or LL. Methods: This single-center observational registry study included 22 consecutive patients receiving LL with atrioventricular resynchronization functionality (October 2020 to October 2022), matched with 66 control patients receiving either RVP (33 patients) or HBP (33 patients) using propensity score matching (2:3:3 ratio). Primary and secondary endpoints included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, heart failure, and echocardiographic outcomes. Atrioventricular synchrony in the LL group was assessed. Results: At two years, all-cause mortality was significantly higher in the LL group compared to RVP (36.4% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.002) and HBP (36.4% vs. 12.1%, p = 0.03), but LL had a more severe clinical profile. Cardiovascular mortality and heart failure incidence showed no significant differences. Patients receiving RVP showed a significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction and an increase in ventricular volumes. In contrast, HBP patients exhibited favorable cardiac remodeling. Stratification based on atrial sensing showed that LL patients with >66% AV synchrony had a lower mortality (p = 0.02). Conclusions: CSP offers superior results compared to other pacing methods in terms of ventricular function owing to a physiological ventricular activation and maintenance of AV synchrony. However, LL may be a viable alternative for frail and high-risk patients, as the suboptimal AV synchrony is traded off with lesser ventricular dyssynchrony. Full article

Most patients with heart failure exhibit ventricular dyssynchrony, which is addressed by cardiac resynchronization therapy, traditionally through the use of biventricular pacing (BVP) devices. Despite this, around 30% of patients do not achieve the desired clinical outcome, and echocardiographic findings show that some patients deteriorate even further. Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a more physiologic pacing technique and includes his-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). In this review, we further discuss and compare various CSP techniques for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. After analyzing the current state of the literature on this topic until 2023, eight studies were included in this review and consisted of two trials and five observational studies with a total of 2841 patients. Both BVP and CSP resulted in improved outcomes in terms of NYHA class, QRS duration, and left ventricular ejection fraction over time. These effects were more pronounced in patients undergoing CSP, as the technique is more physiological and results in the synchronized activation of the ventricles. LBBAP yielded better outcomes compared to BVP and resulted in fewer heart failure hospitalizations and a lower all-cause mortality rate. Full article

Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy (CRT) has been established as a major component of heart failure management, resulting in a significant reduction in patient morbidity and death for patients with increased QRS duration, low left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and high risk of arrhythmias. The ability to synchronize both ventricles, lower heart failure hospitalizations, and optimize clinical outcomes are some of the attractive characteristics of biventricular pacing, or CRT. However, the high rate of CRT non-responders has led to the development of new modalities including leadless CRT pacemakers (CRT-P) and devices focused on conduction system pacing (CSP). This comprehensive review aims to present recent findings from CRT clinical trials and systematic reviews that have been published that will likely guide future directions in patient care. Full article

Introduction. Recently published data suggested significantly lower pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) incidence with conduction system pacing (CSP). Because most data evaluated only the impact on the left ventricle, this study aimed to assess changes in echocardiographic parameters of morphology and function for all heart chambers in patients with baseline preserved and mid-range LVEF over a medium-term follow-up period after CSP. Methods. A total of 128 consecutive patients with LVEF > 40% and successful CSP for bradyarrhythmic indication were prospectively enrolled. A complete 2D echocardiographic examination was performed at baseline and the last follow-up. Results. In total, 38 patients received His bundle pacing (HBP) and 90 received left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). The mean follow-up period was 699.2 ± 177.2 days, with 23 patients lost during this period. The ventricular pacing burden for the entire group was 97.2 ± 4.2%. Only three patients (2.9%) met the criteria for PICM. CSP led to a significant increase in LVEF (from 54.2 ± 7.9 to 56.7 ± 7.8%, p = 0.01) and a significant decrease in LV diastolic (from 107.2 ± 41.8 to 91.3 ± 41.8 mL, p < 0.001) and systolic (from 49.7 ± 21.4 to 39.5 ± 18.2 mL, p < 0.001) volumes. There were no significant changes in E/e′, mitral regurgitation, atrial volumes, and right ventricle (RV) diameter. There was a significant improvement in RV function. Tricuspid regurgitation was the only parameter that worsened. There were no differences in evolution for each echocardiographic parameter between the HBP and the LBBAP groups. Conclusions. HBP and LBBAP are equally protective for harmful changes in both atria and ventricles. The prevalence of PICM, defined as a decrease in LVEF, is very low with CSP. Full article

Background: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) are emerging therapies for patients with heart failure and conduction disorders, offering potential advantages over traditional pacing methods. These approaches aim to restore physiological conduction and improve cardiac function more effectively. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of HBP and LBBP in patients with heart failure and conduction disturbances, comparing these techniques to conventional pacing. Methods: A comprehensive review of recent studies and clinical trials was conducted, focusing on the performance of HBP and LBBP in improving cardiac function, reducing QRS duration, and enhancing overall patient outcomes. The analysis includes data on clinical efficacy, procedural safety, and long-term benefits associated with these pacing modalities. Results: Both HBP and LBBP have demonstrated significant improvements in cardiac function and clinical outcomes compared to conventional pacing. HBP effectively restores physiological conduction with improved synchronization and a reduction in QRS duration. LBBP has shown enhanced left ventricular activation, leading to better overall cardiac performance. Both techniques have been associated with a lower incidence of complications and a higher success rate in achieving optimal pacing thresholds. Conclusions: HBP and LBBP offer promising alternatives to traditional pacing for patients with heart failure and conduction disorders. These advanced pacing strategies provide superior clinical outcomes and improved cardiac function with reduced risk of complications. Further research and clinical trials are needed to fully establish the long-term benefits and safety profiles of these techniques in diverse patient populations. Full article

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBPa) is an innovative technique for physiological pacing. Compared with His bundle pacing, LBBPa provides better pacing thresholds, lower rates of macrodislodgment, and a reliable strategy for cardiac resynchronization. LBBPa traditionally employs lumenless leads (LLL), which are characterized by small lead bodies and a fixed helix design. These features guarantee stability, avoid helix retraction, and facilitate easier septal penetration, all contributing to an advantageous learning curve. On the other hand, stylet-driven pacing leads (SDL) have shown comparable success rates related to lumenless pacing leads, although they carry risks of helix retraction and lead fracture. SDL have been increasingly employed with favorable results, as they provide good maneuverability and support during implantation with continuous monitoring of ECG-paced morphology. Different manufacturers are offering a variety of SDL, and new dedicated tools are being developed to simplify lead implantation. In this review, we examine the procedural techniques, advantages, and limitations of the most commonly used pacing leads and tools for LBBPa, and we summarize the complications associated with both lumenless leads (LLL) and stylet-driven leads (SDL). Full article

The current gold standard in device therapy for advanced heart failure (HF), which has been firmly established in HF management for more than 25 years, is classical biventricular pacing (BiV-CRT). In the last decade, a new pacing modality called conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a variant for advanced cardiac device therapy. It provides pacing with preserved intrinsic cardiac activation by direct stimulation of the specific cardiac conduction system. The term CSP integrates the modalities of HIS bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), both of which have provided convincing data in smaller randomized and big non-randomized studies for the prevention of pacemaker-induced cardiomyopathy and for providing effective cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with classical CRT-indication (primary approach or after failed CRT). Recent American guidelines proposed the term “cardiac physiological pacing” (CPP), which summarizes CSP including left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP), a technical variant of LBBAP together with classical BiV-CRT. The terms HOT-CRT (HIS-optimized CRT) and LOT-CRT (LBBP-optimized CRT) describe hybrid technologies that combine CSP with an additional coronary-sinus electrode, which is sometimes useful in patients with advanced HF and diffuse interventricular conduction delay. If CSP continues providing promising data that can be confirmed in big, randomized trials, it is likely to become the new gold standard for patients with an expected high percentage of pacing (>20%), possibly also for cardiac resynchronization therapy. CSP is a sophisticated new treatment option that has the potential to raise the term “cardiac resynchronization therapy” to a new level. The aim of this review is to provide basic technical, anatomical, and functional knowledge of these new pacemaker techniques in order to facilitate the understanding of the different modalities, as well as to provide an up-to-date overview of the existing randomized and non-randomized evidence, particularly in direct comparison to right ventricular and classical biventricular pacing. Full article

Background: Experience with the transvenous extraction of leads used for His bundle pacing (HBP) is limited. Methods: Analysis of 3897 extractions including 27 HBP and 253 LVP (left ventricular pacing) leads. Results: The main reason for HBP lead extraction was lead failure (59.26%). The age of HBP and LVP leads (54.52 vs. 50.20 months) was comparable, whereas procedure difficulties were related to the LVP lead dwell time. The extraction of HBP leads > 40 months old was longer than the removal of younger leads (8.57 vs. 3.87 min), procedure difficulties occurred in 14.29%, and advanced tools were required in 28.57%. There were no major complications. The extraction time of dysfunctional or infected leads was similar in the HBP and LVP groups (log-rank p = 0.868) but shorter when compared to groups with other leads. Survival after the procedure did not differ between HBP and LVP groups but was shorter than in the remaining patients. Conclusions: 1. HBP is used in CRT-D systems for resynchronisation of the failing heart in 33.33%. 2. Extraction of HBP leads is most frequently performed for non-infectious indications (59.26%) and most often because of lead dysfunction (33.33%). 3. The extraction of “old” (>40 months) HBP leads is longer (8.57 vs. 3.87 min) and more difficult than the removal of “young” leads due to unexpected procedure difficulties (14.29%) and the use of second line/advanced tools (28.57%), but it does not entail the risk of major complications and procedure-related death and is comparable to those encountered in the extraction of LVP leads of a similar age. 4. Survival after lead extraction was comparable between HBP and LVP groups but shorter compared to patients who underwent the removal of other leads. Full article

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) significantly improves clinical outcomes in patients with ventricular systolic dysfunction and dyssynchrony. Biventricular pacing (BVP) has a class IA recommendation for patients with symptomatic heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, approximately 30% of patients have a poor therapeutic response and do not achieve real clinical benefit. Pre-implant imaging, together with tailored programming and dedicated device algorithms, have been proposed as possible tools to improve success rate but have shown inconsistent results. Over the last few years, conduction system pacing (CSP) is becoming a real and attractive alternative to standard BVP as it can restore narrow QRS in patients with bundle branch block (BBB) by stimulating and recruiting the cardiac conduction system, thus ensuring true resynchronization. It includes His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Preliminary data coming from small single-center experiences are very promising and have laid the basis for currently ongoing randomized controlled trials comparing CSP with BVP. The purpose of this review is to delve into the emerging role of CSP as an alternative method of achieving CRT. After framing CSP in a historical perspective, the pathophysiological rationale and available clinical evidence will be examined, and crucial technical aspects will be discussed. Finally, evidence gaps and future perspectives on CSP as a technique of choice to deliver CRT will be summarized. Full article