A case of exaggerated exuberance: Iatrogenic atrioventricular block/intra‐Hisian Wenckebach during conduction system pacing
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ghosh A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10848609 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundAtrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) with right ventricular or biventricular pacing (conventional pacing; CP) is an effective therapy for patients with refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing preserves ventricular synchrony.ObjectiveThe aim of our study is to compare the clinical outcomes between CP and CSP in patients undergoing AVNA.MethodsPatients undergoing AVNA at Geisinger Health System between January 2015 and October 2020 were included in this retrospective observational study. CP or CSP was performed at the operators' discretion. Procedural, pacing parameters, and echocardiographic data were assessed. Primary outcome was the combined endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards. Secondary outcomes were individual outcomes of time to death and HFH.ResultsAVNA was performed in 223 patients (CSP, 110; CP, 113). Age was 75 ± 10 years, male 52%, hypertension 67%, diabetes 25%, coronary disease 40%, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 43% ± 15%. QRS duration increased from 103 ± 30 ms to 124 ± 20 ms (P < .01) in CSP and 119 ± 32 ms to 162 ± 24 ms in CP (P < .001). During a mean follow-up of 27 ± 19 months, LVEF significantly increased from 46.5% ± 14.2% to 51.9% ± 11.2% (P = .02) in CSP and 36.4% ± 16.1% to 39.5% ± 16% (P = .04) in CP. The primary combined endpoint of time to death or HFH was significantly reduced in CSP compared to CP (48% vs 62%; hazard ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.89, P < .01). There was no reduction in the individual secondary outcomes of time to death and HFH in the CSP group compared to CP.ConclusionCSP is a safe and effective option for pacing in patients with AF undergoing AVNA in high-volume centers.
| S-EPMC9463688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsHis-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) utilizing His (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and wide QRS duration has not been well studied. We assessed the benefit of left bundle branch block (LBBB) correction during HPCSP in AF patients undergoing atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation with LBBB, compared with those with narrow QRS duration.Methods and resultsThis is an observational study in consecutive patients with typical LBBB or narrow QRS duration in whom we attempted HPCSP after AVJ ablation for refractory AF with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 50%. Echocardiographic responses and clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline and during 1 year of follow-up. A total of 178 patients were enrolled, of which 170 achieved AVJ ablation + permanent HPCSP (age 69.3 ± 10.1 years; LVEF 34.3 ± 7.7%), 133 (78.2%) patients had a narrow QRS duration, and 37 (21.2%) had an LBBB. The QRS duration changed from a baseline of 159.7 ± 16.6 ms to a paced QRS duration of 110.4 ± 12.7 ms in the LBBB cohort and from 95.6 ± 10.4 to 100.8 ± 14.5 ms (both P < 0.001) in the narrow QRS cohort after AVJ ablation and pacing. Compared with the narrow QRS cohort, the LBBB cohort showed a greater absolute increase in LVEF (+22.3% vs. +14.2%, P < 0.001), higher super responder rate (71.4% vs. 49.2%, P = 0.011), and greater New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement (-1.9 vs. -1.4, P < 0.001) at 1 year.ConclusionPatients with LBBB have greater improvement in LVEF and NYHA class function than patients with narrow QRS from HPCSP after AVJ ablation.
| S-EPMC8006676 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsAtrial fibrillation (AF) worsens the prognosis of patients with heart failure (HF). Successful treatments are still very scarce for those with permanent AF and preserved (HFpEF) or mildly reduced (HFmrEF) ejection fraction. In this study, the long-term benefits and safety profile of heart rate regularization through left-bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) will be explored in comparison with pharmacological rate-control strategy.Methods and resultsThe PACE-FIB trial is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, randomized (1:1) clinical study that will take place between March 2022 and February 2027. A total of 334 patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF and permanent AF will receive either LBBP followed by AVNA (intervention arm) or optimal pharmacological treatment for heart rate control according to European guideline recommendations (control arm). All patients will be followed up for a minimum of 36 months. The primary outcome measure will be the composite of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and worsening HF at 36 months. Other secondary efficacy and safety outcome measures such as echocardiographic parameters, functional status, and treatment-related adverse events, among others, will be analysed too.ConclusionLBBP is a promising stimulation mode that may foster the clinical benefit of heart rate regularization through AV node ablation compared with pharmacological rate control. This is the first randomized trial specifically addressing the long-term efficacy and safety of this pace-and-ablate strategy in patients with HFpEF/HFmrEF and permanent AF.
| S-EPMC10682904 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Extensive knowledge of the anatomy of the atrioventricular conduction axis, and its branches, is key to the success of permanent physiological pacing, either by capturing the His bundle, the left bundle branch or the adjacent septal regions. The inter-individual variability of the axis plays an important role in underscoring the technical difficulties known to exist in achieving a stable position of the stimulating leads. In this review, the key anatomical features of the location of the axis relative to the triangle of Koch, the aortic root, the inferior pyramidal space and the inferoseptal recess are summarised. In keeping with the increasing number of implants aimed at targeting the environs of the left bundle branch, an extensive review of the known variability in the pattern of ramification of the left bundle branch from the axis is included. This permits the authors to summarise in a pragmatic fashion the most relevant aspects to be taken into account when seeking to successfully deploy a permanent pacing lead.
| S-EPMC8576516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Fusion CRT pacing (FCRT) is noninferior to biventricular pacing, according to the current data. The aim of this study is to assess the response to FCRT and to identify predictors of super-responders (SRs) in a nonischemic population with normal AV conduction. Methods: LV-only CRT patients (pts) with a right atrium/left ventricle pacing system implanted in two CRT centers in Romania were included. Device interrogation, exercise tests, echocardiography, and individualized drug optimization were performed every 6 months during close follow-up. SRs pts were defined as those with left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) improvement ≥30% and stable ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥45%. Results: A total of 25 out of 83 pts (31%) were SRs, with nonischemic LBBB low EF cardiomyopathy (50 male, 62 ± 9 y.o.) initially included. Mean follow-up was 5 years ± 27 months. Patients were divided in two groups: SRs and non-SRs (52 responders/6 hypo-responders). Two predictors were found in the SRs group: a higher baseline LVEF (SRs 29 ± 5% vs. non-SRs 26 ± 5%, p = 0.02) and a lower pulmonary arterial systolic pressure (SRs 38 ± 11 mm Hg vs. non-SRs 50 ± 15 mmHg, p = 0.003). Baseline severe mitral regurgitation was found in 11% of SRs vs. 64% in the non-SRs group. Conclusions: SRs in the selected NICM-FCRT group are significative high. Higher baseline LVEF and mild pulmonary arterial hypertension were independently associated with super-response.
| S-EPMC9497644 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC9532840 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePR interval prolongation > 200 ms resulting in the diagnosis of first-degree atrioventricular block (AVB1) is caused by a delay in the AV nodal/His conduction and/or the right intra-atrial conduction (RIAC). The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of AVB1 due to RIAC delay (AVB1 with normal AH and HV) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial flutter (AFlu).MethodsWe included 1067 consecutive patients (33% female, age 63 ± 13 years) referred for catheter ablation of AF (AF-group) (453 patients), AF and AFlu (136 patients), AFlu (292 patients), and AVNRT/AVRT (186 patients). AH-, HV-, PR-interval, and P-wave duration were measured on the 12-lead ECG and the intracardiac electrograms in sinus rhythm. RIAC delay was defined as a prolonged PR interval > 200 ms with normal AH and HV intervals.ResultsThe prevalence of AVB1 is higher in patients with AFlu (41%) and AF (21%) and patients with both arrhythmias (30%) as compared with a reference group (8%) of patients with AVNRT/AVRT. AVB1 was due to RIAC delay in 42 of 67 patients (63%) in the AF-group, in 37 of 96 patients (39%) in the AFlu-group, and in 17 of 36 patients (47%) in the AF/AFlu group, respectively. AV nodal conduction delay was more common in AFlu patients compared with AF patients.ConclusionRIAC delay is a common underlying cause of AVB1 in patients with AF and AFlu. These findings may impact the prescription of antiarrhythmic and AV-nodal blocking drugs.
| S-EPMC8324594 | biostudies-literature
Project description:During His-Purkinje conduction system (HPS) pacing, it is crucial to confirm capture of the His bundle or left bundle branch versus myocardialonly capture. For this, several methods and criteria for differentiation between non-selective (ns) capture - capture of the HPS and the adjacent myocardium - and myocardial-only capture were developed. HPS capture results in faster and more homogenous depolarisation of the left ventricle than right ventricular septal (RVS) myocardial-only capture. Specifically, the depolarisation of the left ventricle (LV) does not require slow cell-to-cell spread of activation from the right side to the left side of the interventricular septum but begins simultaneously with QRS onset as in native depolarisation. These phenomena greatly influence QRS complex morphology and form the basis of electrocardiographic differentiation between HPS and myocardial paced QRS. Moreover, the HPS and the working myocardium are different tissues within the heart muscle that vary not only in conduction velocities but also in refractoriness and capture thresholds. These last two differences can be exploited for the diagnosis of HPS capture using dynamic pacing manoeuvres, namely differential output pacing, programmed stimulation and burst pacing. This review summarises current knowledge of this subject.
| S-EPMC8576513 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Conduction system pacing (CSP) has been emerging over the last decade as a pacing option instead of conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing and biventricular (BiV) pacing. Numerous case reports, some observational studies and a few randomized control trials have looked at optimum pacing strategies for heart failure (HF) with left bundle branch block (LBBB) or cases where left ventricular (LV) dysfunction is anticipated due to chronic RV pacing (RVP). Evolution of pacing strategies from standard RVP to septal RVP, BiV pacing and now CSP have shown improving hemodynamic responses and possible ease of implantation of CSP systems. In this review article, we review the literature on the evolution of CSP and common scenarios where it might be beneficial.
| S-EPMC10463741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one-third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiple strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged in recent years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP, appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations, and future directions.
| S-EPMC10672305 | biostudies-literature