Atrial-His bundle pacing in fulminant myocarditis with ventricular arrhythmia: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Fulminant myocarditis is a clinical syndrome associated with threatening dysrhythmia which temporary pacemaker can be used for life-saving support. As a method of physiological pacing, His bundle pacing (HBP) maintain better cardiac synchronization than traditional right ventricular (RV) pacing. CASE PRESENTATION: It's a severe case of fulminant myocarditis in a 41-year-old patient who presented for recurrent arrhythmias with hemodynamic instability. Temporary His bundle pacing combined with optimal medical therapy and extracorporeal membrane oxygenators (ECMO) supported him through his critical period of hospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: During 1-year follow up, the cardiac function recovery was obvious without any pacing related complications. Echocardiography showed better atrioventricular and intra-ventricular synchronization during HBP in DDD mode. This is the first reported case of temporary His-purkinje conduction system pacing used for severe fulminant myocarditis.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Postatrioventricular Junction Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Propensity Score Matching With His Bundle Pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a promising pacing modality to preserve physiological left ventricular activation; however, prospective data evaluating its long-term safety and efficacy in pacemaker-dependent patients following atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation are lacking. This study aimed to examine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of LBBP in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure (HF) after AVJ ablation and compare LBBP with His bundle pacing (HBP) through a propensity score (PS) matching analysis. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with atrial fibrillation and HF referred for AVJ ablation and LBBP between July 2017 and December 2019. The control group was patients selected from HBP implants performed from 2012 to 2019 using PS matching with a 1:1 ratio. RESULTS: A total of 99 patients were enrolled in the study. The LBBP implant success rate was 100%. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved from baseline 30.3±4.9 to 1-year 47.3±14.5 in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction and from baseline 56.3±12.1 to 1-year 62.3±9.1 in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (both P<0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction in both groups remained stable for up to 3 years of follow-up. A threshold increase >2 V at 0.5 ms occurred in only one patient. Of 176 (81.9%) of 215 patients who received permanent HBP post-AVJ ablation, 86 were matched to the LBBP group by 1:1 PS (propensity score matched His bundle pacing, N=86; propensity score matched left bundle branch pacing, N=86). No significant differences in echocardiographic or clinical outcomes were observed between the 2 groups (P>0.05), whereas lower thresholds, greater sensed R-wave amplitudes, and fewer complications were observed in the propensity score matched left bundle branch pacing group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LBBP is feasible, safe, and effective in patients with atrial fibrillation and HF post-AVJ ablation and has similar clinical benefits, a higher implant success rate, better pacing parameters, and fewer complications compared with HBP.

Evaluation of the Criteria to Distinguish Left Bundle Branch Pacing From Left Ventricular Septal Pacing.

OBJECTIVES: This study sought to assess the predictive value of the proposed electrocardiogram and intracardiac electrogram characteristics for confirmation of left bundle branch (LBB) capture. BACKGROUND: Previously proposed criteria to distinguish left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septum (LVS) pacing (LVSP) have not been fully validated. METHODS: A His bundle pacing lead, an LBBP lead, and a multielectrode catheter at the LVS were placed. Direct LBB capture was defined as demonstration of retrograde His potential on the His bundle pacing lead and/or anterograde left conduction system potentials on the multielectrode catheter during LBBP. The routinely used parameters-His, LBB potential, time from stimulus to peak ventricular activation (Stim-LVAT), and paced QRS morphology during LVSP and LBBP at various depths and outputs were analyzed. RESULTS: Thirty patients (21 non-left bundle branch block [LBBB], 9 LBBB) who demonstrated direct LBB capture using the defined criteria were included. The proportion of paced right bundle branch block was 100% during LBB capture in all patients compared to 23.4% in non-LBBB and 44.4% in LBBB during LVSP. LBB potential was recorded in all patients during intrinsic rhythm (non-LBBB group) or His corrective pacing in LBBB. Paced QRS duration was longer during selective LBBP compared to nonselective LBBP or LVSP only. All patients with characteristics of selective LBBP or abrupt decrease in Stim-LVAT of ≥10 ms demonstrated LBB capture. CONCLUSIONS: Direct LBB capture can be confirmed by recording retrograde His potential and anterograde left conduction system potentials. Abrupt decrease in Stim-LVAT of ≥10 ms and demonstration of selective LBBP could be used as simple criteria to confirm LBB capture.

Long-Term Safety and Feasibility of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Large Single-Center Study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel pacing method and has been observed to have low and stable pacing thresholds in prior small short-term studies. The objective of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of LBBP in a large consecutive diverse group of patients with long-term follow-up. METHODS: This study prospectively enrolled 632 consecutive pacemaker patients with attempted LBBP from April 2017 to July 2019. Pacing parameters, complications, ECG, and echocardiographic measurements were assessed at implant and during follow-up of 1, 6, 12, and 24 months. RESULTS: LBBP was successful in 618/632 (97.8%) patients according to strict criteria for LBB capture. Mean follow-up time was 18.6±6.7 months. Two hundred thirty-one patients had follow-up over 2 years. LBB capture threshold at implant was 0.65±0.27 mV at 0.5 ms and 0.69±0.24 mV at 0.5 ms at 2-year follow-up. A significant decrease in QRS duration was observed in patients with left bundle branch block (167.22±18.99 versus 124.02±24.15 ms, P<0.001). Postimplantation left ventricular ejection fraction improved in patients with QRS≥120 ms (48.82±17.78% versus 58.12±13.04%, P<0.001). The number of patients with moderate and severe tricuspid regurgitation decreased at 1 year. Permanent right bundle branch injury occurred in 55 (8.9%) patients. LBB capture threshold increased to >3 V or loss of bundle capture in 6 patients (1%), 2 patients of them had a loss of conduction system capture. Two patients required lead revision due to dislodgement. CONCLUSIONS: This large observational study suggests that LBBP is feasible with high success rates and low complication rates during long-term follow-up. Therefore, LBBP appears to be a reliable method for physiological pacing for patients with either a bradycardia or heart failure pacing indication.

Impact of QRS morphology on response to conduction system pacing after atrioventricular junction ablation.

AIMS: His-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 RESULTS: This 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. CONCLUSION: Patients with LBBB have greater improvement in LVEF and NYHA class function than patients with narrow QRS from HPCSP after AVJ ablation.