Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing to Overcome Coronary Sinus Anatomy-Related Technical Problems Encountered during Implantation of Biventricular CRT-A Case Report.

The results of clinical trials show that up to one-third of patients who are eligible for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) do not benefit from biventricular pacing. The reasons vary, including technical problems related to left ventricle pacing lead placement in the appropriate branch of the coronary sinus. Herein, we present a case report of a patient with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block, in whom a poor coronary sinus bed made implantation of classic biventricular CRT impossible, but in whom, alternatively, rescue-performed left bundle branch area pacing allowed effective electrical and mechanical cardiac resynchronization. The report confirms that left bundle branch area pacing may be a rational alternative in such cases.

Leadless AV Pacemaker in Patient with Complete Heart Block and Bilaterally Implanted Two Deep Brain Stimulators Can Be Safe Therapeutic Option.

There are reports documenting that electromagnetic waves generated by deep brain stimulation devices can interfere with cardiac pacemakers. This might be even a life-threatening problem in cardiac pacemaker-dependent patients. Herein, we present a case report on a patient with bilaterally implanted deep brain stimulation devices, who concomitantly had the indications for permanent cardiac pacing. The report shows that a leadless AV pacemaker may be a safe and reasonable option in these cases.

Hemodynamic Effects of Permanent His Bundle Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing Assessed by Two-Dimensional Speckle-Tracking Echocardiography.

We compared the effects of right ventricular (RVP; n = 26) and His bundle (HBP; n = 24) pacing in patients with atrioventricular conduction disorders and preserved LVEF. Postoperatively (1D), and after six months (6M), the patients underwent global longitudinal strain (GLS) and peak systolic dispersion (PSD) evaluation with 2D speckle-tracking echocardiography, assessment of left atrial volume index (LAVI) and QRS duration (QRSd), and sensing/pacing parameter testing. The RVP threshold was lower than the HBP threshold at 1D (0.65 ± 0.13 vs. 1.05 ± 0.20 V, p < 0.001), and then it remained stable, while the HBP threshold increased at 6M (1.05 ± 0.20 vs. 1.31 ± 0.30 V, p < 0.001). The RVP R-wave was higher than the HBP R-wave at 1D (11.52 ± 2.99 vs. 4.82 ± 1.41 mV, p < 0.001). The RVP R-wave also remained stable, while the HBP R-wave decreased at 6M (4.82 ± 1.41 vs. 4.50 ± 1.09 mV, p < 0.02). RVP QRSd was longer than HBP QRSd at 6M (145.0 ± 11.1 vs. 112.3 ± 9.3 ms, p < 0.001). The absolute value of RVP GLS decreased at 6M (16.32 ± 2.57 vs. 14.03 ± 3.78%, p < 0.001), and HBP GLS remained stable. Simultaneously, RVP PSD increased (72.53 ± 24.15 vs. 88.33 ± 30.51 ms, p < 0.001) and HBP PSD decreased (96.28 ± 33.99 vs. 84.95 ± 28.98 ms, p < 0.001) after 6 months. RVP LAVI increased (26.73 ± 5.7 vs. 28.40 ± 6.4 mL/m2, p < 0.05), while HBP LAVI decreased at 6M (30.03 ± 7.8 vs. 28.73 ± 8.7 mL/m2, p < 0.01). These results confirm that HBP does not disrupt ventricular synchrony and provides advantages over RVP.