Rate and nature of complications of conduction system pacing compared with right ventricular pacing: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as an alternative to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Comparative data on the risk of complications between CSP and RVP are lacking. OBJECTIVE: This prospective, multicenter, observational study aimed to compare the long-term risk of device-related complications between CSP and RVP. METHODS: A total of 1029 consecutive patients undergoing pacemaker implantation with CSP (including HBP and LBBAP) or RVP were enrolled. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 201 matched pairs. The rate and nature of device-related complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up duration of 18 months, device-related complications were observed in 19 patients: 7 in RVP (3.5%) and 12 in CSP (6.0%) (P = .240). On dividing the matched cohort into 3 groups with similar baseline characteristics according to pacing modality (RVP, n = 201; HBP, n = 128; LBBAP, n = 73), patients with HBP showed a significantly higher rate of device-related complications than did patients with RVP (8.6% vs 3.5%; P = .047) and patients with LBBAP (8.6% vs 1.3%; P = .034). Patients with LBBAP showed a rate of device-related complications similar to that of patients with RVP (1.3% vs 3.5%; P = .358). Most of the complications observed in patients with HBP (63.6%) were lead related. CONCLUSION: Globally, CSP was associated with a risk of complications similar to that of RVP. Considering HBP and LBBAP separately, HBP showed a significantly higher risk of complications than did both RVP and LBBAP whereas LBBAP showed a risk of complications similar to that of RVP.

Bridging the future of cardiac stimulation: physiologic or leadless pacing?

Cardiac simulation has moved from early life-saving pacemakers meant only to prevent asystole to current devices capable of physiologic stimulation for the treatment of heart rhythm and heart failure, that are also intended for remote patient and disease-progression monitoring. The actual vision of contemporary pacing aims to correct the electrophysiologic roots of mechanical inefficiency regardless of underlying structural heart diseases. The awareness of the residual cardiac dyssynchrony related to customary cardiac pacing has changed the concept of what truly represents "physiologic pacing". On a different perspective, leadless stimulation to abolish CIED surgery and prevent lead-related complications is becoming a priority both for young device recipients and for frail, elderly patients. Careful clinical evaluation attempts to bridge decision-making to patient-tailored therapy.

His Bundle pacing for congenital complete AV block: An attempt to fix a broken heart?

Congenital complete atrioventricular block (CCAVB) is usually due to failure of atrioventricular nodal conduction with preservation of the His-Purkinje system. Most patients with CCAVB ultimately require pacemaker therapy to restore physiologic heart rates, dealing with the detrimental effects of chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing on cardiac structure and function. The ideal stimulation pattern aims to mimic the normal conduction to restore electromechanical coupling, preventing the harmful effects of lack of atrioventricular and inter-intraventricular synchrony. This can be done through conduction system pacing. Using His bundle pacing (HBP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy in two complete congenital atrioventricular block patients, we have reported better exercise tolerance and echocardiographic improvements related to reversible left ventricular dysfunction that can be corrected by restoration of the normal activation pathway via the His-Purkinje network.

Pacing devices to treat bradycardia: current status and future perspectives.

Introduction: Cardiac stimulation evolved from life-saving devices to prevent asystole to the treatment of heart rhythm disorders and heart failure, capable of remote patient and disease-progression monitoring. Cardiac stimulation nowadays aims to correct the electrophysiologic roots of mechanical inefficiency in different structural heart diseases.Areas covered: Clinical experience, as per available literature, has led to awareness of the concealed risks of customary cardiac pacing, that can inadvertently cause atrio-ventricular and inter/intra-ventricular dyssynchrony. New pacing modalities have emerged, leading to a new concept of what truly represents 'physiologic pacing' beyond maintenance of atrio-ventricular coupling. In this article we will analyze the emerging evidence in favor of the available strategies to achieve an individualized physiologic setting in bradycardia pacing, and the hints of future developments.Expert opinion: 'physiologic stimulation' technologies should evolve to enable an effective and widespread adoption. In one way new guiding catheters and the adoption of electrophysiologic guidance and non-fluoroscopic lead implantation are needed to make His-Purkinje pacing successful and effective at long term in a shorter procedure time; in the other way leadless stimulation needs to upgrade to a superior physiologic setting to mimic customary DDD pacing and possibly His-Purkinje pacing.