scholarly journals Electrocardiographic Analysis for His Bundle Pacing at Implantation and Follow-Up

2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (7) ◽  
pp. 883-900 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haran Burri ◽  
Marek Jastrzebski ◽  
Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman
Keyword(s):  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing

His-bundle pacing in CHF-patients with narrow QRS and chronic AF – an upgrade from single-chamber to dual-chamber ICD

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Ciesielski ◽  
A Slawuta ◽  
A Zabek ◽  
K Boczar ◽  
B Malecka ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Clinical Status ◽  
Chronic Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Dual Chamber ◽  
Icd Implantation ◽  
Single Chamber ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Short Period

Abstract   A single-chamber ICD is a standard method for primary SCD prophylaxis. In patients with chronic atrial fibrillation it does not contribute to the regularization of heart rate, which is crucial for proper treatment. Moreover, to avoid the deleterious effect of right ventricular pacing only minority of the patients with single chamber ICD get the appropriate, recommended dose of beta-blockers. The aim of our study was to assess the efficacy of direct His-bundle pacing in a population of patients with congestive heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation using upgrade from single chamber to dual-chamber ICD and atrial channel to perform the His-bundle pacing Methods The study population included 39 patients (37 men, 2 women) aged 67.2±9.3 years, with CHF and chronic AF implanted primarily with single chamber ICD with established pharmacotherapy and stable clinical status. Results The echocardiography measurements at baseline and during follow-up were presented in the table: During short period (3–6 months) of follow-up the mean values of EF and LV dimensions significantly improved. This was also accompanied by functional status improvement. Conclusions His-bundle-based pacing in CHF-chronic AF patients contributes to significant echocardiographic and clinical improvement. Standard single-chamber ICD implantation in CHF-chronic AF patients yields only SCD prevention without influence on remodeling process. The physiological pacing contributes to better pharmacotherapy. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

Electrical characteristics of pacing different portions of the His bundle in bradycardia patients

EP Europace ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii27-ii35
Author(s):  
Yiran Hu ◽  
Min Gu ◽  
Wei Hua ◽  
Hongxia Niu ◽  
Hui Li ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wave Amplitude ◽  
Electrical Characteristics ◽  
Normal Range ◽  
Tricuspid Valve Regurgitation ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Pacing Mode ◽  
Echocardiographic Assessment ◽  
R Wave Amplitude

Abstract Aims His-bundle pacing (HBP) can be achieved in either atrial-side HBP (aHBP) or ventricular-side HBP (vHBP). The study compared the pacing parameters and electrophysiological characteristics between aHBP and vHBP in bradycardia patients. Methods and results Fifty patients undergoing HBP implantation assisted by visualization of the tricuspid valvular annulus (TVA) were enrolled. The HBP lead position was identified by TVA angiography. Twenty-five patients were assigned to undergo aHBP and compared with 25 patients who underwent vHBP primarily in a prospective and randomized fashion. Pacing parameters and echocardiography were routinely assessed at implant and 3-month follow-up. His-bundle pacing was successfully performed in 45 patients (90% success rate with 44.4% aHBP and 55.6% vHBP). The capture threshold was lower in vHBP than aHBP at implant (vHBP: 1.1 ± 0.5 vs. aHBP: 1.4 ± 0.4 V/1.0 ms, P = 0.014) and 3-month follow-up (vHBP: 0.8 ± 0.4 vs. aHBP: 1.7 ± 0.8 V/0.4 ms, P < 0.001). The R-wave amplitude was higher in vHBP than in aHBP at implant (vHBP: 4.5 ± 1.4 vs. aHBP: 2.0 ± 0.8 mV, P < 0.001) and at 3-month follow-up (vHBP: 4.4 ± 1.5 vs. aHBP: 1.8 ± 0.7 mV, P < 0.001). No procedure-related complications and aggravation of tricuspid valve regurgitation were observed in most patients and echocardiographic assessment of cardiac function remained in the normal range in all patients during the follow-up. Conclusion This study demonstrates that vHBP features a low and stable pacing capture threshold and high R-wave amplitude, suggesting better pacing mode management and battery longevity can be achieved by HBP in the ventricular side.

Programming and follow-up of patients with His bundle pacing

2020 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 177-182 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elise Bakelants ◽  
Alwin Zweerink ◽  
Haran Burri
Keyword(s):  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing

P1239His-bundle pacing in CHF-patients with narrow QRS and chronic AF using dual-chamber ICD

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Slawuta ◽  
K Boczar ◽  
A Zabek ◽  
A Ciesielski ◽  
J Hiczkiewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Atrial Fibrillation ◽  
Congestive Heart Failure ◽  
Dual Chamber ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Narrow Qrs ◽  
Group A ◽  
Group B

Abstract The heart rate regularization is crucial for proper treatment of patients with atrial fibrillation and congestive heart failure. The standard resynchronization can be applied, but in patients with narrow QRS this procedure is of no use. The aim of our study is to assess the efficacy of direct His-bundle pacing in patients with congestive heart failure and chronic atrial fibrillation using dual chamber ICD implanted for prevention of sudden cardiac death. Methods The study population included 78 patients with CHF and chronic AF: group A - 56 pts treated with direct His-bundle pacing using atrial port of dual chamber ICD and group B - 22 patients implanted with single chamber ICD as recommended by the guidelines. The patients in group B constituting clinical controls were derived from the Heart Failure Outpatients Clinic with established clinical status and pharmacotherapy. Results The demographic data, clinical characteristics and echocardiography measurements at baseline and during follow-up were presented in the table: Table 1 Group A Group B P value Age (years) 69.7±6.9 66.7±11.3 n.s. Sex (% of male sex) 84.0 86.4 n.s. Ventricular pacing (%) – 46.3±31.2 – His-bundle pacing (%) 81.7±9.2 – – pre post pre post pre vs. post LVEDD (mm) 66.9±4.9 59.9±4.7 64.8±8.0 64.7±8.1 <0.01 n.s. EF (%) 29.6±3.8 43.6±5.9 28.1±6.1 28.8±7.3 <0.01 n.s. NYHA class 2.7±0.6 1.4±0.6 2.5±0.6 2.0±0.2 <0.05 n.s. B-blocker dose (metoprolol equivalent dose) 104.6±41.6 214.3±82.6 78.3±56.6 103.1±49.2 <0.001 <0.05 During 12-months of follow-up the mean values of NYHA functional class, EF and LV dimensions did not change in group B but significantly improved in group A. The physiological His-bundle based pacing enabled optimal beta-blocker dosing. The studied groups had no tachyarrhythmia at baseline so the presumable atrial fibrillation-related harm depends on the rhythm irregularity. Conclusions His-bundle-based pacing in CHF-chronic AF patients contributes to significant echocardiographic and clinical improvement. Standard single-chamber ICD implantation in CHF-chronic AF patients yields only SCD prevention without influence on remodeling process. The CHF-patients with narrow QRS and chronic AF benefit from substantially higher beta-blockade which can be instituted in His-bundle pacing group.

scholarly journals Long-term outcomes of His bundle pacing in patients with heart failure with left bundle branch block

Heart ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 105 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Weijian Huang ◽  
Lan Su ◽  
Shengjie Wu ◽  
Lei Xu ◽  
Fangyi Xiao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Heart Failure ◽  
Left Bundle Branch Block ◽  
Nyha Class ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Bundle Branch Block ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Patients With Heart Failure

ObjectivesHis bundle pacing (HBP) can potentially correct left bundle branch block (LBBB). We aimed to assess the efficacy of HBP to correct LBBB and long-term clinical outcomes with HBP in patients with heart failure (HF).MethodsThis is an observational study of patients with HF with typical LBBB who were indicated for pacing therapy and were consecutively enrolled from one centre. Permanent HBP leads were implanted if the LBBB correction threshold was <3.5V/0.5 ms or 3.0 V/1.0 ms. Pacing parameters, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) Class were assessed during follow-up.ResultsIn 74 enrolled patients (69.6±9.2 years and 43 men), LBBB correction was acutely achieved in 72 (97.3%) patients, and 56 (75.7%) patients received permanent HBP (pHBP) while 18 patients did not receive permanent HBP (non-permanent HBP), due to no LBBB correction (n=2), high LBBB correction thresholds (n=10) and fixation failure (n=6). The median follow-up period of pHBP was 37.1 (range 15.0–48.7) months. Thirty patients with pHBP had completed 3-year follow-up, with LVEF increased from baseline 32.4±8.9% to 55.9±10.7% (p<0.001), LVESV decreased from a baseline of 137.9±64.1 mL to 52.4±32.6 mL (p<0.001) and NYHA Class improvement from baseline 2.73±0.58 to 1.03±0.18 (p<0.001). LBBB correction threshold remained stable with acute threshold of 2.13±1.19 V/0.5 ms to 2.29±0.92 V/0.5 ms at 3-year follow-up (p>0.05).ConclusionspHBP improved LVEF, LVESV and NYHA Class in patients with HF with typical LBBB.

scholarly journals Reversal of left bundle branch block–induced cardiomyopathy by His bundle pacing

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (2) ◽  
pp. 030006051988418
Author(s):  
Fei Liu ◽  
Lijun Zeng ◽  
Xiaomeng Yin ◽  
Lianjun Gao ◽  
Yunlong Xia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Left Bundle Branch Block ◽  
Heart Function ◽  
Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy ◽  
Bundle Branch Block ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Temporary Pacemaker ◽  
Nonischemic Dilated Cardiomyopathy ◽  
The Right

A 61-year-old woman was referred to our institution for evaluation of severe nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block (LBBB). After permanent His bundle pacing, the LBBB was immediately corrected; however, the right bundle branch was injured during the procedure. Subsequent recovery of the right bundle branch block and normalization of heart function were observed during follow-up. This case indicates that LBBB might result in the development of nonischemic cardiomyopathy and emphasizes the necessity of a temporary pacemaker during His bundle pacing for patients with LBBB.

P6018Can chronic his bundle pacing be safely started in centers with lack of experience of this technique? Data from a multicentric registry

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Chaumont ◽  
E Popescu ◽  
N Auquier ◽  
A Milhem ◽  
G Viart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sinus Node ◽  
Pacemaker Implantation ◽  
Bundle Branch Block ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Ventricular Lead ◽  
Device Infection ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Tool Set

Abstract Introduction Right ventricular pacing (RVP) induces ventricular asynchrony in patients with normal QRS and increases the risk of heart failure and atrial fibrillation on long term. His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to RVP. Interest in HBP has been hampered in part by technical challenges and limited implantation tool set. Recent studies assessed feasibility and safety in expert centers with a vast experience of HBP. These results may not apply to less experienced centers. Purpose To evaluate feasibility and safety of permanent his bundle pacing in hospitals with limited technical training to this technique and to evaluate stability of his bundle capture thresholds at 3 months follow up. Methods We included all patients who underwent pacemaker implantation with attempt of HBP in three hospitals between September 2017 and December 2018. All the 5 operators were novice for HBP at the beginning of the study. Selective his bundle capture (HBC) was defined as concordance of QRS and T waves complexes with the native ECG (patients with underlying bundle branch block may normalize), presence of a delay between spike and QRS complex, absence of widening of the QRS at a low pacing output, and recordable his bundle electrogram. At 3 months follow-up, his bundle capture thresholds, R-wave amplitudes and pacing impedances were recorded. Results HPB was successful in 51 of 58 patients (87.9%); selective HBC was obtained in 40 patients while nonselective HBC occurred in 11 patients. Indication for pacemaker implantation was atrioventricular conduction disease in 31 patients (53%), sinus node dysfunction in 5 patients (9%) and AV nodal ablation for non-controlled atrial arrhythmias in 22 patients (38%). AV nodal ablation was performed during the same procedure in 14 patients. The mean procedure duration was 75±8 min, and mean fluoroscopy duration was 10±2 min. The mean HBP threshold was 1.47±0.27 V and did not increase after a 3 months follow-up (1.12±0.18 V). Only 7 patients (14%) had HBP threshold >2V/0.5ms. The mean impedance was 477±37 Ω and slightly decreased at 3 months (364±24Ω). The mean R-wave amplitude was 4.1±1 mV at implantation and 3.2±0.6 mV at 3 months. Bundle branch block correction was achieved in 5 of 7 patients with underlying left bundle branch block. There was no pericardial effusion, no pneumothorax and no device infection. Ventricular lead revision was required at 3 months in one patient for sudden threshold increase, without obvious dislodgement. LBBB correction after HBP Conclusion His bundle pacing performed by novice operators to this technique appeared feasible and safe. The mean HBP threshold did not increase at 3 months follow-up.

scholarly journals Can atrioventricular node ablation be safely performed in patients with permanent His bundle pacing? Data from a multicentric registry

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
C Chaumont ◽  
N Auquier ◽  
A Mirolo ◽  
E Popescu ◽  
A Milhem ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Right Ventricular ◽  
Rate Control ◽  
Atrioventricular Node ◽  
Atrial Arrhythmia ◽  
Av Node ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Ventricular Lead ◽  
Qrs Duration

Abstract Introduction Ventricular rate control is essential in the management of atrial fibrillation. Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and ventricular pacing can be an effective option when pharmacological rate control is insufficient. However, right ventricular pacing (RVP) induces ventricular desynchronization in patients with normal QRS and increases the risk of heart failure on long term. His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to RVP. Observational studies have demonstrated the feasibility of HBP but there is still very limited data about the feasibility of AVNA after HBP. Purpose To evaluate feasibility and safety of HBP followed by AVNA in patients with non-controlled atrial arrhythmia. Methods We included in three hospitals between september 2017 and december 2019 all patients who underwent AVNA for non-controlled atrial arrhythmia after permanent His bundle pacing. No back-up right ventricular lead was implanted. AVNA procedures were performed with 8 mm-tip ablation catheter. Acute HBP threshold increase during AVNA was defined as a threshold elevation &gt;1V. His bundle capture (HBC) thresholds were recorded at 3 months follow-up. Results AVNA after HBP lead implantation was performed in 45 patients. HBP and AVNA were performed simultaneously during the same procedure in 10. AVNA was successful in 32 of 45 patients (71%). Modulation of the AV node conduction was obtained in 7 patients (16%). The mean procedure duration was 42±24min, and mean fluoroscopy duration was 6.4±8min. A mean number of 7.7±9.9 RF applications (347±483 sec) were delivered to obtain complete / incomplete AV block. Acute HBC threshold increase occurred in 8 patients (18%) with return to baseline value at day 1 in 5 patients. There was no lead dislodgment during the AVNA procedures. Mean HBC threshold at implant was 1.26±[email protected] and slightly increased at 3 months follow-up (1.34±[email protected]). AV node re-conduction was observed in 5 patients (16% of the successful procedures) with a second successful ablation procedure in 4 patients. No ventricular lead revision was required during the follow-up period. The baseline native QRS duration was 102±21 ms and the paced QRS duration was 107±18 ms. Conclusion AVNA combined with HBP for non-controlled atrial arrhythmia is feasible and does not compromise HBC but seems technically difficult with significant AV nodal re-conduction rate. The presence of a back-up right ventricular lead could have changed our results and therefore would require further evaluation. Unipolar HBP after AV node ablation Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

scholarly journals 283 His bundle pacing: safety, performance, and clinical outcomes in a single-centre experience

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_G) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Bartoli ◽  
Giuseppe Pio Piemontese ◽  
Giulia Massaro ◽  
Andrea Angeletti ◽  
Giovanni Statuto ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Outcomes ◽  
Significant Rise ◽  
Safety Performance ◽  
Lead Extraction ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Pacing Threshold ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Lead Dislodgement

Abstract Aims Permanent His bundle pacing (HBP) is a more physiological technique for cardiac stimulation and has recently emerged as an alternative for anti-bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Its main advantages over ‘classical’ pacing are both its protective role over pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and the possibility of resynchronization by normalization of His-Purkinje activation. To evaluate the intermediate-term outcomes of HBP in terms of safety, performance, and clinical outcomes. Methods and results Between December 2018 and July 2020, we enrolled a series of consecutive patients with indication for pacing in whom HBP was attempted. A specific lead (3830 Select Secure MRI SureScan) and sheath (C315His) was used. At follow-up clinical, safety and performance outcomes were evaluated. A significant rise in HBP pacing threshold was defined as an increase of at least 1 V@1ms in the minimum voltage that could produce an effective myocardial depolarization. Remote or in-hospital device interrogation was performed by an experienced electrophysiologist. HBP was attempted in 99 patients and all implantations were performed by the same two operators. Eighty-two procedures were successful (83%). The main reasons for HBP failure were high pacing-thresholds (n = 8, 47%), infra-Hisian block (n = 5, 29,4%), difficult HB location (n = 3, 17,6%), unsatisfactory sensing (n = 1, 5,9%), or lead instability (n = 1, 5,9%). During a mean follow-up of 9.5 ± 5.9 months, the overall technical and clinical complication rates were 39% and 13.3%, respectively. Three (3.6%) patients underwent His lead extraction and subsequent conventional right ventricular septum (RV) lead implantation because of lead dislodgement (n = 2) or rise in pacing threshold (n = 1), while two (2.4%) patients required His lead repositioning because of lead dislodgement (n = 1) and phrenic nerve stimulation (n = 1). Nineteen patients (23.2%) experienced a significant rise in Hisian pacing threshold and 1 of these patients also had poor sensing parameters. Oversensing was noted in 8 (9.7%) patients and in 7 of them (87.5%) it was due to both atrioventricular and ventriculoatrial crosstalk events. As regards clinical outcomes, seven patients (8.5%) were diagnosed with new onset atrial fibrillation (AF), one of them complicated by stroke. Three patients (3.6%) were hospitalized for acute heart failure, one of them after His lead dislodgement. Finally, five patients (6.1%) died during follow-up, but no death was related to cardiovascular events. Conclusions HBP is an effective technique to obtain a more physiological cardiac pacing, but it is limited by a moderate rate of procedural failure and follow-up complications, mainly rising in pacing threshold and oversensing events. This is probably due to suboptimal implantation tools and lack of specific programming algorithms. New dedicated tools, increased experience, knowledge of device limitations, and optimal programming are needed to improve future outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document