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.

Comparison of electrical characteristics between atrial and ventricular side His-bundle pacing in bradycardia patients

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
X Liu ◽  
M Gu ◽  
Y.R Hu ◽  
W Hua ◽  
S Zhang
Keyword(s):  
Wave Amplitude ◽  
Electrical Characteristics ◽  
Pacing Threshold ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
His Bundle Pacing ◽  
Tricuspid Valve Annulus ◽  
Echocardiographic Parameters ◽  
Pacing Lead ◽  
R Wave Amplitude

Abstract Background His-bundle pacing (HBP) is recognized as the most physiological way of pacing but with less study focused on electrical characteristics in different site. Purpose We aimed to evaluate the differences of pacing and echocardiographic parameters between atrial and ventricular side His-bundle pacing. Methods Patients who successfully underwent HBP implantation from September 2018 to August 2019 were retrospectively analyzed. All patients were assigned to atrial-side HBP (aHBP) group or ventricular-side HBP (vHBP) group according to the location of the His-bundle pacing lead, which was confirmed by two methods including postoperative echocardiography and visualization of tricuspid valve annulus (TVA). The pacing and echocardiographic parameters were compared between two groups during the procedure and at 3-month follow-up. Results A total of 71 bradycardia patients who successfully underwent HBP implantation and confirmed lead position were included. Among them, twenty-seven were assigned to aHBP group and the other 44 were assigned to vHBP group with no significant differences in baseline clinical characteristics between two groups. During the procedure, the proportion of selective HBP was significantly higher (77.8% vs. 11.4%; P<0.01) and the intra-procedural HV intervals was significantly longer (50.85±6.53 ms vs. 42.95±6.02 ms, P<0.01) in aHBP group than in vHBP group. The capture threshold in vHBP group was significantly lower than in aHBP group at implantation (0.92±0.22 V/1.0ms vs. 1.05±0.26 V/1.0ms, P=0.03) and remain significantly difference after 3-month follow-up (0.98±0.23 V/1.0ms vs. 1.15±0.44 V/1.0ms, P=0.03). The R-wave amplitude was significantly higher in vHBP group than in aHBP group at implantation (5.82±2.52 mV vs. 3.74±1.81 mV, P<0.01), and these differences still persisted during follow-up (5.88±2.51 mV vs. 3.67±1.61 mV, P<0.01). During 3-month follow-up, an increase in the capture threshold >1 V/1.0ms was seen in 2 cases in aHBP group while all patients remained stable in vHBP group. One patient developed a pocket hematoma in aHBP group compared to none in vHBP group. None of deterioration of tricuspid regurgitation and other procedure-related complications were observed during 3-month follow-up. Conclusions Ventricular side His-bundle pacing can achieve favourable pacing parameters including a lower pacing threshold and a higher R-wave amplitude than atrial side His-bundle pacing, which may be an ideal pacing strategy for patients in need of ventricular pacing. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: None

P4528Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing by transvenous approach through the interventricular septum in patients with left bundle branch block

2019 ◽  
Vol 40 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
W J Huang ◽  
S J Wu ◽  
L Su ◽  
X Y Chen ◽  
B N Cai ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Success Rate ◽  
Left Bundle Branch Block ◽  
Wave Amplitude ◽  
Interventricular Septum ◽  
Bundle Branch Block ◽  
His Bundle ◽  
Qrs Duration ◽  
Transvenous Approach ◽  
R Wave Amplitude

Abstract Background His bundle pacing (HBP) has been shown to correct left bundle branch block (LBBB), however it often requires high pacing output and the success rate is variable. Objective To assess the feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in patients with LBBB. Methods From Apr 2014 to Aug 2018, patients with LBBB from multicenters indicated for CRT or pacing therapy were included. LBBAP was performed by advancing the MDT 3830 lead deep into the septum about 1 cm distal to the His bundle region (Figure 1F). Pacing characteristics, success rate, threshold and R-wave amplitude were assessed. Results A total of 94 patients aged 68.3±10.7 y with the native QRS duration of 167.2±17.2 ms were included. In 92 patients, LBBAP was successfully achieved and demonstrated RBBB pattern during unipolar tip pacing (UTP), with the paced QRS duration of 116.4±12.6ms (Figure 1C). Fusion of LBBAP and native conduction via the RBB eliminated RBBB and resulted in an average QRS duration of 103.2±10.1 ms (Figure 1D). LBB potential could be recorded from the LBB lead during correction of LBBB by HBP in 21 patients who used two leads method (His lead and LBB lead, Figure 1B). Output dependent selective and non-selective LBBAP were demonstrated in 48 patients (Figure 1C, D). The LBB capture threshold by UTP was 0.53±0.18V/0.5ms at acute and 0.62±0.17V/0.5ms at 6 months and 0.65±0.2V/0.5ms at 1 year. The R-wave amplitude were 11.4±5.2mV, 12.4±5.8mV and 12.0±5.8mV at acute, 6 month and 1 year. During follow-up, only one patient had an increase in LBB capture threshold to 2.5V/0.5ms at 3 months and there were no other complications such as dislodgment, infections, embolism or stroke associated with the implantation. Conclusion Permanent LBBAP is feasible and safe in patients with LBBB.

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

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

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

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 536 Intraoperative predictors of long-term pacing threshold improvement in leadless pacemakers

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_G) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianfranco Mitacchione ◽  
Marco Schiavone ◽  
Gianmarco Arabia ◽  
Francesca Salghetti ◽  
Manuel Cerini ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Wave Amplitude ◽  
Strong Stability ◽  
Electrical Parameters ◽  
Pacing Threshold ◽  
Cardiology Department ◽  
Acute Increase ◽  
R Wave Amplitude ◽  
Practical Implications

Abstract Aims Micra-VR transcatheter pacing system (TPS) has shown strong stability of electrical parameters over time. Nevertheless, a small percentage of patients develops high pacing threshold (PT) (&gt;1 [email protected] ms) which can decrease the longevity of battery. Our study sought to investigate the intraoperative electrical parameters able to predict device electrical performances during the time. Methods and results Patients (pts) implanted with Micra-VR TPS from March 2018 to January 2021 were prospectively considered at the Cardiology Department of Spedali Civili Hospital (Brescia) and Luigi Sacco Hospital (Milan). R-wave sensing amplitude (mV), pacing impedance (Ohm), and PT ([email protected] ms) were recorded twice: upon Micra final positioning, and after removal of the delivery system. All pts received a follow-up visit at 1- and 12-month after discharge. Electrical parameters were recorded at each visit. A total of 93 pts underwent Micra-VR implantation were enrolled. When compared to the first assessment, R-wave amplitude increased of 19.1% at second control performed after 13 ± 4 min (+1.71 ± 0.2 mV, 95% CI: 1.4–2.02; P &lt; 0.001). Conversely, PT significantly decreased of 22.1% at 12-month follow-up respect to baseline (−0.22 ± 0.03 V, 95% CI: −0.13 to − 0.31; P &lt; 0.001) (Figure 1). Among patients with high PT, acute increase of R-wave sensing of 1.5 mV after 14 ± 4 min significantly predicted PT normalization (≤1 [email protected] ms) 12 months post-implant (R = 0.72, 95% CI: 0.13–0.33, P &lt; 0.001) (Figure 2), with a sensitivity of 87.5% (95% CI: 0.61–0.98) and a specificity of 88.8% (95% CI: 0.51–0.99) (Figure 3). Conclusions A 1.5 mV increase in R-wave amplitude at implant time is predictive of PT normalization (&lt;1.0 V/0.24 ms) at 12-month FU. This finding may have practical implications for device repositioning in case of HPT at implant. This parameter could be considered for acute device repositioning, particularly in HPT patients. 536 Figure

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document