How many patients treated for bradycardia may be eligible for His bundle pacing?

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Chattopadhyay ◽  
P Chousou ◽  
R Thomas ◽  
J O"brien ◽  
F Pierres ◽  
...  

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy (PICM) can lead to significant morbidity, requiring treatment by device upgrade procedures. The risk of occurrence is directly related to the burden of right ventricular pacing, which can be reduced by careful device programming. When frequent ventricular stimulation cannot be avoided, pacing the conduction system may offer an alternative to myocardial pacing and reduce the risk of PICM. The most recent international pacing guidelines recommend that His-bundle pacing should be considered among 1) patients with EF 36-50% and expected to require >40% ventricular pacing (Vp > 40%) (class IIa); and 2) patients requiring pacing who have block at the level of the AV node (class IIb). Purpose This study sought to determine how many patients undergoing bradycardia pacing would have fulfilled those criteria. Methods This was a single-centre retrospective study over a 5 year period to the end of April 2020. Demographic and clinical details of patients receiving device implants were obtained from the Pacing Service Database, along with the indication for pacing, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic data. A cardiology consultant with a special interest in pacing reviewed each case with regards to the likelihood of requiring >40% ventricular pacing. Heart block at the level of the AV node was considered present if patients presented with a narrow QRS in conjunction with second or third degree heart block. Results 1,265 patients underwent pacemaker implant for bradycardia during the study period, 888 for conduction system disease (198 second degree block, 333 complete heart block), 349 for sinus node disease and 28 for other indication. Figure 1 gives a breakdown of patients with conduction system block according to i) level of block; ii) ejection fraction; iii) expectation or not of Vp > 40%.  In total, 166 patients had a class IIa indication for His-bundle pacing. 227 patients had block at the level of the AV node, of whom 36 also fulfilled the class IIa criteria for His-bundle pacing; 191 patients (16% of the total) had a sole class IIb indication for His-bundle pacing. Adjusting for the 176 patients who did not undergo echocardiography, up to an additional 45 patients may be expected to have an indication for His-bundle pacing Conclusion As many as 32% of patients in a bradycardia pacing population may be eligible for His-bundle pacing. This has significant implications for training and service provision. Abstract Figure 1. Flowsheet showing distribution

EP Europace ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_3) ◽  
Author(s):  
R Chattopadhyay ◽  
P Chousou ◽  
R Thomas ◽  
J Hayes ◽  
J O"brien ◽  
...  

Abstract Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. Introduction Current guidelines indicate that pacing methods that maintain physiologic ventricular activation (biventricular pacing or His-bundle pacing) should be chosen over right ventricular pacing (Vp) among patients with EF 36-50% who are expected to Vp >40% of the time. There are no guidelines to help predict which patients will receive a high burden of Vp and this is left to operator opinion. We sought to ascertain whether operator opinion is an accurate predictor of high burden of Vp. Methods This was a single-centre single-blinded observational study of patients who received pacemaker implant for treatment of bradycardia between April 2015 and 2019 and had at least 12 month follow-up data on record. Patients’ demographic, clinical, electrocardiographic and echocardiographic data were reviewed in a blinded fashion by a senior implanting physician, who estimated whether the Vp at 12 months would exceed 40%. The Vp at approximately 12 months was obtained from the pacing records and compared with the prediction. Results Some 982 patients underwent pacemaker implantation during the study period, 698 for conduction system disease (CSD), 267 for sinus node disease (SND) and 17 for other conditions. Overall, 856 had valid follow-up data. Of these, 543 (63.4%) were predicted to Vp >40% , and 527(61.6%) were documented as having Vp >40%. The sensitivity and specificity of operator prediction were 93.2% and 84.2%, with positive and negative predictive values of 90.4% and 88.5%. Table 1 illustrates analyses of different populations by clinical parameter. In sub-group analysis, complete heart block and PR > 300ms were significant factors for accurate prediction of Vp > 40%, however clinical features, such as syncope, were poor discriminators. Conclusion In this single-centre study, among patients receiving pacemaker implant for treatment of bradycardia, operator prediction of the burden of Vp >40% has an acceptable degree of accuracy. Sub-group analysis suggests that certain clinical parameters could make this prediction easier. Table 1. Comparison of operator opinion SND CSD CHB SND+PR < 160 PR > 300 Syncope Non-syncope n 698 267 216 84 60 409 344 Sensitivity 44.4% 97.7% 100% 6.3% 100% 86.4% 87.9% Specificity 98.3% 62.0% 45.2% 97.1% 0%* 89.9% 79.6% PPV 87.0% 90.6% 91.6% 33.3% 98.3% 94.2% 92.2% NPV 87.9% 87.9% 100% 81.5% - 77.6% 70.5% * only 1 patient did not RV pace >40% - this was not predicted. SND – sinus node disease; CSD – conduction system disease; CHB – complete heart block, PPV – positive predictive value; NPV – negative predictive value


2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (04) ◽  
pp. 368-372
Author(s):  
Seema Kale

AbstractVarying kinds of AV blocks can occur in the setting of myocardial ischaemia or due to degeneration of conduction system. Wenckebach AV block can present with typical Wenckebach periodicity or atypical periodicity. A variant of atypical Wenckebach periodicity may present like Mobitz II AV block. This is called Pseudo Mobitz II AV block. As we are aware that Mobitz II AV block is more dangerous and can suddenly convert into complete heart block, it is essential that we should try to differentiate between Mobitz and Pseudo Mobitz II blocks. Infact atypical Wenckebach cycles are quite common at both AV node and his Purkinje system.


2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Parikshit S. Sharma ◽  
Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman ◽  
Kenneth A. Ellenbogen

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. 780-784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vern Hsen Tan ◽  
Colin Yeo ◽  
Thuan Ngee Tan ◽  
Kelvin Wong

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document