Explore the vast range of titles available.

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) is frequently associated with structural heart disease, and predicts higher rates of morbidity and mortality. In patients with cardiomyopathy (ejection fraction <35%) and LBBB, current guidelines recommend cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) after 3 months of medical therapy. However, studies have suggested that medical therapy alone would be less effective, and the majority of patients would still need CRT at the end of 3 months. Conversely, CRT trials have shown better results and favourable clinical outcomes in patients with LBBB. In the absence of any other known aetiology, LBBB-associated cardiomyopathy represents a potentially reversible form of cardiomyopathy, with the majority of the patients having reverse remodelling after CRT by left bundle branch pacing. This review provides the mechanism, published evidence and role of conduction system pacing for patients with LBBB-associated cardiomyopathy.

Since its introduction right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing has been the mainstay in cardiac pacing. However, in recent years there has been an upsurge of interest in permanent His bundle pacing (HBP), given the scientific evidence of the harmful role of dyssynchronous ventricular activation, induced by RVA pacing, in promoting the onset of heart failure and atrial fibrillation. After an intermediate period in which attention was focused on algorithms aimed at minimizing ventricular pacing, with partially idequate and harmful results, scientific attention shifted to HBP, which proved to ensure a physiological electro-mechanical activation of the ventricles. The encouraging results obtained have allowed the introduction of HBP in recent guidelines for cardiac pacing in patients with bradicardia and cardiac conduction delay. Recent studies have also demonstrated the potential of HBP in patients with left bundle branch block and heart failure. HBP is promising as an attractive way to achieve physiological stimulation in patients with an indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Comparative studies of HB-CRT and biventricular pacing have shown similar results in numerically modest cohorts, although HB-CRT has been shown to promote better ventricular electrical resynchronization as demonstrated by a greater QRS rrowing. A widespread use of this pacing tecnique also depends on improvements in technology, as well as further validation of effectiveness in large randomised clinical trials

Background Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an alternative means to deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Hypothesis LBBP may deliver resynchronization therapy along with an advantage over traditional biventricular (BiV) pacing in clinical outcomes. Methods Heart failure patients who presented LBBB morphology according to Strauss's criteria and received successful CRT procedure were enrolled in the present study. Propensity score matching was applied to match patients into LBBP‐CRT group and BiV‐CRT group. Then, the electrographic data, the echocardiographic data and New York heart association (NYHA) class were compared between the groups. Results Twenty‐one patients with successful LBBP procedure and another 21 matched patients with successful BiV‐CRT procedure were finally enrolled in the study. The QRS duration (QRSd) was narrowed from 167.7 ± 14.9 ms to 111.7 ± 12.3 ms (P < .0001) in the LBBP‐CRT group and from 163.6 ± 13.8 ms to 130.1 ± 14.0 ms (P < .0001) in the BiV‐CRT group. A trend toward better left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was recorded in the LBBP‐CRT group (50.9 ± 10.7% vs 44.4 ± 13.3%, P = .12) compared to that in the BiV‐CRT group at the 6‐month follow‐up. A trend toward better echocardiographic response was documented in patients receiving LBBP‐CRT procedure (90.5% vs 80.9%, P = .43) and more super CRT response was documented in the LBBP‐CRT group (80.9% vs 57.1%, P = .09) compared to that in the BiV‐CRT group. Conclusions LBBP‐CRT can dramatically improve the electrical synchrony in heart failure patients with LBBB. Meanwhile, compared with the traditional BiV‐CRT, it has a tendency to significantly improve LVEF and enhance the NYHA cardiac function scores.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has developed in an effort to improve cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to compare the long-term clinical outcomes between LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BIVP) in patients with heart failure (HF) and complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB). Consecutive patients with HF and CLBBB requiring CRT received either LBBAP or BIVP were recruited at the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanchang University from February 2018 to May 2019. We assessed their implant parameters, electrocardiogram (ECG), clinical outcomes at implant and during follow-up at 1, 3, 6, 12, and 24 months. Forty-one patients recruited including 21 for LBBAP and 20 for BIVP. Mean follow-up duration was 23.71 ± 4.44 months. LBBAP produced lower pacing thresholds, shorter procedure time and fluoroscopy duration compared to BIVP. The QRS duration was significantly narrower after LBBAP than BIVP (129.29 ± 31.46 vs. 156.85 ± 26.37 ms, p  = 0.005). Notably, both LBBAP and BIVP significantly improved LVEF, LVEDD, NYHA class, and BNP compared with baseline. However, LBBAP significantly lowered BNP compared with BIVP (416.69 ± 411.39 vs. 96.07 ± 788.71 pg/ml, p  = 0.007) from baseline to 24-month follow-up. Moreover, patients who received LBBAP exhibited lower number of hospitalizations than those in the BIVP group ( p  = 0.019). In addition, we found that patients with moderately prolonged left ventricular activation time (LVAT) and QRS notching in limb leads in baseline ECG respond better to LBBAP for CLBBB correction. LBBAP might be a relative safe and effective resynchronization therapy and as a supplement to BIVP for patients with HF and CLBBB.

Purpose His bundle pacing (HBP) improves heart failure (HF) in atrial fibrillation (AF) pacing–dependent patients with a potential for a progressively increased threshold. HBP with right ventricular pacing (RVP) as a backup is always the preferred choice; however, RVP may induce HF. His Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) includes HBP and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). LBBAP maintains left ventricular synchrony but has not been proven to be safe over the long term. We assessed the feasibility and safety of both HBP and LBBAP in AF pacing–dependent patients and compared the parameters of both leads at baseline and at the 6-month follow-up. Methods A total of 16 AF patients in our center, who successfully attempted both HBP and LBBAP, were prospectively enrolled unless only one of these treatment statuses was attained. The electrocardiogram characteristics, leading parameters, echocardiography results, and clinical outcomes were assessed. Results Thirteen out of 16 patients achieved both HBP and LBBAP successfully in the same AF pacing–dependent patients. In symptomatic HF patients with preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ( n = 10), the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was reduced from 51.8 ± 4.4 to 48.3 ± 3.1 mm ( p = 0.01) with the use of diuretics, either reduced or stopped ( n = 7). During the follow-up, one patient in the group without HF had an increased HBP threshold and developed HF symptoms. His HF symptoms disappeared when switched into LBBAP mode. Another patient in the group with HF got his LVEF elevated by HBP for 3 months by utilizing left bundle branch block(LBBB)correction and continued to increase when switched into LBBAP for another 3 months due to an increased HBP correction threshold. The average unipolar pacing threshold of LBBAP was lower than that of HBP. No perforation or dislodgement occurred in our study. Conclusion Both HBP and LBBAP could be attempted successfully in the same AF patients when one of the two modes could be adopted and switched according to the clinical feasibility. Compared with HBP, LBBAP yielded better and more stable parameters but showed comparable effects during the 6-month follow-up.

Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a technique of pacing that involves implantation of permanent pacing leads along different sites of the cardiac conduction system and includes His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing. There is an emerging role for CSP to achieve cardiac resynchronisation in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and inter-ventricular dyssynchrony. In this article, the authors review these strategies for resynchronisation and the available data on the use of CSP in overcoming dyssynchrony.

Aims His–Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) utilizing His (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and wide QRS duration has not been well studied. We assessed the benefit of left bundle branch block (LBBB) correction during HPCSP in AF patients undergoing atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation with LBBB, compared with those with narrow QRS duration. Methods and results This is an observational study in consecutive patients with typical LBBB or narrow QRS duration in whom we attempted HPCSP after AVJ ablation for refractory AF with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 50%. Echocardiographic responses and clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline and during 1 year of follow‐up. A total of 178 patients were enrolled, of which 170 achieved AVJ ablation + permanent HPCSP (age 69.3 ± 10.1 years; LVEF 34.3 ± 7.7%), 133 (78.2%) patients had a narrow QRS duration, and 37 (21.2%) had an LBBB. The QRS duration changed from a baseline of 159.7 ± 16.6 ms to a paced QRS duration of 110.4 ± 12.7 ms in the LBBB cohort and from 95.6 ± 10.4 to 100.8 ± 14.5 ms (both P < 0.001) in the narrow QRS cohort after AVJ ablation and pacing. Compared with the narrow QRS cohort, the LBBB cohort showed a greater absolute increase in LVEF (+22.3% vs. +14.2%, P < 0.001), higher super responder rate (71.4% vs. 49.2%, P = 0.011), and greater New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement (−1.9 vs. −1.4, P < 0.001) at 1 year. Conclusion Patients with LBBB have greater improvement in LVEF and NYHA class function than patients with narrow QRS from HPCSP after AVJ ablation.

Background Complete left bundle branch block (CLBBB) is a serious complication associated with transcatheter closure of perimembranous ventricular septal defect (pmVSD). The aim of the study was to evaluate various treatment strategies and prognosis of CLBBB after transcatheter closure of pmVSD in pediatric patients. Methods Twenty five pediatric patients with CLBBB after transcatheter closure of pmVSD in our institution were retrospectively reviewed. Results Over a median follow-up of 6.7 (1.1–12.8) years, 14 cases were defined as early-onset CLBBB. Seven underwent early surgical device removal withing 1 month, 6 restored normal QRS interval, and 1 reverted to incomplete right bundle branch block. 3 underwent late surgical device removal (after 1 month of CLBBB discovery), 2 of them eventually underwent permanent pacemaker implantation, and 1 restored normal QRS interval. 4 cases received corticosteriod therapy, 2 restored normal QRS interval, 1 reverted to left anterior fascicular block, and 1 died of heart failure. 11 cases were defined as late-onset CLBBB and were given corticosteroid therapy as initial treatment. 2 restored normal QRS interval, 1 underwent surgical device removal and restored normal QRS interval, and 8 had persistent CLBBB (1 underwent cardiac transplantation, 1 underwent permanent pacemaker implantation, 4 had left ventricular enlargement with reduced ejection fraction, 2 maintained normal left ventricular size and function). Compared with patients who did not receive early device removal, patients who underwent early device removal were less likely to experience adverse events [0% (0/8) vs.53% (9/17), P  = 0.022]. For patients who only received corticosteroid therapy, patients who were free from adverse events had significantly shorter QRS index [(7.90 ± 0.80) vs. (9.40 ± 1.23) ms/(kg/m 2 ), P  = 0.032]. Conclusion Early surgical device removal was associated with favorable prognosis of CLBBB after pmVSD device closure. Corticosteroid therapy might be an alternative treatment strategy for CLBBB with relatively narrow QRS interval.

Aims This multicentre observational study aimed to prospectively assess the efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and compare the 6‐month outcomes between LBBAP and biventricular pacing (BVP). Methods and results Consecutive patients with LBBB and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 35% were prospectively recruited if they had undergone LBBAP as a primary or rescue strategy from three separate centres from March to December 2018. Patients who received BVP in 2018 were retrospectively selected by using 2 to 1 propensity score matching to minimize bias. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were assessed during the 6‐month follow‐up. LBBAP procedure succeeded in 81.1% (30/37) of patients, with selective LBBAP in 10 patients, and 3 of 20 patients combined non‐selective LBBAP and LV lead pacing for further QRS narrowing. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing (from 178.2 ± 18.8 to 121.8 ± 10.8 ms, P < 0.001, paced QRS duration ≤ 130 ms in 27 patients) and improved LVEF (from 28.8 ± 4.5% to 44.3 ± 8.7%, P < 0.001) during the 6‐month follow‐up. The comparison between 27 patients with LBBAP alone and 54 of 130 matching patients with BVP showed that LBBAP delivered a greater reduction in the QRSd (58.0 vs. 12.5 ms, P < 0.001), a greater increase in LVEF (15.6% vs. 7.0%, P < 0.001), and greater echocardiographic (88.9% vs. 66.7%, P = 0.035) and super response (44.4% vs. 16.7%, P = 0.007) to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Conclusions LBBAP could deliver cardiac resynchronization therapy in most patients with heart failure and LBBB, and might be a promising alternative resynchronization approach to BVP.

Patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) enter the terminal stage when developed left ventricle enlargement and ejection fraction (EF) reduction. The concomitant complete left bundle branch block (LBBB) is considered an important factor related to poor outcome. Previous research suggested that biventricular pacing has limited effects on such patients. We report a case with end‐stage hypertrophic cardiomyopathy who had a miraculous recovery after receiving successful left bundle branch pacing (LBBP).