Parikshit S Sharma1, Gopi Dandamudi2, Bengt Herweg3, David Wilson3, Rajeev Singh2, Angela Naperkowski4, Jayanthi N Koneru5, Kenneth A Ellenbogen5, Pugazhendhi Vijayaraman6. 1. Division of Cardiology, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois. 2. Krannert Institute of Cardiology, Indiana University, Indianapolis, Indiana. 3. Division of Cardiology, University of South Florida College of Medicine, Tampa, Florida. 4. Division of Cardiology, Geisinger Heart Institute, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. 5. Division of Cardiology, Virginia Commonwealth University Health System, Richmond, Virginia. 6. Division of Cardiology, Geisinger Heart Institute, Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania. Electronic address: pvijayaraman1@geisinger.edu.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is effective in patients with heart failure, bundle branch block (BBB), or right ventricular pacing. Permanent His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been reported as an alternative option for CRT. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of HBP in CRT eligible or failed patients. METHODS: HBP was attempted as a rescue strategy in patients with failed left ventricular lead or nonresponse to BVP (group I), or as a primary strategy in patients with AV block, BBB, or high ventricular pacing burden as an alternative to BVP (group II) in patients with indications for CRT. Implant characteristics, New York Heart Association functional class, and echocardiographic data were assessed in follow-up. RESULTS: HBP was successful in 95 of 106 patients (90%): 30 in group I and 65 in group II. Mean age was 71 ± 12 years and 30% were female, with BBB in 45%, paced rhythm in 39%, and AV block in 16%. His capture and BBB correction thresholds were 1.4 ± 0.9 V and 2.0 ± 1.2 V at 1 ms, respectively. During mean follow-up of 14 months, both groups demonstrated significant narrowing of QRS from 157 ± 33 ms to 117 ± 18 ms (P = .0001), increase in left ventricular ejection fraction from 30% ± 10% to 43% ± 13% (P = .0001), and improvement in New York Heart Association functional class from 2.8 ± 0.5 to 1.8 ± 0.6 (P = .0001) with HBP. Lead-related complications occurred in 7 patients. CONCLUSION: Permanent HBP is a promising alternative for CRT. HBP may be considered as a rescue strategy for failed BVP and may be a reasonable primary alternative to BVP for CRT.
BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is effective in patients with heart failure, bundle branch block (BBB), or right ventricular pacing. Permanent His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been reported as an alternative option for CRT. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of HBP in CRT eligible or failed patients. METHODS: HBP was attempted as a rescue strategy in patients with failed left ventricular lead or nonresponse to BVP (group I), or as a primary strategy in patients with AV block, BBB, or high ventricular pacing burden as an alternative to BVP (group II) in patients with indications for CRT. Implant characteristics, New York Heart Association functional class, and echocardiographic data were assessed in follow-up. RESULTS: HBP was successful in 95 of 106 patients (90%): 30 in group I and 65 in group II. Mean age was 71 ± 12 years and 30% were female, with BBB in 45%, paced rhythm in 39%, and AV block in 16%. His capture and BBB correction thresholds were 1.4 ± 0.9 V and 2.0 ± 1.2 V at 1 ms, respectively. During mean follow-up of 14 months, both groups demonstrated significant narrowing of QRS from 157 ± 33 ms to 117 ± 18 ms (P = .0001), increase in left ventricular ejection fraction from 30% ± 10% to 43% ± 13% (P = .0001), and improvement in New York Heart Association functional class from 2.8 ± 0.5 to 1.8 ± 0.6 (P = .0001) with HBP. Lead-related complications occurred in 7 patients. CONCLUSION: Permanent HBP is a promising alternative for CRT. HBP may be considered as a rescue strategy for failed BVP and may be a reasonable primary alternative to BVP for CRT.
Authors: Jason Payne; Ann C Garlitski; Jonathan Weinstock; Munther Homoud; Christopher Madias; N A Mark Estes Journal: J Interv Card Electrophysiol Date: 2018-08-13 Impact factor: 1.900
Authors: Norman C Wang; Aliza Hussain; Evan C Adelstein; Andrew D Althouse; Michael S Sharbaugh; Sandeep K Jain; Alaa A Shalaby; Andrew H Voigt; Samir Saba Journal: Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol Date: 2018-09-28 Impact factor: 1.468
Authors: Min Soo Cho; Min Ku Chon; Jin Hee Choi; Ki Won Hwang; Jeong-Wook Seo; Robert J Lederman; June Hong Kim; Gi-Byoung Nam Journal: Heart Rhythm Date: 2019-08-30 Impact factor: 6.343
Authors: Nadine Ali; Daniel Keene; Ahran Arnold; Matthew Shun-Shin; Zachary I Whinnett; S M Afzal Sohaib Journal: Arrhythm Electrophysiol Rev Date: 2018-06