His-bundle and left bundle pacing with optimized atrioventricular delay achieve superior electrical synchrony over endocardial and epicardial pacing in left bundle branch block patients.


Journal

Heart rhythm
ISSN: 1556-3871
Titre abrégé: Heart Rhythm
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101200317

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 2020
Historique:
received: 12 05 2020
revised: 16 06 2020
accepted: 22 06 2020
pubmed: 1 7 2020
medline: 15 9 2021
entrez: 1 7 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are emerging as novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). HBP and LBP have never been compared to biventricular endocardial (BiV-endo) pacing. Furthermore, there are indications of negative effects of LBP on right ventricular (RV) activation times (ATs), but these effects have not been quantified. The purpose of this study was to compare changes in ventricular activation induced by HBP, LBP, left ventricular (LV) septal pacing, BiV-endo, and biventricular epicardial (BiV-epi) pacing using computer simulations. We simulated ventricular activation on 24 four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of the His-Purkinje network in the presence of LBBB. We simulated BiV-epi pacing, BiV-endo pacing with left ventricular (LV) lead at the lateral wall, BiV-endo pacing with LV lead at the LV septum, HBP, and LBP. HBP was superior to BiV-endo and BiV-epi in terms of reduction in LV ATs and interventricular dyssynchrony (P <.05). LBP reduced LV ATs but not interventricular dyssynchrony compared to BiV-epi and BiV-endo pacing. RV latest AT was higher with LBP than with HBP (141.3 ± 10.0 ms vs 111.8 ± 10.4 ms). Optimizing AV delay during LBP reduced RV latest AT (104.7 ± 8.7 ms) and led to comparable response to HBP. In case of complete AV block, BiV-endo septal pacing was equivalent to LBP. HBP is superior to BiV-epi and BiV-endo. To achieve comparable response to HBP, AV delay optimization during LBP is required in order to reduce RV ATs.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle pacing (LBP) are emerging as novel delivery methods for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in heart failure patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). HBP and LBP have never been compared to biventricular endocardial (BiV-endo) pacing. Furthermore, there are indications of negative effects of LBP on right ventricular (RV) activation times (ATs), but these effects have not been quantified.
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to compare changes in ventricular activation induced by HBP, LBP, left ventricular (LV) septal pacing, BiV-endo, and biventricular epicardial (BiV-epi) pacing using computer simulations.
METHODS
We simulated ventricular activation on 24 four-chamber heart meshes inclusive of the His-Purkinje network in the presence of LBBB. We simulated BiV-epi pacing, BiV-endo pacing with left ventricular (LV) lead at the lateral wall, BiV-endo pacing with LV lead at the LV septum, HBP, and LBP.
RESULTS
HBP was superior to BiV-endo and BiV-epi in terms of reduction in LV ATs and interventricular dyssynchrony (P <.05). LBP reduced LV ATs but not interventricular dyssynchrony compared to BiV-epi and BiV-endo pacing. RV latest AT was higher with LBP than with HBP (141.3 ± 10.0 ms vs 111.8 ± 10.4 ms). Optimizing AV delay during LBP reduced RV latest AT (104.7 ± 8.7 ms) and led to comparable response to HBP. In case of complete AV block, BiV-endo septal pacing was equivalent to LBP.
CONCLUSION
HBP is superior to BiV-epi and BiV-endo. To achieve comparable response to HBP, AV delay optimization during LBP is required in order to reduce RV ATs.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32603781
pii: S1547-5271(20)30627-5
doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2020.06.028
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Clinical Trial Journal Article Multicenter Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

1922-1929

Subventions

Organisme : Department of Health
ID : II-LB-1116-20001
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : PG/13/37/30280
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : British Heart Foundation
ID : PG/15/91/31812
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Wellcome Trust
ID : WT 203148/Z/16/Z
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2020 Heart Rhythm Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Marina Strocchi (M)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom. Electronic address: marina.strocchi@kcl.ac.uk.

Angela W C Lee (AWC)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Aurel Neic (A)

NumeriCor GmbH, Graz, Austria.

Julien Bouyssier (J)

IHU LIRYC Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute, Fondation Bordeaux Université, Pessac-Bordeaux, France; University of Bordeaux, IMB, Talence, France.

Karli Gillette (K)

Division of Biophysics, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Gernot Plank (G)

Division of Biophysics, Medical University of Graz, Graz, Austria.

Mark K Elliott (MK)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Justin Gould (J)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Jonathan M Behar (JM)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Baldeep Sidhu (B)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Vishal Mehta (V)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Martin J Bishop (MJ)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Edward J Vigmond (EJ)

IHU LIRYC Electrophysiology and Heart Modeling Institute, Fondation Bordeaux Université, Pessac-Bordeaux, France; University of Bordeaux, IMB, Talence, France.

Christopher A Rinaldi (CA)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom; Guy's and St. Thomas' NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.

Steven A Niederer (SA)

School of Biomedical Engineering and Imaging Sciences, King's College London, London, United Kingdom.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH