Humans ; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial ; Heart Ventricles ; Heart Failure/therapy* ; Treatment Outcome ; Electrocardiography ; Ventricular Function, Left

Temporary cardiac pacing is an essential technique in the diagnosis and treatment of arrhythmias. Due to its urgency, complexity, and uncertainty, it is necessary to develop an evidence-based emergency operation norms. Currently, there is no specific consensus guidelines at home or abroad. The Emergency Branch of Chinese Medical Association organized relevant experts to draft the Chinese emergency expert consensus on bedside temporary cardiac pacing (2023) to guide the operation and application of bedside cardiac pacing. The formulation of the consensus adopts the consensus meeting method and the evidentiary basis and recommendation grading of the Oxford Center for Evidence-based Medicine in the United States. A total of 13 recommendations were extracted from the discussion on the methods of bedside temporary cardiac pacing, the puncture site of transvenous temporary cardiac pacing, the selection of leads, the placement and placement of leads, pacemaker parameter settings, indications, complications and postoperative management. The recommended consensus includes the choice between transcutaneous and transvenous pacing, preferred venous access for temporary transvenous pacing, the target and best guidance method for implantation of bedside pacing electrodes, recommended default pacemaker settings, recommended indications for sinoatrial node dysfunction, atrioventricular block, acute myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, ventricular and supraventricular arrhythmias. They also recommended ultrasound guidance and a shortened temporary pacing support time to reduce complications of temporary transvenous cardiac pacing, recommended bedrest, and anticoagulation after temporary transvenous pacing. Bedside temporary cardiac pacing is generally safe and effective. Accurate assessment, correct selection of the pacing mode, and timely performance of bedside temporary cardiac pacing can further improve the survival rate and prognosis of related emergency patients.
Humans ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/methods* ; Pacemaker, Artificial ; Arrhythmias, Cardiac/therapy* ; Myocardial Infarction/therapy* ; Electrodes

INTRODUCTION: Despite the challenges related to His bundle pacing (HBP), recent data suggest an improved success rate with experience. As a non-university, non-electrophysiology specialised centre in Singapore, we report our experiences in HBP using pacing system analyser alone. METHODS: Data of 28 consecutive patients who underwent HBP from August 2018 to February 2019 was retrospectively obtained. The clinical and technical outcomes of these patients were compared between two timeframes of three months each. Patients were followed up for 12 months. RESULTS: Immediate technical success was achieved in 21 (75.0%) patients (mean age 73.3 ± 10.7 years, 47.6% female). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.9% ± 12.1%. The indications for HBP were atrioventricular block (n = 13, 61.9%), sinus node dysfunction (n = 7, 33.3%) and upgrade from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to His-cardiac resynchronisation therapy (n = 1, 4.8%). No significant difference was observed in baseline characteristics between Timeframe 1 and Timeframe 2. Improvements pertaining to mean fluoroscopy time were achieved between the two timeframes. There was one HBP-related complication of lead displacement during Timeframe 1. All patients with successful HBP achieved non-selective His bundle (NSHB) capture, whereas only eight patients had selective His bundle (SHB) capture. NSHB and SHB capture thresholds remained stable at the 12-month follow-up. CONCLUSION Permanent HBP is feasible and safe, even without the use of an electrophysiology recording system. This was successfully achieved in 75% of patients, with no adverse clinical outcomes during the follow-up period.
Humans ; Female ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Male ; Bundle of His ; Follow-Up Studies ; Stroke Volume ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/adverse effects* ; Electrocardiography ; Ventricular Function, Left/physiology*

Humans ; Bradycardia/therapy* ; Tricuspid Valve Insufficiency ; Pacemaker, Artificial/adverse effects* ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial

Objective: Explore the relationship between tip of the left bundle branch pacing lead and anatomic location of left bundle branch as well as the mechanism of left bundle branch current of injury. To clarify the clinical value of left bundle branch current of injury during operation. Methods: The pacing leads were implanted in the hearts of two living swines. Intraoperative electrophysiological study confirmed that the left bundle branch or only the deep left ventricular septum was captured at low output. Immediately after operation, the gross specimen of swine hearts was stained with iodine to observe the gross distribution of His-purkinje conduction system on the left ventricular endocardium and its relationship with the leads. Subsequently, the swine hearts were fixed with formalin solution, and the pacing leads were removed after the positions were marked. The swine hearts were then sectioned and stained with Masson and Goldner trichrome, and the relationship between the anatomic location of the conduction system and the tip of the lead was observed under a light microscope. Results: After iodine staining of the specimen, the His-purkinje conduction system was observed with the naked eye in a net-like distribution, and the lead tip was screwed deeply and fixed in the left bundle branch area of the left ventricular subendocardium in the ventricular septum. Masson and Goldner trichrome staining showed that left bundle branch pacing lead directly passed through the left bundle branch when there was left bundle branch potential with left bundle branch current of injury, while it was not directly contact the left bundle branch when there was left bundle branch potential without left bundle branch current of injury. Conclusion: The left bundle branch current of injury observed on intracardiac electrocardiogram during His-purkinje conduction system pacing suggests that the pacing lead directly contacted the conduction bundle or its branches, therefore, the captured threshold was relatively low. Left bundle branch current of injury can be used as an important anatomic and electrophysiological evidence of left bundle branch capture.
Animals ; Swine ; Bundle of His/physiology* ; Ventricular Septum ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial ; Heart Conduction System ; Electrocardiography ; Iodine

Humans ; Heart Failure/therapy* ; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Objective: Explore the relationship between tip of the left bundle branch pacing lead and anatomic location of left bundle branch as well as the mechanism of left bundle branch current of injury. To clarify the clinical value of left bundle branch current of injury during operation. Methods: The pacing leads were implanted in the hearts of two living swines. Intraoperative electrophysiological study confirmed that the left bundle branch or only the deep left ventricular septum was captured at low output. Immediately after operation, the gross specimen of swine hearts was stained with iodine to observe the gross distribution of His-purkinje conduction system on the left ventricular endocardium and its relationship with the leads. Subsequently, the swine hearts were fixed with formalin solution, and the pacing leads were removed after the positions were marked. The swine hearts were then sectioned and stained with Masson and Goldner trichrome, and the relationship between the anatomic location of the conduction system and the tip of the lead was observed under a light microscope. Results: After iodine staining of the specimen, the His-purkinje conduction system was observed with the naked eye in a net-like distribution, and the lead tip was screwed deeply and fixed in the left bundle branch area of the left ventricular subendocardium in the ventricular septum. Masson and Goldner trichrome staining showed that left bundle branch pacing lead directly passed through the left bundle branch when there was left bundle branch potential with left bundle branch current of injury, while it was not directly contact the left bundle branch when there was left bundle branch potential without left bundle branch current of injury. Conclusion: The left bundle branch current of injury observed on intracardiac electrocardiogram during His-purkinje conduction system pacing suggests that the pacing lead directly contacted the conduction bundle or its branches, therefore, the captured threshold was relatively low. Left bundle branch current of injury can be used as an important anatomic and electrophysiological evidence of left bundle branch capture.
Animals ; Swine ; Bundle of His/physiology* ; Ventricular Septum ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial ; Heart Conduction System ; Electrocardiography ; Iodine

Humans ; Heart Failure/therapy* ; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Objective: To evaluate the effect of Li's catheter in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation. Methods: This study was a retrospective cohort study. Patients with indications for CRT implantation who visited the Department of Cardiology, Peking University People's Hospital from January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2022 were enrolled. Patients were divided into Li's catheter group (CRT implantation with Li's catheter) and control group (CRT implantation with the traditional method). The general clinical data of the patients were obtained through the electronic medical record system. Li's catheter is a new type of coronary sinus angiography balloon catheter independently developed by Dr. Li Xuebin (patent number: 201320413174.1). The primary outcome was the success rate of CRT device implantation, and the secondary outcomes included efficacy and safety parameters. Efficacy indicators included operation time, coronary sinus angiography time, left ventricular lead implantation time, X-ray exposure time, left ventricular lead threshold, and diaphragm stimulation. Safety outcomes included incidence of coronary sinus dissection, cardiac tamponade, and pericardial effusion. Results: A total of 170 patients were enrolled in this study, including 90 in Li's catheter group and 80 in control group. Age, male proportion of patients, proportion of patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, chronic renal insufficiency, New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, proportion of left bundle branch block, and preoperative QRS wave width were similar between the two groups (all P>0.05). In Li's catheter group, 34 cases (37.8%) implanted with CRT defibrillators, and 28 cases (35.0%) implanted with CRT defibrillators in control group, the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.710). The success rate of CRT device implantation in Li's catheter group was 100% (90/90), which was significantly higher than that in control group (93.8%, 75/80, P=0.023).The operation time was 57.0 (52.0, 62.3) minutes, the time to complete coronary sinus angiography was 8.0 (6.0, 9.0) minutes, and the time of left ventricular electrode implantation was 8.0 (7.0, 9.0) minutes in Li's catheter group, and was 91.3 (86.3, 97.0), 18.0 (16.0, 20.0), 25.0 (22.0, 27.7) minutes respectively in control group, all significantly shorter in Li's catheter group (all P<0.05). The exposure time of X-ray was 15.0 (14.0, 17.0) minutes in Li's catheter group, which was also significantly shorter than that in control group (32.5 (29.0, 36.0) minutes, P<0.001). There was no coronary sinus dissection and cardiac tamponade in Li's catheter group, and 1 patient (1.1%) had diaphragmatic stimulation in Li's catheter group. In control group, 6 patients (6.7%) had coronary sinus dissection, and 1 patient (1.1%) developed pericardial effusion, and 3 patients (3.3%) had diaphragmatic stimulation. The incidence of coronary sinus dissection in Li's catheter group was significantly lower than that in control group (P=0.011). The postoperative left ventricular thresholds in Li's catheter group and control group were similar (1.80 (1.60, 2.38) V/0.5 ms vs. 1.80 (1.60, 2.40) V/0.5 ms, P=0.120). Conclusions: Use of Li's catheter is associated with higher success rate of CRT implantation, short time of coronary sinus angiography and left ventricular electrode implantation, reduction of intraoperative X-ray exposure, and lower incidence of coronary vein dissection in this patient cohort.
Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy/methods* ; Cardiac Tamponade/therapy* ; Catheters ; Heart Failure/therapy* ; Humans ; Male ; Pericardial Effusion ; Retrospective Studies ; Stroke Volume ; Treatment Outcome ; Ventricular Function, Left

Objective: To explore the feasibility, safety and effectiveness of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in children aged ≤3 years. Methods: A total of 10 children aged ≤3 years who were diagnosed with brady arrhythmia in the First Hospital of Tsinghua University from September 2020 to September 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. All the children met the indication of permanent pacemaker implantation and underwent LBBAP successfully. The intraoperative data (pacing parameters, electrocardiogram and radiographic imaging), cardiac ultrasound data and clinical data during regular postoperative follow-up were recorded. The preoperative and postoperative data were compared using matched samples t test. Results: Ten children (aged (1.6±0.7) years with weight of (10.3±2.5) kg) underwent LBBAP successfully. The QRS wave duration on the postoperative electrocardiogram was (100±9) ms, and the percentage of ventricular pacing was (97±7)%. The postoperative follow-up period was 6 (6, 12) months. At 1 week after operation, the left ventricular end-diastolic diameter Z scores in these children reduced significantly compared with those before operation (1.3±0.6 vs. 3.6±1.1, t=9.37, P<0.001). During the follow-up period, cardiac function was normal and the last left ventricular ejection fraction was (66±4)% in all children. At the last follow-up, the pacing threshold of the 10 children was smaller than 1.0 V and was acceptable. Compared with the intraoperative baseline values, the pacing threshold was slightly higher ((0.8±0.1) vs. (0.5±0.1) V, t=-5.27, P=0.001). However, no significant difference was found regarding sensing threshold ((16±5) vs. (14±4) mV, t=-0.83, P=0.426) and impedance ((584±88) vs. (652±86) Ω, t=2.26, P=0.050). During follow-up, no electrode related complications were recorded. Conclusions: LBBAP is safe and effective for infants and toddlers. Narrow QRS pacing with stable pacing parameters and normal cardiac function could be achieved postoperatively.
Bundle of His ; Bundle-Branch Block ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/methods* ; Child, Preschool ; Electrocardiography/methods* ; Humans ; Retrospective Studies ; Stroke Volume ; Treatment Outcome ; Ventricular Function, Left