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 ; Atrial Fibrillation/surgery* ; Heart ; Heart Failure/therapy* ; Heart Conduction System

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 ; Atrial Fibrillation/surgery* ; Heart ; Heart Failure/therapy* ; Heart Conduction System

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

Bundle of His ; Bundle-Branch Block ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial ; Electrocardiography ; Humans ; Purkinje Fibers

Cardiac Pacing, Artificial ; Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy ; Electrocardiography ; Heart Conduction System

Objective: To evaluate the success rate of His-Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) in patients with various sites of atrioventricular block (AVB) and provide clinical evidence for the selection of HPSP in patients with AVB. Methods: This is a retrospective case analysis. 637 patients with AVB who underwent permanent cardiac pacemaker implantation and requiring high proportion of ventricular pacing from March 2016 to September 2021 in the Department of Cardiology, General Hospital of Northern Theater Command were enrolled. The site of AVB was determined by electrophysiological examination. His bundle pacing (HBP) was performed in the first 130 patients (20.4%) who were classified as the HBP group and HPSP included HBP and/or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) was performed in later 507 patients (79.6%) and these patients were classified as the HPSP group. The basic clinical information such as age and sex of the two groups was compared, and the success rates of HBP or HPSP in patients with different sites of AVB and QRS intervals were analyzed. Results: The age of HBP group was (66.4±15.9) years with 75 males (57.7%). The age of HPSP group was (66.8±13.6) years with 288 (56.8%) males. Among 637 patients, 63.0% (401/637) had atrioventricular node block; 22.9% (146/637) had intra-His block; 14.1% (90/637) had distal or inferior His bundle block. Totally, the success rate of HPSP was higher than that of HBP [93.9% (476/507) vs. 86.9% (113/130), P<0.05]. In each group of patients with various AVB sites, the success rate of HPSP was higher than that of HBP respectively and both success rates of HBP and HPSP showed a declining trend with the distant AVB site. The success rate of HBP in patients with atrioventricular node block and intra-His block was higher than that in patients with distal or inferior His bundle block [95.2% (79/83) vs. 47.1% (8/17), P<0.001; 86.7% (26/30) vs. 47.1% (8/17), P=0.010]. The success rate of HPSP was higher than that of HBP in patients with distal or inferior His bundle block [87.7% (64/73) vs 47.1% (8/17), P=0.001]. In patients with QRS<120 ms, 94.9% (520/548) of AVB sites were in atrioventricular node or intra-His, and HBP had a similar high success rate with HPSP [95.6% (109/114) vs. 96.3% (418/434), P=0.943] in these patients. In patients with QRS ≥ 120 ms, 69.7% (62/89) of AVB sites were at distal or inferior His bundle, and the success rate of HBP was only 25.0% (4/16), while the success rate of HPSP was as high as 79.5% (58/73), P<0.001. Conclusions: In patients with QRS<120 ms and atrioventricular node block or intra-His block, success rates of HBP and HPSP are similarly high and HBP might be considered as the first choice. In patients with QRS ≥ 120 ms and AVB site at distal or inferior His bundle, the success rate of HPSP is higher than that of HBP, suggesting LBBP should be considered as the first-line treatment option.
Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Atrioventricular Block/therapy* ; Bundle of His/physiology* ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial ; Electrocardiography ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Middle Aged ; Retrospective Studies ; Treatment Outcome

Bundle of His ; Bundle-Branch Block/therapy* ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial ; Electrocardiography ; Heart Conduction System ; Heart Failure/therapy* ; Humans

Objective: To investigate the efficacy and safety of left bundle branch pacing(LBBP) in patients after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Methods: This is a retrospective study. A total of 35 patients underwent TAVI and received pacemaker implantation from January 2018 to December 2020 in Beijing Fuwai Hospital were enrolled. Patients were divided into LBBP group (n=12) and right ventricular apex pacing (RVAP) group (n=23) according to the pacing position. The success rate of operation in LBBP group was calculated, and the occurrence of complications were observed, and the parameters of pacemaker were measured on the 3rd day and 1, 3 and 6 months after operation. The N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), echocardiographic and ECG indexes were compared between the two groups on the 3rd day and 1, 3, and 6 months after pacemaker implantation. Result: A total of 35 patients were included, The age was (76.4±7.7) years, including 19 males (54.3%). The procedure time ((86.58±17.10)min vs. (68.74±9.18)min, P<0.001) and fluoroscopy duration ((20.08±4.44)min vs. (17.00±2.26)min, P<0.001) were significantly longer in LBBP group compared with RVAP group. The operation success rate of LBBP group was 11/12. There was no serious operation related complications such as pneumothorax, hemothorax, electrode dislocation, infection, and lower limb bleeding. The patients were followed up for 7.43 (5.21, 9.84) months. The programmed parameters of pacemaker were in the ideal range and stable during follow-up. At 3 and 6 months after operation, the left ventricular ejection fraction in LBBP group was higher than that in RVAP Group (at 3 months: (60.75±2.89)% vs. (57.35±3.33)%, P=0.004; at 6 months: (63.17±3.33)% vs. (56.17±3.97)%, P<0.001), NT-proBNP values was lower in LBBP group than that in RVAP Group (at 3 months: 822 (607, 1 150)ng/L vs. 1 052 (902, 1 536)ng/L, P=0.006; at 6 months: 440 (330,679)ng/L vs. 783 (588, 1 023)ng/L, P=0.001). At 1, 3 and 6 months after operation, the QRS duration was shorter in LBBP group than that in RVAP group (1 month: 99 (97, 107)ms vs. 126(124, 130)ms, P<0.001; 3 months: 98(96, 105)ms vs. 129(128, 133)ms, P<0.001; 6 months: 96(94, 104)ms vs. 130(128, 132)ms, P<0.001). Conclusions: For patients with permanent pacemaker indications after TAVI, LBBP is feasible, safe and reliable. It could improve the cardiac function in the short term, the long-term effect of LBBP needs to be further observed.
Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Bundle of His ; Cardiac Pacing, Artificial/methods* ; Electrocardiography/methods* ; Fluoroscopy ; Humans ; Male ; Retrospective Studies ; Stroke Volume ; Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects* ; Treatment Outcome ; Ventricular Function, Left