![]() ![]() Multiple studies have been published on the benefit of HBP and LBBP as a CRT strategy. 18–27 CSP has been used as a primary strategy when CSP is attempted as the first-line therapy for CRT or as a rescue strategy in cases where coronary venous anatomy limits the ability to successfully place an LV epicardial lead. Over the past few years, these two sites for pacing along the cardiac conduction system have become attractive as potential alternatives to BVP-CRT with the demonstration of resynchronised ventricular activation in various studies. 6,17 This newer location of lead implantation along the LBB region of the conduction system has gained popularity over the past 2 years with growing data on this implant location having low left fascicular capture thresholds, better R wave sensing and potential ease of implantation ( Figure 1). first described placing a permanent pacing lead more distally along the conduction system in a patient with LBBB and HFrEF with a low capture threshold and this improved outcomes. ![]() 2,3,17 However, given challenges with an increase in HBP lead capture thresholds and oversensing in some patients, Huang et al. 1 Over the past decade, there has been a reinvigoration in the interest in HBP as more data are now available on the benefit of using HBP for patients who need ventricular pacing. for maintenance of inter-ventricular synchrony in a small series of patients with AF and cardiomyopathy undergoing AV node (AVN) ablation. Permanent HBP was first described by Deshmukh et al. Finally, certain subsets of patients, such as patients with HFrEF and RBBB or patients with a narrow QRS duration (QRSd) and need for ventricular pacing, may not derive a significant benefit and hence may not be ideal for traditional BVP-CRT. ![]() 7,9,15 Anatomical limitations such as lack of suitable venous branches and unavoidable phrenic nerve stimulation at suitable anatomic LV lead positions affect the success of coronary sinus lead implantation. However, about 30% of patients receiving BVP-CRT do not derive a detectable clinical or echocardiographic benefit and some worsen after resynchronisation. BVP-CRT may also benefit patients who develop an RV pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM), which is another form of ventricular dyssynchrony, and patients with a low LVEF undergoing implantation of a new or replacement pacemaker or ICD with an anticipated requirement for a significant percentage (>40%) of ventricular pacing. 7–12 The patients who derive the most benefit from BVP-CRT are those with HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Several large, randomised studies have demonstrated improved quality of life, increased exercise capacity, reduced HF hospitalisation and decreased all-cause mortality with the use of traditional BVP-CRT. It is as an integral part of therapy for patients with HF with depressed left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and a wide QRS, which implies inter-ventricular dyssynchrony. In this paper, we provide a comprehensive review of CSP for CRT including a review of the available data on CSP among various indications for CRT.īVP is the conventional form of CRT (BVP-CRT). This has allowed the use of these strategies for CRT, either as a first-line therapy or as a rescue strategy when BVP fails. 7 Although not a new concept, HBP and LBBP have been successful in overcoming bundle branch block (BBB) and result in ventricular synchrony, particularly in patients with more proximal disease. 6 Over the past decade, these techniques have gained significant popularity and specific tools have been designed to enhance lead delivery.Ĭardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT), which has traditionally been performed using biventricular pacing (BVP), in addition to guideline directed medical therapy, is the cornerstone treatment for patients with cardiomyopathy, heart failure (HF) and ventricular dyssynchrony. in 2018 and involves placement of a pacing lead through the inter-ventricular septum closer to the main trunk of the LBB, bypassing areas of AV conduction disease. ![]() 2–5 LBBP was first described by Huang et al. There are a number of observational studies that have demonstrated the clinical benefits of HBP over conventional right ventricular (RV) pacing. HBP was first described by Deshmukh et al. Lead placement for CSP can be targeted either at the bundle of His, known as His bundle pacing (HBP), or at the region of the left bundle branch (LBB), known as LBB pacing (LBBP). Conduction system pacing (CSP) is a therapy that involves the placement of permanent pacing leads along different sites of the cardiac conduction system with the intent of overcoming sites of atrioventricular (AV) conduction disease and delay, thereby providing a pacing solution that results in more synchronised biventricular activation. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |