His bundle pacing, selective and non-selective: are they equally safe and effective?. (3rd October 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Piemontese, G P; Ziacchi, M; Bartoli, L; Angeletti, A; Massaro, G; Statuto, G; Spadotto, A; Biffi, M
• Is Part Of: European heart journal. Volume 43(2022)Supplement 2
• Publication Date: 2022-10-03
• Subjects: Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart -- Diseases -- Periodicals; 616.12005
• DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac544.481
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0195-668X

Abstract

Abstract: Background: Permanent His Bundle Pacing (HBP) is the most physiological form of ventricular pacing. His bundle stimulation can be selective (s-HBP) or non-selective (ns-HBP). Few comparative data in terms of safety and efficacy among the two are available in literature. Purpose: Evaluate the safety and efficacy of s-HBP and ns-HBP stimulation and identify predictors of one or the other stimulation. Methods: Prospective analysis of patients with HBP implanted between December 2018 and July 2021. The clinical and instrumental parameters were collected at implant and at long-term follow-up. Follow-up data were collected both at outpatient visits and by remote monitoring systems. Results: 130 patients in need for antibradyarrhythmia therapy and 26 patients with an indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy were enrolled, 134 (86%) had successful HBP (34% s-HBP and 66% ns-HBP). There were no significant clinical differences between the two populations with the exception of the presence of right bundle branch block (RBBB: 17.4% s-HBP and 34.1% ns-HBP; p = <0.05) and baseline QRS duration (116.5±27.5 ms in s-HBP and 129.9±34.7 ms in ns-HBP; p = <0.05). There were no significant predictors of ns-HBP (Figure 1). At implantation and at an average 16-month follow-up there were no significant differences in the electrical parameters between the two HBP stimulation modalities. Twenty-one patients (15.7% of the population, 24% of s-HBP and 12.5% of ns-HBP; p=0.38) had conduction system disease progression, manifested either by a significant increase in pacing threshold (13.3% of s-HBP and 10.2% of ns-HBP recipients; p=0.64; Figure 2A) or by loss of capture (6.5% of s-HBP and 2.2% of ns-HBP recipients; p=0.69). No statically significant predictors of conduction system disease progression were found (Figure 2B). While seventeen patients who had significant threshold elevation underwent device output reprogramming, four patients, who lost capture, and a single one experiencing lead dislodgment (nS-HBP patient) required lead repositioning (8.7% of s-HBP and 4.5% of ns-HBP recipients; p=0.33). s-HBP was significantly more vulnerable to atrial oversensing that required sensitivity reprogramming (17.4% of s-HBP and 4.5% of ns-HBP recipients; p<0.05). No significant differences in clinical endpoints (cardiovascular death, heart failure, atrial fibrillation, syncope) were observed at follow-up. Conclusions: In patients indicated to ventricular stimulation, the potential benefit represented by HBP is burdened by a non-negligible number of complications. Though no significant differences were detected at medium-long term between s-HBP and ns-HBP stimulation, s-HBP stimulation appears to be more affected by pacing threshold increase and progression of conduction tissue disease, which resulted in an almost 2-fold (although statistically not significant) incidence of repeated surgery. Funding Acknowledgement: Type of funding sources: None.