Effect of scar and His–Purkinje and myocardium conduction on response to conduction system pacing

• DOI: 10.1111/jce.15847
• Publication Date: 2023-02-04T08:00:59Z
• Authors: Marina Strocchi; Karli Gillette; Aurel Neic; Mark K. Elliott; Nadeev Wijesuriya; Vishal Mehta; Edward J. Vigmond; Gernot Plank; Christopher A. Ri...; Steven A. Niederer
• Keywords: Bundle of His; Cicatrix; Electrocardiography; 03 medical and health sciences; 0302 clinical medicine; Heart Conduction System; Myocardium; Humans

AbstractIntroductionConduction system pacing (CSP), in the form of His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), is emerging as a valuable cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) delivery method. However, patient selection and therapy personalization for CSP delivery remain poorly characterized. We aim to compare pacing‐induced electrical synchrony during CRT, HBP, LBBP, HBP with left ventricular (LV) epicardial lead (His‐optimized CRT [HOT‐CRT]), and LBBP with LV epicardial lead (LBBP‐optimized CRT [LOT‐CRT]) in patients with different conduction disease presentations using computational modeling.MethodsWe simulated ventricular activation on 24 four‐chamber heart geometries, including His–Purkinje systems with proximal left bundle branch block (LBBB). We simulated septal scar, LV lateral wall scar, and mild and severe myocardium and LV His–Purkinje system conduction disease by decreasing the conduction velocity (CV) down to 70% and 35% of the healthy CV. Electrical synchrony was measured by the shortest interval to activate 90% of the ventricles (90% of biventricular activation time [BIVAT‐90]).ResultsSevere LV His–Purkinje conduction disease favored CRT (BIVAT‐90: HBP 101.5 ± 7.8 ms vs. CRT 93.0 ± 8.9 ms, p < .05), with additional electrical synchrony induced by HOT‐CRT (87.6 ± 6.7 ms, p < .05) and LOT‐CRT (73.9 ± 7.6 ms, p < .05). Patients with slow myocardium CV benefit more from CSP compared to CRT (BIVAT‐90: CRT 134.5 ± 24.1 ms; HBP 97.1 ± 9.9 ms, p < .01; LBBP: 101.5 ± 10.7 ms, p < .01). Septal but not lateral wall scar made CSP ineffective, while CRT was able to resynchronize the ventricles in the presence of septal scar (BIVAT‐90: baseline 119.1 ± 10.8 ms vs. CRT 85.1 ± 14.9 ms, p < .01).ConclusionSevere LV His–Purkinje conduction disease attenuates the benefits of CSP, with additional improvements achieved with HOT‐CRT and LOT‐CRT. Septal but not lateral wall scars make CSP ineffective.