Abstract
Background
There has been increasing interest in physiologic pacing techniques that directly activate the specialized conduction system. We aimed to assess outcomes of conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients with prosthetic heart valves.
Methods
This systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation with the random-effect model was used to summarize the data. Outcomes studied were 1) implant success (defined as ability to recruit the His–Purkinje system or the distal Purkinje system); (2) lead parameters at implant and follow-up; and (3) procedure-related complications.
Results
This systematic review of 7 studies included 267 unique patients in whom CSP was attempted with either HBP or LBBAP for pacing indications after a prosthetic valve. HBP was attempted in 38% (n = 108), while LBBAP in 62% (n = 175) patients. The overall success rate of CSP was 87%, while in patients post-TAVR, the overall success rate was 83.2%. In the subgroup analysis, LBBAP had a significant higher overall success rate compared to HBP (94.3% vs. 76.5%, p interaction = 0.02) and post-TAVR patients (94.3 vs. 66.9%, p interaction < 0.01), respectively. The LBBAP thresholds were significantly lower compared to HBP both at implant (0.67 ± 0.4 @ 0.44 ms vs. 1.35 ± 1 @ 0.85 ms, p interaction < 0.01) and at a mean follow-up of 12.4 ± 8 months (0.73 ± 0.1 @ 0.44 ms vs. 1.39 ± 1 @ 0.85 ms, p interaction < 0.01), respectively.
Conclusion
CSP is safe and feasible in patients with a prosthetic valve, with a significantly higher success rate and superior lead parameters with LBBAP than HBP, especially in patients post-TAVR.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Gonzalez Barbeito M, Estevez-Cid F, Pardo Martinez P, et al. Surgical technique modifies the postoperative atrioventricular block rate in sutureless prostheses. J Thorac Dis. 2019;11:2945–54.
Moskowitz G, Hong KN, Giustino G, et al. Incidence and Risk Factors for Permanent Pacemaker Implantation Following Mitral or Aortic Valve Surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2019;74:2607–20.
Abdelrahman M, Subzposh FA, Beer D, et al. Clinical Outcomes of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;71:2319–30.
Vijayaraman P, Subzposh FA, Naperkowski A, et al. Prospective evaluation of feasibility and electrophysiologic and echocardiographic characteristics of left bundle branch area pacing. Heart Rhythm. 2019;16:1774–82.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(264–9):W64.
Tukey MFFaJW. Transformations related to the angular and the square root. Ann Math Stat 1950;21:607–11.
DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7:177–88.
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343: d5928.
Sharma PS, Subzposh FA, Ellenbogen KA, Vijayaraman P. Permanent His-bundle pacing in patients with prosthetic cardiac valves. Heart Rhythm. 2017;14:59–64.
Vijayaraman P, Cano O, Koruth JS, et al. His-Purkinje Conduction System Pacing Following Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: Feasibility and Safety. JACC Clin Electrophysiol. 2020;6:649–57.
De Pooter J, Gauthey A, Calle S, et al. Feasibility of His-bundle pacing in patients with conduction disorders following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2020;31:813–21.
Guo J, Li L, Xiao G, et al. Feasibility and stability of left bundle branch pacing in patients after prosthetic valve implantation. Clin Cardiol. 2020;43:1110–8.
Gul EE, Kabadi RA, Padala SK, et al. Safety and feasibility of left bundle branch area pacing following valvular interventions: Multicenter study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2021;32:2515–21.
Wei HQ, Li H, Liao H, et al. Feasibility and Safety of Permanent Left Bundle Branch Pacing in Patients With Conduction Disorders Following Prosthetic Cardiac Valves. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8: 705124.
Niu HX, Liu X, Gu M, et al. Conduction System Pacing for Post Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Patients: Comparison With Right Ventricular Pacing. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8: 772548.
Vijayaraman P, Dandamudi G. How to Perform Permanent His Bundle Pacing: Tips and Tricks. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2016;39:1298–304.
Huang W, Chen X, Su L, Wu S, Xia X, Vijayaraman P. A beginner’s guide to permanent left bundle branch pacing. Heart Rhythm. 2019;16:1791–6.
Keene D, Arnold AD, Jastrzebski M, et al. His bundle pacing, learning curve, procedure characteristics, safety, and feasibility: Insights from a large international observational study. J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2019;30:1984–93.
Garg J, Shah S, Shah K, Turagam MK, Natale A, Lakkireddy D. His-bundle pacing following transcatheter aortic valve replacement. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2021;44:1786–9.
Chen X, Wei L, Bai J, et al. Procedure-Related Complications of Left Bundle Branch Pacing: A Single-Center Experience. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2021;8: 645947.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical approval
Not applicable.
Informed consent
Not applicable.
Conflicts of interest
None.
Disclosure
None.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Shah, K., Williamson, B.D., Kutinsky, I. et al. Conduction system pacing in prosthetic heart valves. J Interv Card Electrophysiol 66, 561–566 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01228-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10840-022-01228-7