/pdf/2021-esc-guidelines-on-cardiac-pacing-and-cardiac-kz0aans6lp.pdf

2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy.

2021 ESC Guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapyDeveloped by the Task Force on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) With the special contribution of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA)

Cardiovascular electronic devices have enormous benefits for health and quality of life but the long-term operation of these implantable and wearable devices remains a huge challenge owing to the limited life of batteries, which increases the risk of device failure and causes uncertainty among patients. A possible approach to overcoming the challenge of limited battery life is to harvest energy from the body and its ambient environment, including biomechanical, solar, thermal and biochemical energy, so that the devices can be self-powered. This strategy could allow the development of advanced features for cardiovascular electronic devices, such as extended life, miniaturization to improve comfort and conformability, and functions that integrate with real-time data transmission, mobile data processing and smart power utilization. In this Review, we present an update on self-powered cardiovascular implantable electronic devices and wearable active sensors. We summarize the existing self-powered technologies and their fundamental features. We then review the current applications of self-powered electronic devices in the cardiovascular field, which have two main goals. The first is to harvest energy from the body as a sustainable power source for cardiovascular electronic devices, such as cardiac pacemakers. The second is to use self-powered devices with low power consumption and high performance as active sensors to monitor physiological signals (for example, for active endocardial monitoring). Finally, we present the current challenges and future perspectives for the field. The design and limited life of batteries curtails the use of many cardiovascular electronic devices (CEDs). In this Review, Li and colleagues discuss the use of self-powered technology that harvests energy from the body and its ambient environment to power implantable and wearable CEDs.

Self-powered cardiovascular electronic devices and systems

Background: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) is a novel pacing method and has been observed to have low and stable pacing thresholds in prior small short-term studies. The objective of this study w...

Long-Term Safety and Feasibility of Left Bundle Branch Pacing in a Large Single-Center Study.

Cardiac pacing is the only effective therapy for patients with symptomatic bradyarrhythmia. Traditional right ventricular apical pacing causes electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony resulting in left ventricular dysfunction, recurrent heart failure, and atrial arrhythmias. Physiological pacing activates the normal cardiac conduction, thereby providing synchronized contraction of ventricles. Though His bundle pacing (HBP) acts as an ideal physiological pacing modality, it is technically challenging and associated with troubleshooting issues during follow-up. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has been suggested as an effective alternative to overcome the limitations of HBP as it provides low and stable pacing threshold, lead stability, and correction of distal conduction system disease. This paper will focus on the implantation technique, troubleshooting, clinical implications, and a review of published literature of LBBP.

Left bundle branch pacing: A comprehensive review.

Background His-bundle pacing (HBP) provides physiological ventricular activation. Observational studies have demonstrated the techniques' feasibility; however, data have come from a limited number of centers. Objectives We set out to explore the contemporary global practice in HBP focusing on the learning curve, procedural characteristics, and outcomes. Methods This is a retrospective, multicenter observational study of patients undergoing attempted HBP at seven centers. Pacing indication, fluoroscopy time, HBP thresholds, and lead reintervention and deactivation rates were recorded. Where centers had systematically recorded implant success rates from the outset, these were collated. Results A total of 529 patients underwent attempted HBP during the study period (2014-19) with a mean follow-up of 217 ± 303 days. Most implants were for bradycardia indications. In the three centers with the systematic collation of all attempts, the overall implant success rate was 81%, which improved to 87% after completion of 40 cases. All seven centers reported data on successful implants. The mean fluoroscopy time was 11.7 ± 12.0 minutes, the His-bundle capture threshold at implant was 1.4 ± 0.9 V at 0.8 ± 0.3 ms, and it was 1.3 ± 1.2 V at 0.9 ± 0.2 ms at last device check. HBP lead reintervention or deactivation (for lead displacement or rise in threshold) occurred in 7.5% of successful implants. There was evidence of a learning curve: fluoroscopy time and HBP capture threshold reduced with greater experience, plateauing after approximately 30-50 cases. Conclusion We found that it is feasible to establish a successful HBP program, using the currently available implantation tools. For physicians who are experienced at pacemaker implantation, the steepest part of the learning curve appears to be over the first 30-50 cases.

/pdf/his-bundle-pacing-learning-curve-procedure-characteristics-3xr58hpt3h.pdf

Matthew Swift

Papers

His bundle pacing, learning curve, procedure characteristics, safety, and feasibility: Insights from a large international observational study