Left bundle branch block may be due to conduction system degeneration or a reflection of myocardial pathology. Left bundle branch block may also develop following aortic valve disease or cardiac procedures. Patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and left bundle branch block may respond positively to cardiac resynchronization therapy. Lead placement via the coronary sinus is the mainstay approach of cardiac resynchronization therapy. However, other options, including physiological pacing, are being explored. In this review, we summarize the salient pathophysiologic and clinical aspects of left bundle branch block, as well as current and future strategies for management.

Background—: The efficacy of radiofrequency ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction and isolated diastolic dysfunction is uncertain. Methods and Results—: A prospective cohort of patients with normal and abnormal LV function underwent ablation for antiarrhythmic drug (AAD)-refractory AF. Three groups were compared: 111 patients with systolic dysfunction, defined as LV ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40%; 157 patients with isolated diastolic dysfunction but preserved LVEF ≥50%; and 100 patients with normal LV function. The primary end point was AAD-free AF elimination at 1 year after ablation. This end point was achieved in 62% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 75% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 84% of controls ( P =0.007). AF control on or off AADs was achieved in 76% of patients with systolic dysfunction, 85% of those with diastolic dysfunction, and 89% of controls ( P =0.08). In the systolic dysfunction group, 49% experienced an increase in LVEF by ≥5% after ablation, of which 64% achieved normal LVEF. In the diastolic dysfunction group, 30% of patients demonstrated at least 1 grade improvement in diastolic dysfunction. Multivariable analysis demonstrated an increased relative risk of arrhythmia recurrence of 1.8 (95% CI, 1.1 to 3.1; P =0.02) in systolic dysfunction and 1.7 (1.0 to 2.7; P =0.04) in isolated diastolic dysfunction compared with normal function. Conclusions—: Although an ablative approach for AF in patients with systolic or diastolic dysfunction is associated with an increased long-term recurrence risk, there is potential for substantial quality-of-life improvement and LV functional benefit.

Prior reports have demonstrated a favourable safety and efficacy profile of the Micra leadless pacemaker over mid-term follow-up; however, long-term outcomes in real-world clinical practice remain unknown. Updated performance of the Micra VR leadless pacemaker through five years from the worldwide post-approval registry (PAR) was assessed. All Micra PAR patients undergoing implant attempts were included. Endpoints included system- or procedure-related major complications and system revision rate for any cause through 60 months post-implant. Rates were compared through 36 months post-implant to a reference dataset of 2667 transvenous pacemaker patients using Fine–Gray competing risk models. 1809 patients were enrolled between July 2015 and March 2018 and underwent implant attempts from 179 centres in 23 countries with a median follow-up period of 51.1 months (IQR: 21.6–64.2). The major complication rate at 60 months was 4.5% [95% confidence interval (CI): 3.6%–5.5%] and was 4.1% at 36 months, which was significantly lower than the 8.5% rate observed for transvenous systems (HR: .47, 95% CI: .36–.61; P < .001). The all-cause system revision rate at 60 months was 4.9% (95% CI: 3.9%–6.1%). System revisions among Micra patients were mostly for device upgrades (41.2%) or elevated thresholds (30.6%). There were no Micra removals due to infection noted over the duration of follow-up. At 36 months, the system revision rate was significantly lower with Micra vs. transvenous systems (3.2% vs. 6.6%, P < .001). Long-term outcomes with the Micra leadless pacemaker continue to demonstrate low rates of major complications and system revisions and an extremely low incidence of infection. Five-year outcomes of patients implanted with a Micra VR leadless pacemaker. The flowchart on the left depicts the disposition of system revisions. The figure on the right shows a comparison of system revision rates for Micra VR and a historical transvenous pacemaker cohort. CI, confidence interval; CRT, cardiac resynchronization therapy; HR, hazard ratio.