Conduction system pacing (CSP) is being increasingly adopted as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular and biventricular pacing. Since the 2021 European Society of Cardiology pacing guidelines, there has been growing evidence that this therapy is safe and effective. Furthermore, left bundle branch area pacing was not covered in these guidelines due to limited evidence at that time. This Clinical Consensus Statement provides advice on indications for CSP, taking into account the significant evolution in this domain.

This prospective, randomized, open-label multicenter trial evaluated the efficacy of catheter-based renal denervation (Symplicity, Medtronic) versus intensified pharmacological treatment including spironolactone (if tolerated) in patients with true-resistant hypertension. This was confirmed by 24-hour ambulatory blood pressure monitoring after excluding secondary hypertension and confirmation of adherence to therapy by measurement of plasma antihypertensive drug levels before enrollment. One-hundred six patients were randomized to renal denervation (n=52), or intensified pharmacological treatment (n=54) with baseline systolic blood pressure of 159±17 and 155±17 mm Hg and average number of drugs 5.1 and 5.4, respectively. A significant reduction in 24-hour average systolic blood pressure after 6 months (−8.6 [95% cofidence interval: −11.8, −5.3] mm Hg; P <0.001 in renal denervation versus −8.1 [95% cofidence interval: −12.7, −3.4] mm Hg; P =0.001 in pharmacological group) was observed, which was comparable in both groups. Similarly, a significant reduction in systolic office blood pressure (−12.4 [95% cofidence interval: −17.0, −7.8] mm Hg; P <0.001 in renal denervation versus −14.3 [95% cofidence interval: −19.7, −8.9] mm Hg; P <0.001 in pharmacological group) was present. Between-group differences in change were not significant. The average number of antihypertensive drugs used after 6 months was significantly higher in the pharmacological group (+0.3 drugs; P <0.001). A significant increase in serum creatinine and a parallel decrease of creatinine clearance were observed in the pharmacological group; between-group difference were borderline significant. The 6-month results of this study confirmed the safety of renal denervation. In conclusion, renal denervation achieved reduction of blood pressure comparable with intensified pharmacotherapy.

Nonselective His-bundle pacing (nsHBp), nonselective left bundle branch pacing (nsLBBp), and left ventricular septal myocardial pacing (LVSP) are recognized as physiological pacing techniques. The purpose of this study was to compare differences in ventricular depolarization between these techniques using ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG). In patients with bradycardia, nsHBp, nsLBBp (confirmed concomitant left bundle branch [LBB] and myocardial capture), and LVSP (pacing in left ventricular [LV] septal position without proven LBB capture) were performed. Timings of ventricular activations in precordial leads were displayed using UHF-ECG, and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS) was calculated as the difference between the first and last activation. Duration of local depolarization (Vd) was determined as width of the UHF-QRS complex at 50% of its amplitude. In 68 patients, data were collected during nsLBBp (35), LVSP (96), and nsHBp (55). nsLBBp resulted in larger e-DYS than did LVSP and nsHBp [- 24 ms (-28;-19) vs -12 ms (-16;-9) vs 10 ms (7;14), respectively; P <.001]. nsLBBp produced similar values of Vd in leads V5-V8 (36-43 ms vs 38-43 ms; P = NS in all leads) but longer Vd in leads V1-V4 (47-59 ms vs 41-44 ms; P <.05) as nsHBp. LVSP caused prolonged Vd in leads V1-V8 compared to nsHBp and longer Vd in leads V5-V8 compared to nsLBBp (44-51 ms vs 36-43 ms; P <.05) regardless of R-wave peak time in lead V5 or QRS morphology in lead V1 present during LVSP. nslbbp preserves physiological LV depolarization but increases interventricular electrical dyssynchrony. LV lateral wall depolarization during LVSP is prolonged, but interventricular synchrony is preserved.

Aims: The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice. Methods and results: A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients. Conclusions: This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP. METHODS: The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score–matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model. RESULTS: Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score–matched patients (propensity score–matched BVP, 707; propensity score–matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29–0.74]; P 3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P =0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P 30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16–0.73]; P =0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P =0.015). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.