Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is usually performed with biventricular pacing (BiVP), but recently, conduction system pacing (CSP) has been proposed as an alternative in case of BiVP failure. The aim of this study is to define an algorithm to choose between BiVP and CSP resynchronization using the interventricular conduction delays (IVCD) as a guide. Methods: Consecutive patients from January 2018 to December 2020 with an indication for CRT were prospectively enrolled in the study group (delays-guided resynchronization group, DRG). A treatment algorithm based on IVCD was used to decide whether to leave the left ventricular (LV) lead to perform BiVP or pull it out and perform CSP. Outcomes from the DRG group were compared to a historical cohort of CRT patients who underwent CRT procedures between January 2016 and December 2017 (resynchronization standard guide group, SRG). The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular mortality, heart failure (HF) hospitalization, or HF event at 1 year after the date of intervention. Results: The study population consisted of 292 patients, of which 160 (54.8%) were in the DRG and 132 (45.2%) in the SRG. In the DRG, 41 of 160 patients underwent CSP based on the treatment algorithm (25.6%). The primary endpoint was significantly higher in the SRG (48/132, 36.4%) compared to the DRG (35/160, 21.8%) (hazard ratio (HR): 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12–2.65; p = 0.013). Conclusions: A treatment algorithm based on IVCD shifted one patient out of every four from BiVP to CSP, with consequent reduction in the primary endpoint after implantation. Therefore, its application could be useful to determine whether to perform BiVP or CSP.

Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBPa) is an innovative technique for physiological pacing. Compared with His bundle pacing, LBBPa provides better pacing thresholds, lower rates of macrodislodgment, and a reliable strategy for cardiac resynchronization. LBBPa traditionally employs lumenless leads (LLL), which are characterized by small lead bodies and a fixed helix design. These features guarantee stability, avoid helix retraction, and facilitate easier septal penetration, all contributing to an advantageous learning curve. On the other hand, stylet-driven pacing leads (SDL) have shown comparable success rates related to lumenless pacing leads, although they carry risks of helix retraction and lead fracture. SDL have been increasingly employed with favorable results, as they provide good maneuverability and support during implantation with continuous monitoring of ECG-paced morphology. Different manufacturers are offering a variety of SDL, and new dedicated tools are being developed to simplify lead implantation. In this review, we examine the procedural techniques, advantages, and limitations of the most commonly used pacing leads and tools for LBBPa, and we summarize the complications associated with both lumenless leads (LLL) and stylet-driven leads (SDL).

We performed cardiac resynchronization therapy by means of conduction system pacing in a heart transplant patient suffering from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and atrial fibrillation with conduction disturbance (bifascicular block and QRS >160ms). ECG monitoring showed paroxysmal atrioventricular block. Biventricular pacing was not feasible due to the absence of a suitable coronary sinus branch for pacing. His bundle pacing was performed, and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator was implanted due to severe left ventricular dysfunction. Cardiac allograft vasculopathy was excluded. During follow-up, the patient's left ventricular function improved, and symptoms alleviated with a high percentage of ventricular stimulation.

Background: Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVp), but its implantation requires a specific learning curve. Early experience was dominated by His bundle pacing (HBP) with lumenless leads (LLL), whereas the subsequent adoption of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and the increasing procedural standardization led to a simplification of the technique and greater uniformity in its execution. This study evaluated the learning curve for CSP by analyzing the first consecutive implants of two electrophysiologists (operator 1: OP1 and operator 2: OP2). Methods: The first 55 CSP procedures performed by each operator (n = 110) were retrospectively analyzed. Implantation and fluoroscopy times were assessed in blocks of five cases. Univariate and multivariable linear regression were used to identify independent predictors of procedural complexity. Results: A total of 110 CSP implants (55 per electrophysiologist) were analyzed. Implantation time progressively decreased with experience, reaching a stable plateau after ~45 cases per operator, when inter-operator curves completely overlapped and differences were no longer significant. Fluoroscopy time stabilized earlier and showed no consistent differences between electrophysiologists. In the univariate analysis, longer procedural times were associated with larger left ventricular end-diastolic diameters (LVEDD: r: 0.43; p < 0.001), LLL (r: 0.25; p < 0.01) and earlier implant numbers (r: 0.36; p < 0.001). In the multivariable models, only LVEDD and implant number (IN) remained independent predictors of procedure duration (LVEDD: β: 2.04, p: 0.04; and IN: β: 3.26, p < 0.04). Conclusions: CSP implantation follows a distinct learning curve, with procedure duration stabilizing after approximately 45 cases per operator. Procedural complexity is mainly determined by patient factors (LVEDD) and operator-related factors, whereas differences between LLL and SL reflect historical experience rather than intrinsic technical characteristics.

The moderator band (MB) is an intracavitary structure of the right ventricle composed of muscular fibers encompassing specialized Purkinje fibers, separated each other by collagen and adipose tissue. In the last decades, premature ventricular complexes originating within the Purkinje network have been implicated in the genesis of life-threatening arrhythmias. However, right Purkinje network arrhythmias have been much less reported in the literature compared to the left counterpart. The MB has unique anatomical and electrophysiological properties, which may account for its arrhythmogenicity and may be responsible for a significant portion of idiopathic ventricular fibrillation. MB embodies autonomic nervous system cells, with important implications in arrhythmogenesis. Some idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias, defined as the absence of any identifiable structural heart disorder, can begin from this site. Due to these complex structural and functional peculiarities strictly interplayed each other, it is arduous to determine the precise mechanism underlying MB arrhythmias. MB-related arrhythmias should be differentiated from other right Purkinje fibers arrhythmias because of the opportunity for intervention and the unusual site for the ablation poorly described in the literature. In the current paper, we report the characteristics and electrical properties of the MB, their involvement in arrhythmogenesis, clinical and electrophysiological peculiarities of MB-related arrhythmias, and current treatment options.