Aims: Focus of pacemaker therapy is shifting from right ventricular (RV) apex pacing (RVAP) and biventricular pacing (BiVP) to conduction system pacing. Direct comparison between the different pacing modalities and their consequences to cardiac pump function is difficult, due to the practical implications and confounding variables. Computational modelling and simulation provide the opportunity to compare electrical, mechanical, and haemodynamic consequences in the same virtual heart.Methods and results: Using the same single cardiac geometry, electrical activation maps following the different pacing strategies were calculated using an Eikonal model on a three-dimensional geometry, which were then used as input for a lumped mechanical and haemodynamic model (CircAdapt). We then compared simulated strain, regional myocardial work, and haemodynamic function for each pacing strategy. Selective His-bundle pacing (HBP) best replicated physiological electrical activation and led to the most homogeneous mechanical behaviour. Selective left bundle branch (LBB) pacing led to good left ventricular (LV) function but significantly increased RV load. RV activation times were reduced in non-selective LBB pacing (nsLBBP), reducing RV load but increasing heterogeneity in LV contraction. LV septal pacing led to a slower LV and more heterogeneous LV activation than nsLBBP, while RV activation was similar. BiVP led to a synchronous LV–RV, but resulted in a heterogeneous contraction. RVAP led to the slowest and most heterogeneous contraction. Haemodynamic differences were small compared to differences in local wall behaviour.Conclusion: Using a computational modelling framework, we investigated the mechanical and haemodynamic outcome of the prevailing pacing strategies in hearts with normal electrical and mechanical function. For this class of patients, nsLBBP was the best compromise between LV and RV function if HBP is not possible.

Accelerated atrial pacing offers potential benefits for patients with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and atrial fibrillation (AF), compared with standard lower-rate pacing. The study investigates the relationship between atrial pacing rate and left-heart filling pressure. Seventy-five consecutive patients undergoing catheter ablation for AF underwent assessment of mean left atrial pressure (mLAP) and atrioventricular (AV) conduction delay (PR interval) in sinus rhythm and accelerated atrial pacing with 10 bpm increments up to Wenckebach block. Computer simulations (CircAdapt) of a virtual HFpEF cohort complemented clinical observations and hypothesized the modulating effects of AV coupling and atrial (dys)function. In the study cohort, 49(65%) patients had a high HFpEF likelihood (H₂FPEF ≥ 5.0), and 28(37%) an elevated mLAP ≥ 15 mmHg at sinus rhythm. Optimal pacing rates of 100 [70–110]bpm (median [IQR]) significantly reduced mLAP from 12.8 [10.0–17.4]mmHg in sinus rhythm (55 [52–61]bpm) to 10.4 [7.8–14.8]mmHg (P < .001). Conversely, higher pacing rates (130 [110–140]bpm) significantly increased mLAP to 14.7 [11.0–17.8]mmHg (P < .05). PR interval and, hence, AV conduction delay prolonged incrementally with increasing pacing rates. Simulations corroborated these clinical findings, showing mLAP reduction at a moderately increased pacing rate and a subsequent increase at higher rates. Moreover, simulations suggested that mLAP reduction is optimized when AV conduction delay shortens with increasing rate. Accelerated pacing acutely reduces left-heart filling pressure in patients undergoing AF catheter ablation and computer simulations with HFpEF features, suggesting it as a potential therapeutic strategy to alleviate congestion symptoms. Virtual HFpEF patient cohorts hypothesize that AV sequential pacing may further optimize this therapy's beneficial effects. Accelerated pacing reduces left-heart filling pressure, overview of the combined clinical-computational study.

Background: Implantation of a permanent pacemaker and atrioventricular (AV) node ablation (pace-and-ablate) is an established approach for rate and symptom control in elderly patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a physiological pacing strategy that might overcome right ventricular pacing-induced dyssynchrony. In this study, the feasibility and safety of performing LBBAP and AV node ablation in a single procedure in the elderly was investigated. Methods: Consecutive patients with symptomatic AF referred for pace-and-ablate underwent the treatment in a single procedure. Data on procedure-related complications and lead stability were collected at regular follow-up at one day, ten days and six weeks after the procedure and continued every six months thereafter. Results: 25 patients (mean age 79.2 ± 4.2 years) were included and underwent successful LBBAP. In 22 (88%) patients, AV node ablation and LBBAP were performed in the same procedure. AV node ablation was postponed in two patients due to lead-stability concerns and in one patient on their own request. No complications related to the single-procedure approach were observed with no lead-stability issues at follow-up. Conclusions: LBBAP combined with AV node ablation in a single procedure is feasible and safe in elderly patients with symptomatic AF.

Introduction: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) comprises pacing at the left ventricular septum (LVSP) or left bundle branch (LBBP). The aim of the present study was to investigate the differences in ventricular electrical heterogeneity between LVSP, LBBP, right ventricular pacing (RVP) and intrinsic conduction with different dyssynchrony measures using the ECG, vectorcardiograpy, ECG belt, and Ultrahigh frequency (UHF‐)ECG.Methods: Thirty‐seven patients with a pacemaker indication for bradycardia or cardiac resynchronization therapy underwent LBBAP implantation. ECG, vectorcardiogram, ECG belt and UHF‐ECG signals were recorded during RVP, LVSP and LBBP, and intrinsic activation. QRS duration (QRSd) was measured from the ECG, QRS area was calculated from the vectorcardiogram, LV activation time (LVAT) and standard deviation of activation time (SDAT) from ECG belt and electrical dyssynchrony (e‐DYS16) from UHF‐ECG.Results: Both LVSP and LBBP significantly reduced ventricular electrical heterogeneity as compared to underlying LBBB and RV pacing in terms of QRS area (p < .001), SDAT (p < .001), LVAT (p < .001) and e‐DYS16 (p < .001). QRSd was only reduced as compared to RV pacing(p < .001). QRS area was similar during LBBP and normal intrinsic conduction, e‐DYS16 was similar during LVSP and normal intrinsic conduction, whereas SDAT was similar for LVSP, LBBP and normal intrinsic conduction. For all these variables there was no significant difference between LVSP and LBBP.Conclusion: Both LVSP and LBBP resulted in a more synchronous LV activation than LBBB and RVP. Especially LBBP resulted in levels of LV synchrony comparable to normal intrinsic conduction.

Identifying electrical dyssynchrony is crucial for cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). The ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG) technique allows instantaneous dyssynchrony analyses with real-time visualization. This review explores the physiological background of higher frequencies in ventricular conduction and the translational evolution of UHF-ECG in cardiac pacing and CRT. Although high-frequency components were studied half a century ago, their exploration in the dyssynchrony context is rare. UHF-ECG records ECG signals from eight precordial leads over multiple beats in time. After initial conceptual studies, the implementation of an instant visualization of ventricular activation led to clinical implementation with minimal patient burden. UHF-ECG aids patient selection in biventricular CRT and evaluates ventricular activation during various forms of conduction system pacing (CSP). UHF-ECG ventricular electrical dyssynchrony has been associated with clinical outcomes in a large retrospective CRT cohort and has been used to study the electrophysiological differences between CSP methods, including His bundle pacing, left bundle branch (area) pacing, left ventricular septal pacing and conventional biventricular pacing. UHF-ECG can potentially be used to determine a tailored resynchronization approach (CRT through biventricular pacing or CSP) based on the electrical substrate (true LBBB vs. non-specified intraventricular conduction delay with more distal left ventricular conduction disease), for the optimization of CRT and holds promise beyond CRT for the risk stratification of ventricular arrhythmias.

Introduction: We aimed to investigate the impact of the 2021 European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guideline changes in left bundle branch block (LBBB) definition on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) patient selection and outcomes.Methods: The MUG (Maastricht, Utrecht, Groningen) registry, consisting of consecutive patients implanted with a CRT device between 2001 and 2015 was studied. For this study, patients with baseline sinus rhythm and QRS duration ≥ 130ms were eligible. Patients were classified according to ESC 2013 and 2021 guideline LBBB definitions and QRS duration. Endpoints were heart transplantation, LVAD implantation or mortality (HTx/LVAD/mortality) and echocardiographic response (LVESV reduction ≥15%).Results: The analyses included 1.202, typical CRT patients. The ESC 2021 definition resulted in considerably less LBBB diagnoses compared to the 2013 definition (31.6% vs. 80.9%, respectively). Applying the 2013 definition resulted in significant separation of the Kaplan–Meier curves of HTx/LVAD/mortality (p < .0001). A significantly higher echocardiographic response rate was found in the LBBB compared to the non‐LBBB group using the 2013 definition. These differences in HTx/LVAD/mortality and echocardiographic response were not found when applying the 2021 definition.Conclusion: The ESC 2021 LBBB definition leads to a considerably lower percentage of patients with baseline LBBB then the ESC 2013 definition. This does not lead to better differentiation of CRT responders, nor does this lead to a stronger association with clinical outcomes after CRT. In fact, stratification according to the 2021 definition is not associated with a difference in clinical or echocardiographic outcome, implying that the guideline changes may negatively influence CRT implantation practice with a weakened recommendation in patients that will benefit from CRT.