The field of cardiac pacing has changed rapidly in the last several years. Since the initial description of His bundle pacing targeting the conduction system, recent advances in pacing the left bundle branch and its fascicles have evolved. The field and investigators' knowledge of conduction system pacing including relevant anatomy and physiology has advanced significantly. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on recent advances in conduction system pacing.

• Klíčová slova
• His bundle pacing, cardiac resynchronization therapy, clinical trials, conduction system pacing, left bundle branch pacing,
• MeSH
• blokáda Tawarova raménka terapie   MeSH
• elektrokardiografie MeSH
• Hisův svazek * MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nemoci převodního systému srdečního terapie   MeSH
• převodní systém srdeční MeSH
• srdeční resynchronizační terapie * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH
• přehledy MeSH
• Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural MeSH

BACKGROUND: Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

• Klíčová slova
• Conduction system pacing, His bundle pacing, Left bundle branch area pacing,
• MeSH
• bradykardie * terapie   MeSH
• elektrokardiografie MeSH
• Hisův svazek * MeSH
• kardiostimulace umělá MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nemoci převodního systému srdečního MeSH
• převodní systém srdeční MeSH
• průřezové studie MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His-bundle pacing (HBP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option for patients with indication for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate implant success, safety, and electrical performances of HBP and LBBAP in the multinational Physiological Pacing Registry. METHODS: The international prospective observational registry included 44 sites from 16 countries globally between November 2018 and May 2021. RESULTS: Of 870 subjects enrolled, CSP lead implantation was attempted in 849 patients. Subjects with successful CSP lead implantation were followed for 6 months (5 ± 2 months). CSP lead implantation was successful in 768 patients (90.4%). Implant success was 95.2% (239/251) for LBBAP and 88.5% (529/598) for HBP (P = .002). Procedural duration and fluoroscopy duration were comparable between LBBAP and HBP (P = .537). Capture threshold at implant was 0.69 ± 0.39 V at 0.46 ± 0.15 ms in LBBAP and 1.44 ± 1.03 V at 0.71 ± 0.33 ms in HBP (P <.001). Capture threshold at 6 months was 0.79 ± 0.33 V at 0.44 ± 0.13 ms in LBBAP and 1.59 ± 0.97 V at 0.67 ± 0.31 ms in HBP (P <.001). Pacing threshold rise ≥1 V was observed at 6 months in 3 of 208 (1.4%) of LBBAP and 55 of 418 (13.2%) of HBP (P <.001). Serious adverse events related to implant procedure or CSP lead occurred in 5 of 251 (2.0%) with LBBAP and 25 of 598 (4.2%) with HBP (P = .115). CONCLUSION: This large prospective multicenter study demonstrates that CSP is technically feasible in most patients with relatively higher implant success and suggests that, with current technology, LBBAP may have better pacing parameters than HBP.

• Klíčová slova
• Cardiac resynchronization therapy, Complications, Conduction system pacing, His-bundle pacing, Left bundle branch area pacing,
• MeSH
• elektrokardiografie metody   MeSH
• Hisův svazek * MeSH
• kardiostimulace umělá * metody   MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nemoci převodního systému srdečního etiologie   MeSH
• prospektivní studie MeSH
• registrace MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• multicentrická studie MeSH
• pozorovací studie MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last five years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique.

• Klíčová slova
• Conduction system pacing, Device implantation, His bundle pacing, Left bundle branch area pacing,
• MeSH
• Hisův svazek MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nemoci převodního systému srdečního MeSH
• převodní systém srdeční * MeSH
• srdeční resynchronizační terapie * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• Geografické názvy
• Kanada MeSH
• Latinská Amerika MeSH

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique. A synopsis is provided in this print edition of EP-Europace. The full document may be consulted online, and a 'Key Messages' App can be downloaded from the EHRA website.

• Klíčová slova
• Conduction system pacing, Device implantation, His bundle pacing, Left bundle branch area pacing,
• MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nemoci převodního systému srdečního MeSH
• převodní systém srdeční * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• Geografické názvy
• Asie MeSH
• Kanada MeSH

The conduction system of the human heart is composed of specialized cardiomyocytes that initiate and propagate the electric impulse with consequent rhythmic and synchronized contraction of the atria and ventricles, resulting in the normal cardiac cycle. Although the His-Purkinje system (HPS) was already described more than a century ago, there has been a recent resurgence of conduction system pacing (CSP), where pacing leads are positioned in the His bundle region and left bundle branch area to provide physiological cardiac activation as alternatives to the unnatural myocardial stimulation obtained with conventional right ventricular and biventricular pacing. In this review, we describe the fundamental anatomical and pathophysiological aspects of the specialized HPS along with the CSP technique's nuts and bolts to highlight its potential benefits in everyday clinical practice.

• Klíčová slova
• Conduction system pacing, His-bundle pacing, His–Purkinje system, Left bundle branch area pacing, Ultra-high-frequency electrocardiogram,
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

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.

• Klíčová slova
• CSP, HBP, LBBAP, Survey,
• MeSH
• blokáda Tawarova raménka diagnóza   terapie   MeSH
• funkce levé komory srdeční MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• převodní systém srdeční MeSH
• srdeční arytmie terapie   MeSH
• srdeční resynchronizační terapie * MeSH
• srdeční selhání * diagnóza   terapie   MeSH
• tepový objem fyziologie   MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• randomizované kontrolované studie MeSH

BACKGROUND: Targets for right-sided conduction system pacing (CSP) include His bundle and right bundle branch. Electrocardiographic patterns, diagnostic criteria, and outcomes of right bundle branch pacing (RBBP) are not known. OBJECTIVE: Our aims were to delineate electrocardiographic and electrophysiological characteristics of RBBP and to compare outcomes between RBBP and His bundle pacing (HBP). METHODS: Patients with confirmed right CSP were divided according to the conduction system potential to QRS complex interval at the pacing lead implantation site. Six hypothesized RBBP criteria as well as pacing parameters, echocardiographic outcomes, and all-cause mortality were analyzed. RESULTS: All analyzed criteria discriminated between HBP and RBBP: double QRS complex transition during the threshold test, selective paced QRS complex different from conducted QRS complex, stimulus to selective-QRS complex > potential-QRS complex, small increase in V6 R-wave peak time (V6RWPT) during QRS complex transition, equal capture thresholds of CSP and myocardium, and stimulus-V6RWPT > potential-V6RWPT (adopted as the diagnostic standard). According to the last criterion, RBBP was observed in 19.2% of patients (64 of 326) who had been targeted for HBP, present mainly among patients with potential to QRS complex interval <35 ms (90.6% [48 of 53]) and occasionally among the remaining patients (5.6% [16 of 273]). RBBP was characterized by longer QRS complex (by 10.5 ms), longer V6RWPT (by 11.6 ms), and better sensing (by 2.6 mV) compared with HBP. During a median follow-up duration of 29 months, no differences in capture threshold, echocardiographic outcomes, or mortality were found. CONCLUSION: RBBP has distinct features that separate it from HBP and is observed in approximately a fifth of patients in whom HBP is intended.

• Klíčová slova
• Capture criteria, Conduction system pacing, ECG, His bundle pacing, Right bundle branch pacing,
• MeSH
• echokardiografie MeSH
• elektrokardiografie MeSH
• Hisův svazek MeSH
• kardiostimulace umělá * MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• nemoci převodního systému srdečního MeSH
• převodní systém srdeční * MeSH
• výsledek terapie MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP), either as His bundle pacing (HBP) or as left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), may be superior to right ventricular apical or septal pacing. OBJECTIVE: The study sought to present acute results for a new guiding catheter (Biotronik Selectra 3D) designed for CSP implantations of a retractable screw-in lead (Biotronik Solia S). METHODS: The primary endpoint of the prospective, international nonrandomized BIO|MASTER.Selectra 3D study was freedom from catheter-related serious adverse device effects (SADEs) within 1 week of lead implantation. RESULTS: Of 157 enrolled patients, CSP was achieved in 147 (93.6%) patients. No SADEs occurred within 7 days. LBBAP was achieved in 82 patients (45 as crossover from an HBP attempt) and HBP in 65 (44.2%) patients. In centers considering both HBP and LBBAP, the CSP implantation success approached 99%. Successful CSP implantations lasted on average ∼50 minutes (fluoroscopy ∼6 minutes). Most procedures (87.9%) needed only 1 catheter, even after switch from HBP to LBBAP. The catheter's handling was rated largely positive. In patients without bundle branch block, mean QRS duration increased from 106 ms (intrinsic) to 122 ms (CSP) (P = .001). In patients with bundle branch block, mean QRS duration decreased from 151 ms (intrinsic) to 137 ms (CSP) (P = .004). CONCLUSION: The Selectra 3D catheter is a valuable tool for HBP and LBBAP implantations of the stylet-supported pacemaker leads. When implanters considered both HBP and LBBAP, the success rate was ∼99%. Flexibility to change between different approaches may be advisable in heterogeneous and challenging areas, such as CSP implantations.

• Klíčová slova
• Cardiac pacing, Catheter handling characteristics, Conduction system pacing, Guiding catheter, His bundle, Left bundle branch area, Pacing lead implantation,
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH

• MeSH
• elektrokardiografie MeSH
• kardiostimulace umělá MeSH
• lidé MeSH
• převodní systém srdeční * MeSH
• srdeční arytmie * MeSH
• Check Tag
• lidé MeSH
• Publikační typ
• časopisecké články MeSH
• komentáře MeSH
• práce podpořená grantem MeSH