Key result
Upgrading to biventricular and His-bundle pacing dramatically improves status in two inotrope-dependent heart failure patients.
Why the study?
The effects of cardiac resynchronization therapy utilizing His-bundle pacing and LV pacing (BiVHB+LV) on cardiac resynchronization and heart failure were unclear.
Does upgrading to CRT utilizing His-bundle pacing and LV pacing improve heart failure status in patients with inotrope-dependent end-stage heart failure?
Case Report (n=2)
Does upgrading to CRT utilizing His-bundle pacing and LV pacing improve heart failure status in patients with inotrope-dependent end-stage heart failure?
Upgrading to BiVHB+LV pacing may improve clinical status in patients with end-stage heart failure who become non-responsive to conventional BiVRVA+LV pacing.
Background His-bundle pacing (HBP) alone may become an alternative to conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) utilizing right ventricular apical (RVA) and left ventricular (LV) pacing (BiVRVA+LV) in selected patients, but the effects of CRT utilizing HBP and LV pacing (BiVHB+LV) on cardiac resynchronization and heart failure (HF) are unclear. Case summary We presented two patients with inotrope-dependent end-stage HF in whom the upgrade from conventional BiVRVA+LV to BiVHB+LV pacing by the addition of a lead for HBP improved their HF status. Patient 1 was a 32-year-old man with lamin A/C cardiomyopathy, atrial fibrillation, and complete atrioventricular (AV) block. Patient 2 was a 70-year-old man with ischaemic cardiomyopathy complicated by AV block and worsening of HF resulting from ablation for ventricular tachycardia storm. The HF status of both patients improved dramatically following the upgrade from BiVRVA+LV to BiVHB+LV pacing. Discussion End-stage HF patients suffer from diffuse intraventricular conduction defect not only in the LV but also in the right ventricle (RV). The resulting dyssynchrony may not be sufficiently corrected by conventional BiVRVA+LV pacing or HBP alone. Right ventricular apical pacing itself may also impair RV synchrony. An upgrade to BiVHB+LV pacing could be beneficial in patients who become non-responsive to conventional BiV pacing as the His–Purkinje conduction defect progresses.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Baba et al. (2020) conducted a case report in inotrope-dependent end-stage heart failure (n=2). BiVHB+LV pacing (CRT utilizing His-bundle and left ventricular pacing) vs. Conventional BiVRVA+LV pacing was evaluated on Heart failure status. Upgrading to biventricular pacing with His-bundle pacing dramatically improved heart failure status in two patients with inotrope-dependent end-stage heart failure.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: