Comparison of novel ventricular pacing strategies using an electro-mechanical simulation platform

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.