AV-optimized conduction system pacing for treatment of AV dromotropathy: A randomized, cross-over study

BACKGROUND

Severe first-degree atrioventricular (AV) block may produce symptoms similar to heart failure due to AV dyssynchrony, a syndrome termed AV dromotropathy. According to guidelines, it should be considered for permanent pacemaker implantation, yet evidence supporting this treatment is scarce.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to determine the impact of AV-optimized conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients with symptomatic severe first-degree AV block and echocardiographic signs of AV dyssynchrony.

METHODS

Patients with symptomatic first-degree AV block (PR > 250 ms), preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, narrow QRS, and AV dyssynchrony were included in the study. In a single-blind cross-over design, patients were randomized to AV sequential CSP or backup VVI pacing with a base rate of 40 bpm. We compared exercise capacity, echocardiographic parameters, and symptom occurrence at the end of 3 months of each period.

RESULTS

Fourteen patients completed the study. During the AV-optimized CSP compared to the backup pacing period, patients achieved a higher workload on exercise test (147.2 ± 50.9 vs. 140.7 ± 55.8 W; p = .032), with a trend towards higher peak VO2 (23.3 ± 7.1 vs. 22.8 ± 7.1 mL/min/kg; p = .224), and higher left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV 74.5 ± 13.8 vs. 66.4 ± 12.5 mL; p < .001). Symptomatic improvement was recorded, with fewer patients reporting general tiredness and 71% of patients preferring the AV-optimized CSP (p = .008).

CONCLUSIONS

AV-optimized CSP could improve symptoms, exercise capacity and LVSV in patients with severe first-degree AV block.

Impact of preventive substrate catheter ablation on implantable cardioverter-defibrillator interventions in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy and infarct-related coronary chronic total occlusion

BACKGROUND

Primary prevention patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and chronic total occlusion of an infarct-related coronary artery (IRA-CTO) are at a particularly high risk of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy occurrence.

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of preventive CTO-related substrate ablation strategy in ischaemic cardiomyopathy patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation.

METHODS

The PREVENTIVE VT study was a prospective, multicenter, randomized trial including ischaemic patients with ejection fraction ≤40%, no documented VAs, and evidence of scar related to the coronary CTO. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to a preventive substrate ablation before ICD implantation or standard therapy with ICD implantation only. The primary outcome was a composite of appropriate ICD therapy or unplanned hospitalization for VAs. Secondary outcomes included the primary outcome's components, the incidence of appropriate ICD therapies, cardiac hospitalization, electrical storm, and cardiovascular (CV) mortality.

RESULTS

Sixty patients were included in the study. During the mean follow-up of 44.7± 20.7 months, the primary outcome occurred in 5 (16.7%) patients undergoing preventive substrate ablation and in 13 (43.3%) patients receiving only ICD (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.33; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.12-0.94; P=0.037). Patients in the preventive ablation group also had fewer appropriate ICD therapies (P=0.039) and the electrical storms (Log rank: P=0.01). While preventive ablation also reduced cardiac hospitalizations (P=0.006), it had no significant impact on CV mortality (P=0.151).

CONCLUSIONS

Preventive ablation of the coronary CTO-related substrate in patients undergoing primary ICD implantation is associated with the reduced risk of appropriate ICD therapy or unplanned hospitalization due to VAs.

Sequencing and titrating approach of therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction following the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines: an international cardiology survey

AIMS

In symptomatic patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), recent international guidelines recommend initiating four major therapeutic classes rather than sequential initiation. It remains unclear how this change in guidelines is perceived by practicing cardiologists versus heart failure (HF) specialists.

METHODS AND RESULTS

An independent academic web-based survey was designed by a group of HF specialists and posted by email and through various social networks to a broad community of cardiologists worldwide 1 year after the publication of the latest European HF guidelines. Overall, 615 cardiologists (38 [32-47] years old, 63% male) completed the survey, of which 58% were working in a university hospital and 26% were HF specialists. The threshold to define HFrEF was ≤40% for 61% of the physicians. Preferred drug prescription for the sequential approach was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors first (74%), beta-blockers second (55%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists third (52%), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (53%) fourth. Eighty-four percent of participants felt that starting all four classes was feasible within the initial hospitalization, and 58% felt that titration is less important than introducing a new class. Age, status in training, and specialization in HF field were the principal characteristics that significantly impacted the answers.

CONCLUSION

In a broad international cardiology community, the 'historical approach' to HFrEF therapies remains the preferred sequencing approach. However, accelerated introduction and uptitration are also major treatment goals. Strategy trials in treatment guidance are needed to further change practices.

Biventricular versus His bundle pacing after atrioventricular node ablation in heart failure patients with narrow QRS

Background: His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to biventricular (BiV) pacing. We compared short-term results of both pacing approaches in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with moderately reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF ≥35% and <50%) and narrow QRS (≤120 ms) who underwent atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA).Methods: Thirty consecutive AF patients who received BiV pacing or HBP in conjunction with AVNA between May 2015 and January 2020 were retrospectively assessed. Electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and clinical data at baseline and 6 months after the procedure were assessed.Results: Twenty-four patients (age 68.8 ± 6.5 years, 50% female, EF 39.6 ± 4%, QRS 95 ± 10 ms) met the inclusion criteria, 12 received BiV pacing and 12 HBP. Both groups had similar acute procedure-related success and complication rates. HBP was superior to BiV pacing in terms of post-implant QRS duration, implantation fluoroscopy times, reduction of indexed LV volumes (EDVi 63.8 (49.6-81) mL/m² vs. 79.9 (66-100) mL/m², p = 0.055; ESVi 32.7 (25.6-42.6) mL/m² vs. 46.4 (42.9-68.1) mL/m², p = 0.009) and increase in LVEF (46 (41-55) % vs. 38 (35-42) %, p = 0.005). However, the improvement of the NYHA class was similar in both groups.Conclusions: In symptomatic AF patients with moderately reduced EF and narrow QRS undergoing AVNA, HBP could be a conceivable alternative to BiV pacing. Further prospective studies are warranted to address the outcomes between both 'ablate and pace' strategies.

Multicentric Atrial Strain COmparison between Two Different Modalities: MASCOT HIT Study

Two methods are currently available for left atrial (LA) strain measurement by speckle tracking echocardiography, with two different reference timings for starting the analysis: QRS (QRS-LASr) and P wave (P-LASr). The aim of MASCOT HIT study was to define which of the two was more reproducible, more feasible, and less time consuming. In 26 expert centers, LA strain was analyzed by two different echocardiographers (young vs senior) in a blinded fashion. The study population included: healthy subjects, patients with arterial hypertension or aortic stenosis (LA pressure overload, group 2) and patients with mitral regurgitation or heart failure (LA volume–pressure overload, group 3). Difference between the inter-correlation coefficient (ICC) by the two echocardiographers using the two techniques, feasibility and analysis time of both methods were analyzed. A total of 938 subjects were included: 309 controls, 333 patients in group 2, and 296 patients in group 3. The ICC was comparable between QRS-LASr (0.93) and P-LASr (0.90). The young echocardiographers calculated QRS-LASr in 90% of cases, the expert ones in 95%. The feasibility of P-LASr was 85% by young echocardiographers and 88% by senior ones. QRS-LASr young median time was 110 s (interquartile range, IR, 78-149) vs senior 110 s (IR 78-155); for P-LASr, 120 s (IR 80-165) and 120 s (IR 90-161), respectively. LA strain was feasible in the majority of patients with similar reproducibility for both methods. QRS complex guaranteed a slightly higher feasibility and a lower time wasting compared to the use of P wave as the reference.

Diagnostic yield of implantable loop recorders in patients with unexplained syncope: single-center experience

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients have syncope of uncertain etiology. While implantable loop recorder (ILR) has become an important diagnostic tool in diagnosing syncope, its contemporary role in accordance with the recently updated syncope guidelines is not well established. The purpose of this single-center retrospective study was to determine the diagnostic yield of ILR in patients with unexplained syncope following initial diagnostic work-up as recommended by the guidelines.

METHODS

Medical records of 100 consecutive patients with syncope or presyncope who received ILR following the recently updated recommended diagnostic work-up were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Seven patients were lost to follow-up (7%). During a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR 6.5-27.5), syncope or presyncope recurred in 61 patients (65.6%). In 37 (37/61, 60.7%), correlation between abnormal heart rhythm and symptoms was confirmed by ILR. Syncope was predominantly caused by bradyarrhythmia (33/37, 89.2%). Of the remaining four patients, three (8.1%) had ventricular tachycardia and one had atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. Arrhythmogenic cause of syncope or presyncope was excluded in 24 patients (24/61, 39.3%) as no arrhythmia was recorded at the time of reported symptoms. Median time to establishing diagnosis was 354 days (171-783).

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of ILR after initial inconclusive recommended diagnostic work-up in accordance with the relevant guidelines was high. The findings affirm ILR as an important diagnostic tool in contemporary management of syncope.

Diagnostic yield of implantable loop recorders in patients with unexplained syncope: single-center experience

BACKGROUND

A significant proportion of patients have syncope of uncertain etiology. While implantable loop recorder (ILR) has become an important diagnostic tool in diagnosing syncope, its contemporary role in accordance with the recently updated syncope guidelines is not well established. The purpose of this single-center retrospective study was to determine the diagnostic yield of ILR in patients with unexplained syncope following initial diagnostic work-up as recommended by the guidelines.

METHODS

Medical records of 100 consecutive patients with syncope or presyncope who received ILR following the recently updated recommended diagnostic work-up were retrospectively evaluated.

RESULTS

Seven patients were lost to follow-up (7%). During a median follow-up of 12 months (IQR 6.5-27.5), syncope or presyncope recurred in 61 patients (65.6%). In 37 (37/61, 60.7%), correlation between abnormal heart rhythm and symptoms was confirmed by ILR. Syncope was predominantly caused by bradyarrhythmia (33/37, 89.2%). Of the remaining four patients, three (8.1%) had ventricular tachycardia and one had atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. Arrhythmogenic cause of syncope or presyncope was excluded in 24 patients (24/61, 39.3%) as no arrhythmia was recorded at the time of reported symptoms. Median time to establishing diagnosis was 354 days (171-783).

CONCLUSIONS

The diagnostic yield of ILR after initial inconclusive recommended diagnostic work-up in accordance with the relevant guidelines was high. The findings affirm ILR as an important diagnostic tool in contemporary management of syncope.