"Ablate and Pace" with Conduction System Pacing: Concomitant versus Delayed Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Objectives: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve the outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). In this setting, AVJA can be performed simultaneously with implantation or in a second procedure a few weeks after implantation. Comparison data on these two alternative strategies are lacking. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, observational study enrolled consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing CSP and AVJA performed in a single procedure or in two separate procedures. Data on the long-term outcomes and healthcare resource utilization were prospectively collected. Results: A total of 147 patients were enrolled: for 105 patients, CSP implantation and AVJA were performed simultaneously (concomitant AVJA); in 42, AVJA was performed in a second procedure, with a mean of 28.8 ± 19.3 days from implantation (delayed AVJA). After a mean follow-up of 12 months, the rate of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups (3.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.666). Concomitant AVJA was associated with a lower number of procedure-related hospitalizations per patient (1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 2.0 ± 0.3; p < 0.001) and with a lower number of hospital treatment days per patient (4.7 ± 1.8 vs. 7.4 ± 1.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Concomitant AVJA resulted as being as safe as delayed AVJA and was associated with a lower utilization of healthcare resources.

Superior approach from the pocket for atrioventricular junction ablation performed at the time of conduction system pacing implantation

BACKGROUND

Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Superior approach (SA) from the pocket via axillary or subclavian vein has been proposed as an alternative to the conventional femoral venous access (FA) to perform AVJA.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the feasibility and safety of SA for AVJA performed simultaneously with CSP, and to compare this approach with FA.

METHODS

A prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing simultaneous CSP and AVJA.

RESULTS

A total of 107 patients were enrolled: in 50, AVJA was primarily attempted with SA, in 69 from FA. AVJA with SA was successful in 38 patients (76.0%), while in 12 patients, a subsequent FA was required. AVJA from FA was successful in 68 patients (98.5%), while in one patient, a left-sided approach via femoral artery was required. Compared with FA, SA was associated with a significantly longer duration of ablation (238.0 ± 218.2 vs. 161.9 ± 181.9 s; p = .035), a significantly shorter procedure time (28.1 ± 19.8 vs. 19.8 ± 16.8 min; p = .018), an earlier ambulation (2.7 ± 3.2 vs. 19.8 ± 0.1 h; p < .001), and an earlier discharge from procedure completion (24.0 ± 2.7 vs. 27.1 ± 5.1 h; p < .001). After a median follow-up of 12 months, the rate of complications was similar in the two groups (2.0% in SA, 4.3% in FA; p = .483).

CONCLUSION

Simultaneous CSP and AVJA with SA is feasible, with a safety profile similar to FA. Compared to FA, this approach reduces the procedure times and allows earlier ambulation and discharge.

Sex-Related Differences in Patient Selection for and Outcomes after Pace and Ablate for Refractory Atrial Fibrillation: Insights from a Large Multicenter Cohort

Background: A pace and ablate strategy may be performed in refractory atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response. Objective: We aimed to assess sex-related differences in patient selection and clinical outcomes after pace and ablate. Methods: In a retrospective multicentre study, patients undergoing AV junction ablation were studied. Sex-related differences in baseline characteristics, all-cause mortality, heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, and device-related complications were assessed. Results: Overall, 513 patients underwent AV junction ablation (median age 75 years, 50% men). At baseline, men were younger (72 vs. 78 years, p < 0.001), more frequently had non-paroxysmal AF (82% vs. 72%, p = 0.006), had a lower LVEF (35% vs. 55%, p < 0.001) and more frequently had cardiac resynchronization therapy (75% vs. 25%, p < 0.001). Interventional complications were rare in both groups (1.2% vs. 1.6%, p = 0.72). Patients were followed for a median of 42 months in survivors (IQR 22−62). After 4 years of follow-up, the combined endpoint of all-cause death or HF hospitalization occurred more often in men (38% vs. 27%, p = 0.008). The same was observed for HF hospitalizations (22% vs. 11%, p = 0.021) and all-cause death (28% vs. 21%, p = 0.017). Sex category remained an independent predictor of death or HF hospitalization after adjustment for age, LVEF and type of stimulation. Lead-related complications, infections, and upgrade to ICD or CRT occurred in 2.1%, 0.2% and 3.5% of patients, respectively. Conclusions: Pace and ablate is safe with a need for subsequent device-related re-interventions in 5.8% over 4 years. We found significant sex-related differences in patient selection, and women had a more favourable clinical course after AV junction ablation.

A case report of simultaneous His pacemaker implantation and atrioventricular junction ablation following unsuccessful treatment of atrial fibrillation

BACKGROUND

Atrial fibrillation can contribute to heart failure. Frequently, rhythm control is unachievable. Atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation and pacemaker implantation remain to be a therapeutic option for rate control in atrial fibrillation. Interventricular asynchrony is a potential downside of right ventricular pacing. However, cardiac resynchronization therapy and His pacing restore physiological activation sequences of the ventricles.

CASE SUMMARY

The reported patient had undergone several interventions to cure atrial fibrillation without sufficient rhythm control and experienced deleterious effects of recurrent arrhythmias. Finally, we decided to ablate the AV junction simultaneously with the implantation of a His bundle pacemaker. Atrioventricular junction ablation had to be repeated following conduction recurrence. A left-sided transaortic approach was required to create a permanent effect and to avoid distal lesions. His pacing was not affected by the AV junction ablation at all. The pre-existing widened QRS was normalized by His pacing, the patient became free of any complaints with full restoration of exertion capability.

DISCUSSION

His pacing has the potential to contribute to a revival of the 'ablate-and-pace' concept for incurable atrial fibrillation by restoring physiological ventricular activation, thereby overcoming the particular drawbacks of continuous ventricular pacing. Atrioventricular junction ablation simultaneously with the pacemaker implantation procedure is safe and feasible. His pacing is at least an alternative for cardiac resynchronization therapy. The implantation procedure is sometimes challenging.

Anatomic twist to a straightforward ablation

Atrioventricular (AV) junction ablation for treatment of refractory atrial fibrillation is a well defined, standardized procedure and the simplest of commonly performed radiofrequency ablations in the field of cardiac electrophysiology. We report successful AV junction ablation using an inferior approach in a case of inferior vena cava interruption. Inability during the procedure to initially pass the ablation catheter into the right ventricle, combined with low amplitude electrograms, led to suspicion of an anatomic abnormality. This was determined to be a heterotaxy syndrome with inferior vena cava interruption and azygos continuation, draining in turn into the superior vena cava. Advancing Schwartz right 0 (SRO) sheath through the venous abnormality into the right atrium allowed adequate catheter stability to successfully induce complete AV block with radiofrequency energy.