Impact of intracardiac echocardiography versus transesophageal echocardiography guidance on left atrial appendage occlusion procedures: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly used during left atrial appendage occlusion (LAAO) as an alternative to transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). The objective of this study is to evaluate the impact of ICE versus TEE guidance during LAAO on procedural characteristics and acute outcomes, as well the presence of peri-device leaks and residual septal defects during follow-up. METHODS: All studies comparing ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO were identified. The primary outcomes were procedural efficacy and occurrence of procedure-related complications. Secondary outcomes included lab efficiency (defined as a reduction in in-room time), procedural time, fluoroscopy time, and presence of peri-device leaks and residual interatrial septal defects (IASD) during follow-up. RESULTS: Twelve studies (n = 5637) were included. There were no differences in procedural success (98.3% vs. 97.8%; OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.42-1.27, p = .27; I2 = 0%) or adverse events (4.5% vs. 4.4%; OR 0.81 95% CI 0.56-1.16, p = .25; I2 = 0%) between the ICE-guided and TEE-guided groups. ICE guidance reduced in in-room time (mean-weighted 28.6-min reduction in in-room time) without differences in procedural time or fluoroscopy time. There were no differences in peri-device leak (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.68-1.27, p = 0.64); however, an increased prevalence of residual IASD was observed with ICE-guided versus TEE-guided LAAO (46.3% vs. 34.2%; OR 2.23, 95% CI 1.05-4.75, p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: ICE guidance is associated with similar procedural efficacy and safety, but could result in improved lab efficiency (as established by a significant reduction in in-room time). No differences in the rate of periprocedural leaks were found. A higher prevalence of residual interatrial septal defects was observed with ICE guidance.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing vs Left Ventricular Septal Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) are considered to be acceptable as LBBAP strategies. Differences in clinical outcomes between LBBP and LVSP are yet to be determined. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes of LBBP vs LVSP vs BIVP for CRT. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter observational study, LBBP was compared with LVSP and BIVP in patients undergoing CRT. The primary composite outcome was freedom from heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes included individual components of the primary outcome, postprocedural NYHA functional class, and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters. RESULTS: A total of 415 patients were included (LBBP: n = 141; LVSP: n = 31; BIVP: n = 243), with a median follow-up of 399 days (Q1-Q3: 249.5-554.8 days). Freedom from the primary composite outcomes was 76.6% in the LBBP group and 48.4% in the LVSP group (HR: 1.37; 95% CI: 1.143-1.649; P = 0.001), driven by a 31.4% absolute increase in freedom from HF-related hospitalizations (83% vs 51.6%; HR: 3.55; 95% CI: 1.856-6.791; P < 0.001) without differences in all-cause mortality. LBBP was also associated with a higher freedom from the primary composite outcome compared with BIVP (HR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.175-1.730; P < 0.001), with no difference between LVSP and BIVP. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing CRT, LBBP was associated with improved outcomes compared with LVSP and BIVP, while outcomes between BIVP and LVSP are similar.

Improved all-cause mortality with left bundle branch area pacing compared to biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiological alternative pacing strategy to biventricular pacing (BIVP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to assess the impact of LBBAP vs. BIVP on all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization in patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: Studies comparing LBBAP and BIVP for CRT in patients with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were included. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included procedural and fluoroscopy time, change in QRS duration, and change in LVEF. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (12 observational and 1 RCT, n = 3239; LBBAP = 1338 and BIVP = 1901) with a mean follow-up duration of 25.8 months were included. Compared to BIVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant absolute risk reduction of 3.2% in all-cause mortality (9.3% vs 12.5%, RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.57-0.86, p < 0.001) and an 8.2% reduction in HF-related hospitalization (11.3% vs 19.5%, RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.71, p < 0.00001). LBBAP also resulted in reductions in procedural time (mean weighted difference- 23.2 min, 95% CI - 42.9 to - 3.6, p = 0.02) and fluoroscopy time (- 8.6 min, 95% CI - 12.5 to - 4.7, p < 0.001) as well as a significant reduction in QRS duration (mean weighted difference:- 25.3 ms, 95% CI - 30.9 to - 19.8, p < 0.00001) and a greater improvement in LVEF of 5.1% (95% CI 4.4-5.8, p < 0.001) compared to BIVP in the studies that reported these outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality as well as HF-related hospitalization when compared to BIVP. Additional data from large RCTs is warranted to corroborate these promising findings.

Sex Differences in Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Women respond more favorably to biventricular pacing (BIVP) than men. Sex differences in atrioventricular and interventricular conduction have been described in BIVP studies. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) offers advantages due to direct capture of the conduction system. We hypothesized that men could respond better to LBBAP than BIVP. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to describe the sex differences in response to LBBAP vs BIVP as the initial cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: In this multicenter prospective registry, we included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% and left bundle branch block or a left ventricular ejection fraction ≤40% with an expected right ventricular pacing exceeding 40% undergoing initial CRT with LBBAP or BIVP. The composite primary outcome was heart failure-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcome included all procedure-related complications. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in the primary outcome when comparing men and women receiving LBBAP (P = 0.46), whereas the primary outcome was less frequent in women in the BIVP group than men treated with BIVP (P = 0.03). The primary outcome occurred less frequently in men undergoing LBBAP (29.9%) compared to those treated with BIVP (46.5%) (P = 0.004). In women, the incidence of the primary endpoint was 24.14% in the LBBAP group and 36.2% in the BIVP group; however, this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.23). Complication rates remained consistent across all groups. CONCLUSIONS: Men and women undergoing LBBAP for CRT had similar clinical outcomes. Men undergoing LBBAP showed a lower risk of heart failure-related hospitalizations and all-cause mortality compared to men undergoing BIVP, whereas there was no difference between LBBAP and BIVP in women.

Facilitated Myocardial Ablation Using Heat-Sensitive Liposomes Containing Doxorubicin: A Proof-of-Concept Preclinical Study.

The authors sought to evaluate a method for improving radiofrequency (RF) lesion durability using doxorubicin encased in heat-sensitive liposomes (HSL-dox). Using a porcine model, RF ablations were performed in the right atrium after systemic infusion of either HSL-dox or saline control given immediately before mapping and ablation. Lesion geometry was measured with voltage mapping immediately postablation and after 2 weeks of survival. After 2 weeks, lesions demonstrated less regression in scar area in HSL-dox-exposed animals compared with control animals. We demonstrate improved RF lesion durability in animals treated with HSL-dox, and the cardiotoxic effect was more pronounced after RF applications with higher power and longer duration.

Chlorhexidine gluconate pocket lavage to prevent cardiac implantable electronic device infection in high-risk procedures.

BACKGROUND: Infection is the most dreaded complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), particularly in patients undergoing high-risk procedures (eg, generator change, device upgrade, lead/pocket revision). OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the impact of chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) pocket lavage in high-risk procedures. METHODS: Patients from a prospective multicenter registry undergoing high-risk procedures were included. CHG lavage was performed by irrigating the generator pocket with 20 cc of 2% CHG without alcohol followed by and normal saline (NS) irrigation. Only NS irrigation was performed in the comparison group. The primary efficacy outcome was CIED-related infection at 12 months. The primary safety outcome was any CHG-associated adverse event. The secondary outcome was CIED infection during long-term follow-up. Propensity score matching (PSM) analysis was performed for the primary efficacy outcome. RESULTS: A total of 1504 patients were included. At 12-month follow-up, the primary efficacy outcome occurred in 4 of 904 CHG (0.4%) and 14 of 600 NS (2.3%) subjects (log-rank P = .005). On multivariate analysis, the use of CHG irrigation was associated with a lower risk of infection at 1-year follow-up (Cox proportional hazard ratio [HR] 0.138; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.04-0.45; P = .001). This effect persisted during long-term follow-up. PSM demonstrated a significant reduction in CIED-related infection for the CHG group (0.2% vs 2.5%; Cox proportional HR 0.08; 95% CI 0.01-0.59; P = .014). No adverse events were associated with the use of CHG. CONCLUSION: CHG lavage during high-risk procedures was associated with a reduction in CIED-related infections without any adverse events reported. The benefits of CHG lavage were observed even during long-term follow up and in PSM analysis.

Sustained Apnea for Epicardial Access With Right Ventriculography: The SAFER Epicardial Approach.

BACKGROUND: Epicardial access (EA) has emerged as an increasingly important approach for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias and to perform other interventional cardiology procedures. EA is frequently underutilized because the current approach is challenging and carries a high risk of life-threatening complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the SAFER (Sustained Apnea for Epicardial Access With Right Ventriculography) epicardial approach. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent EA with the SAFER technique were included in this multicenter study. The primary efficacy outcome was the successful achievement of EA. The primary safety outcomes included right ventricular (RV) perforation, major hemorrhagic pericardial effusion (HPE), and bleeding requiring surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes included procedural characteristics and any complications. Our results were compared with those from previous studies describing other EA techniques to assess differences in outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients undergoing EA with the SAFER approach from June 2021 to February 2023 were included. EA was used for ventricular tachycardia ablation in 98 patients (93.4%), left atrial appendage closure in 6 patients (5.7%), and phrenic nerve displacement in 1 patient (0.9%). EA was successful in all subjects (100%). The median time to EA was 7 minutes (IQR: 5-14 minutes). No cases of RV perforation, HPE, or need of surgical intervention were observed in this cohort. Comparing our results with previous studies about EA, the SAFER epicardial approach resulted in a significant reduction in major pericardial bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The SAFER epicardial approach is a simple, efficient, effective, and low-cost technique easily reproducible across multiple centers. It is associated with lower complication rates than previously reported techniques for EA.

Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing Versus Biventricular Pacing as Initial Strategy for Cardiac Resynchronization.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVp). OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to compare the outcomes between LBBAP and BiVp as an initial implant strategy for CRT. METHODS: In this prospective multicenter, observational, nonrandomized study, first-time CRT implant recipients with LBBAP or BiVp were included. The primary efficacy outcome was a composite of heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization and all-cause mortality. The primary safety outcomes were acute and long-term complications. Secondary outcomes included postprocedural New York Heart Association functional class and electrocardiographic and echocardiographic parameters. RESULTS: A total of 371 patients (median follow-up of 340 days [IQR: 206-477 days]) were included. The primary efficacy outcome occurred in 24.2% in the LBBAP vs 42.4% in the BiVp (HR: 0.621 [95% CI: 0.415-0.93]; P = 0.021) group, driven by a reduction in HF-related hospitalizations (22.6% vs 39.5%; HR: 0.607 [95% CI: 0.397-0.927]; P = 0.021) without significant difference in all-cause mortality (5.5% vs 11.9%; P = 0.19) or differences in long-term complications (LBBAP: 9.4% vs BiVp: 15.2%; P = 0.146). LBBAP resulted in shorter procedural (95 minutes [IQR: 65-120 minutes] vs 129 minutes [IQR: 103-162 minutes]; P < 0.001) and fluoroscopy times (12 minutes [IQR: 7.4-21.1 minutes] vs 21.7 minutes [IQR: 14.3-30 minutes]; P < 0.001), shorter QRS duration (123.7 ± 18 milliseconds vs 149.3 ± 29.1 milliseconds; P < 0.001), and higher postprocedural left ventricular ejection fraction (34.1% ± 12.5% vs 31.4% ± 10.8%; P = 0.041). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP as an initial CRT strategy resulted in a lower risk of HF-related hospitalizations compared to BiVp. A reduction in procedural and fluoroscopy times, shorter paced QRS duration, and improvements in left ventricular ejection fraction compared with BiVp were observed.