Arrhythmia detection using an implantable loop recorder after a negative electrophysiology study in Brugada syndrome: Observations from a multicenter international registry.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification in Brugada syndrome (BrS) remains controversial. In this respect, the role of the electrophysiology study (EPS) has been a subject of debate. In some centers, it is common practice to use an implantable loop recorder (ILR) after a negative EPS to help in risk stratification. However, the diagnostic value of this approach has never been specifically addressed. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to describe the baseline characteristics and the main findings of a diagnostic workup strategy with an ILR after a negative EPS in BrS. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective international registry including patients with BrS and negative EPS (ie, noninducible ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation) before ILR monitoring. RESULTS: The study included 65 patients from 8 referral hospitals in The Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom (mean age, 39 ± 16 years; 72% male). The main indication for ILR monitoring was unexplained syncope/presyncope (66.2%). During a median follow-up of 39.0 months (Q1 25.0-Q3 47.6 months), 18 patients (27.7%) experienced 21 arrhythmic events (AEs). None of the patients died during follow-up. Bradyarrhythmias were the most common finding (47.6%), followed by atrial tachyarrhythmias (38.1%). Only 3 patients presented with ventricular arrhythmias. AEs were considered incidental in 12 patients (66.7%). In 11 patients (61.1%), AEs led to specific changes in treatment. CONCLUSION: The use of ILR after a negative EPS in BrS is a safe strategy that reflected the high negative predictive value of EPS for ventricular arrhythmia in this syndrome. In addition, it allowed the detection of AEs in a significant proportion of patients, with therapeutic implications in most of them.

Feasibility and safety of left bundle branch area pacing in cardiac amyloidosis. A single center experience.

BACKGROUND: Conventional right ventricle (RV) pacemaker stimulation has been associated with worse clinical outcomes in patients with cardiac amyloidosis (CA). Left bundle branch area pacing (LABPP) has been suggested as a promising alternative. We sought to assess the safety, feasibility, and outcomes of LABPP in patients with CA. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed echocardiography and pacing parameters and clinical outcomes in 23 consecutive patients with CA and LBBAP implanted from June 2020 to October 2022. RESULTS: LBBAP was successfully performed in 22 over 23 patients (19 male, 78.6 ± 11.7 years, 20 ATTR, mean LVEF 45.5 ± 16.2%). After the procedure, 9 patients showed Qr pattern and 11 a qR pattern in V1 on ECG. Average procedure time was 67 ± 28 min. After 7.7 ± 5.2 months follow-up, no procedure-related complications had occurred. Although, a significant reduction in QRS width (p = .001) was achieved, we did not observe significant changes in LVEF and Nt ProBNP at 6 months of follow-up. Pacing parameters were stable during follow-up: LBB capture threshold and R wave amplitude were 1.0 ±  0.5 V and 10.6 ± 6.0 mV versus 0.8 ±  0.1 V, p = .21 and 10.6 ± 5.1 mV (p = .985) at follow up. CONCLUSION: LBBAP is safe and feasible pacing technique for patients with CA. LBBAP is associated with significant narrowing of QRSd without worsening in LVEF and Nt-proBNP.

Estimation of the QTc interval in the presence of right bundle branch block: A comparative study using validated formulae for left bundle branch block.

BACKGROUND: Adequate measurement of the QT interval is of clinical importance in order to identify patients at higher risk for ventricular arrhythmias. Previous studies have described different methods to estimate baseline QT in patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). However, the evidence regarding the assessment of the QT in patients with right bundle branch block (RBBB) is scarce. AIM: To analyze the feasibility and reliability of the different formulae described for LBBB in the estimation of the baseline QT in the presence of RBBB. METHODS: We performed an observational study including patients who underwent electrophysiology study and/or ablation. Two types of RBBB were considered: 1) pacing-induced and 2) transient true RBBB. QRS, JT and QT intervals were measured during baseline and RBBB. Estimated QTc was calculated using LBBB formulae: Bogossian, Rautaharju, Tabatabaei, Tang-Rabkin, Yankelson, Wang. Linear correlation and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) were used to assess the reliability of these formulae for the estimation of baseline QTc. RESULTS: We finally included a total of 100 patients. Correlations between baseline and estimated QTc were strong (R > 0.7) for all the formulae except for Tabatabaei. Yankelson and Wang showed the highest reliability (ICC = 0.775 and 0.727, respectively). Yankelson appeared to be the most accurate formula, with a mean estimated QTc closest to baseline values. CONCLUSION: Previously described formulae for LBBB exhibited marked differences regarding reliability in the estimation of the QTc interval in the presence of RBBB. According to our results, Yankelson showed the most consistent and accurate agreement in this setting.