Conduction system pacing, a European survey: insights from clinical practice.

AIMS: The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.

Catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias in left ventricular noncompaction cardiomyopathy.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) associated with left ventricular noncompaction (LVNC) cardiomyopathy. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to analyze the clinical and electrocardiographic characteristics of VAs in a group of patients with LVNC. METHODS: Forty-two nonrelated patients with LVNC and VAs were included that were evaluated at the Inherited Cardiac Disease Unit of the University Hospital Virgen Arrixaca (Murcia-Spain) (ERN Guard-Heart Centre, European Reference Network for Rare and Low Prevalence Complex Diseases of the Heart). RESULTS: Thirteen patients (30.9%) had isolated LVNC, 27 (64.3%) had LVNC associated with dilated cardiomyopathy, and 2 (4.8%) had LVNC associated with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy. Among isolated LVNC individuals, 9 (69.2%) had premature ventricular complexes (PVCs)/nonsustained ventricular tachycardias (VTs), and 4 (30.8%) VTs (1 VT degenerating in ventricular fibrillation). In the dilated cardiomyopathy group, 11 (40.7%) patients had PVCs, 14 (51.9%) VTs, and 2 (7.4%) ventricular fibrillation. In the hypertrophic cardiomyopathy group, one patient had PVCs and the other VTs. Endocardial mapping and ablation were performed in 19 patients (45.2%): 7 ventricular outflow tracts (4 right ventricular outflow tract, 1 left coronary cusp, and 2 right coronary cusp), 2 in the left ventricular summit, 5 related to Purkinje potentials at the mid inferoseptal area, and 5 associated with endocardial scar localized in the basal anterolateral and inferolateral segments. Epicardial ablation was performed in 3 cases. CONCLUSION: The substrate of VAs in LVNC cardiomyopathy is heterogeneous, with origin in ventricular outflow tracts, Purkinje system related, and resembling scar patterns in nonischemic cardiomyopathy.