Comparison of acute hemodynamic effect of prioritizing ventricular resynchronization versus left ventricular filling during optimization of cardiac resynchronization therapy.

BACKGROUND: Targeting the maximal ventricular resynchronization, with the shortest QRS duration (QRSd), is commonly implemented after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). OBJECTIVE: We compared optimization of ventricular resynchronization with optimization of left ventricular (LV) filling during CRT by measuring their acute hemodynamic effects. METHODS: Patients with standard CRT indications, recruited from two centers, underwent biventricular pacing (BVP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). We performed a within-patient comparison of acute hemodynamic response of systolic blood pressure (SBP) at the atrioventricular delay (AVD) with the shortest QRSd against the AVD with the most efficient LV filling. In a validation sub-study, we also performed electrical assessment using QRS area (QRSa) and hemodynamic assessment with the maximum rate of LV pressure rise (dP/dtmax). RESULTS: Thirty patients (age 65 ± 10, 53% male) were recruited. The AVD producing maximal ventricular resynchronization was associated with a significantly shorter QRSd (difference 15 ± 12 ms for BVP and 18 ± 13 ms for LBBP, both P < 0.01) and a significantly smaller improvement in SBP (difference 3 ± 4 mmHg for BVP, and 2 ± 2 mmHg for LBBP, both P < 0.01) compared with the AVD that optimized filling. Similar findings were observed in the sub-study, with a significantly smaller improvement in dP/dtmax assessed with QRSd and QRSa (difference 9 ± 7% and 6 ± 4% during BVP, and 5 ± 6% and 3 ± 3% during LBBP, all P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Targeting the maximal ventricular resynchronization results in suboptimal acute hemodynamic performance with both BVP and LBBP as CRT. These findings support prioritizing LV filling when programming AVD for CRT.

Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Tachycardia Therapies: Past, Present and Future Directions.

Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) have a long history and have progressed significantly since the 1980s. They have become an essential part of the prevention of sudden cardiac death, with a proven survival benefit in selected patient groups. However, with more recent trials and with the introduction of contemporary heart failure therapy, there is a renewed interest and new questions regarding the role of a primary prevention ICD, especially in patients with heart failure of non-ischaemic aetiology. This review looks at the history and evolution of ICDs, appraises the traditional evidence for ICDs and looks at issues relating to patient selection, risk stratification, competing risk, future directions and a proposed contemporary ICD decision framework.

Continuous in situ targeted antibiotics for late cardiovascular implantable electronic device pocket perforation.

CIED infections are a dreaded complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality and the mainstay of treatment has traditionally been extraction. A recent cohort study suggested that continuous, in situ-targeted, ultrahigh concentrations of antibiotics (CITA) delivered into the CIED pocket may be a viable alternative to extraction in selected cases. We highlight two cases of device perforation which were successfully treated with this technique.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP. METHODS: The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model. RESULTS: Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.