RESUMO
Background: Atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation is an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF) with uncontrolled ventricular rates despite maximal pharmacological treatment. Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) can help with visualizing structures, positioning catheters, and guiding the ablation procedure. We compared only fluoroscopy-guided and ICE-guided AVN ablation regarding patients with permanent AF. Methods: Sixty-two consecutive patients underwent AVN ablation were enrolled in our retrospective single-center study (ICE group: 28 patients, Standard group: 34 patients). Procedural data, acute and long-term success rate, and complications were analyzed. Results: ICE guidance for AVN ablation significantly reduced fluoroscopy time (0.30 [0.06; 0.85] min vs. 7.95 [3.23; 6.59] min, p < 0.01), first-to-last ablation time (4 [2; 16.3] min vs. 26.5 [2.3; 72.5] min, p = 0.02), and in-procedure time (40 [34; 55] min vs. 60 [45; 110], p = 0.02). There was no difference in either the total ablation time (199 [91; 436] s vs. 294 [110; 659] s, p = 0.22) or in total ablation energy (8272 [4004; 14,651] J vs. 6065 [2708; 16,406] J, p = 0.28). The acute success rate was similar (ICE: 100% vs. Standard: 94%, p = 0.49) between the groups. Conclusions: In our retrospective trial, ICE-guided AVN ablation reduced fluoroscopy time, procedure time, and first-to-last ablation time. There was no difference in ablation time, total ablation energy, acute and long-term success, and complication rate.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) is a well-established strategy for uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias. Limited data are available regarding His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this setting. AIM: To compare the outcomes of HBP and LBBAP in patients undergoing pacemaker implantation combined with AVN in routine clinical practice. METHODS: We prospectively included all patients who underwent AVNA after successful conduction system pacing (CSP) in two hospitals between September 2017 and May 2023. The primary outcome was the 1-year composite of first episode of heart failure hospitalization, symptomatic atrioventricular node reconduction requiring a second AVNA procedure, lead revision or death from any cause. RESULTS: A total of 164 patients underwent AVNA following successful CSP (68 HBP and 96 LBBAP). Mean pacemaker implantation and AVNA procedure times were shorter in the LBBAP group than the HBP group (46±18 vs 59±23min; P<0.001 and 31±12 vs 43±22min, respectively; P<0.001). Complete atrioventricular block was more frequently obtained in the LBBAP group (88/96 patients [92%] vs 54/68 patients [79%]; P=0.04). One-year freedom from the composite outcome was more frequent in the LBBAP group (89.7% vs 72.9%; hazard ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.72; P=0.01). The strategy was similarly effective in both groups with a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction. A secondary pacing threshold elevation >1V occurred only in the HBP group (11%). CONCLUSION: In this prospective, comparative study, LBBAP provided better 1-year outcomes than HBP.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) with permanent pacing is an effective treatment of symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) prevents cardiac dyssynchrony associated with right ventricular pacing and could prevent worsening of heart failure (HF). METHODS: In this retrospective monocentric study, all patients who received AVNA procedure with LBBAP were consecutively included. AVNA procedure data, electrical and echocardiographic parameters at 6 months, and clinical outcomes at 1 year were studied and compared to a matched cohort of patients who received AVNA procedure with conventional pacing between 2010 and 2023. RESULTS: Seventy-five AVNA procedures associated with LBBAP were studied. AVNA in this context was feasible, with a success rate of 98.7% at first ablation, and safe without any complications. There was no threshold rise at follow-up. At 1 year, 6 (8%) patients were hospitalized for HF and 2 (2.7%) were deceased. Patients had a significant improvement in NYHA class and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) (P ≤ 0.0001). When compared to a matched cohort of patients with AVNA and conventional pacing, AVNA data and pacing complications rates were similar. Patients with LBBAP had a better improvement of LVEF (+5.27 ± 9.62% vs. -0.48 ± 14%, P = 0.01), and a lower 1-year rate of composite outcome of hospitalization for HF or death (HR 0.39, 95% CI: 0.16-0.95, P = 0.037), significant on survival analysis (log-rank P-value = 0.03). CONCLUSION: AVNA with LBBAP in patients with symptomatic AF is feasible, safe, and efficient. Hospitalization for HF or death rate was significantly lower and LVEF improvement was greater.
RESUMO
Despite lack of concrete evidence, right ventricular thrombus is generally considered to be a contraindication for intracardiac lead placement. We present a case of successful placement of a right ventricular defibrillator lead and left bundle branch pacing lead and atrioventricular node ablation in a patient with chronic right ventricle thrombus.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Fast-conducting atrial fibrillation misinterpreted as ventricular tachycardia is the leading cause for inappropriate shocks in patients with implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICD). These inappropriate shocks are associated with significant morbidity and mortality and cause great discomfort and stress. CASE PRESENTATION: We report the case of a patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy, permanent atrial fibrillation, and a single-chamber DF-1 ICD implanted for the primary prevention of sudden cardiac death, who presented for multiple inappropriate internal shocks due to very fast-conducting atrial fibrillation, which was mislabeled as ventricular fibrillation by the ICD. Since the patient was under maximal atrioventricular nodal blocking medical therapy (beta-blockers and digitalis) and we didn`t find any reversible causes for the heart rate acceleration, we opted for rate control with atrioventricular node ablation. To counteract the risk of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy in this patient who would become totally pacemaker-dependent, we successfully performed left bundle branch area pacing. Because the patient`s ICD had a DF-1 connection and the battery had a long life remaining, we connected the physiological pacing lead to the IS-1 sense-pace port of the ICD. The 6-month follow-up showed an improvement in left ventricular function with no more inappropriate shocks. CONCLUSIONS: Left bundle branch area pacing and atrioventricular node ablation in patients with an implantable single-chamber DF-1 defibrillator and fast-conducting permanent atrial fibrillation is a cost-efficient and very effective method to prevent and treat inappropriate shocks, avoiding the use of an additional dual-chamber or CRT-D device.
Assuntos
Fibrilação Atrial , Cardiomiopatias , Desfibriladores Implantáveis , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento , Frequência Cardíaca , Função Ventricular EsquerdaRESUMO
With the advent of conduction system pacing, the threshold for performing 'ablate and pace' procedures for atrial fibrillation has gone down markedly in many centres due to the ability to provide a simple and physiological means of pacing the ventricles. This article reviews the technical considerations for this strategy as well as the current evidence, recognized indications, and future perspectives.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has rapidly emerged as a promising modality of physiologic pacing and has demonstrated excellent lead stability. In this retrospective study, we evaluate whether this pacing modality can allow concomitant atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation and same-day dismissal. METHODS: Twenty-four consecutive patients (female 63%, male 37%) with an average age of 78 ± 5 years were admitted for pacemaker (75%)/defibrillator (25%) implantations and concomitant AVN ablation. Device implantation with LBBAP was performed first, followed by concomitant AVN ablation through left axillary vein access to allow for quicker post-procedure ambulation. The patients were discharged on the same day after satisfactory post-ambulation device checks. RESULTS: LBBAP was successful in 22 patients (92% in total, 20 patients had an LBBP and two patients had a likely LBBP), followed by AVN ablation from left axillary vein access (21/24, 88%). All patients had successful post-op chest x-rays, post-ambulation device checks, and were discharged on the same day. After a mean follow up of three months, no major complications occurred, such as LBBA lead dislodgement requiring a lead revision. The LBBA lead pacing parameters immediately after implantation vs. three-month follow up were a capture threshold of 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms vs. 0.6 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ms, sensing 9.9 ± 3.9 mV vs. 10.4 ± 4.1 mV, and impedance of 710 ± 216 ohm vs. 544 ± 110 ohm. The QRS duration before and after AVN ablation was 117 ± 32 ms vs. 123 ± 14 ms. Mean LVEF before and three months after the implantation was 44 ± 14% vs. 46 ± 12%. CONCLUSION: LBBA pacing not only offers physiologic pacing, but also allows for a concomitant AVN ablation approach from the left axillary vein and safe same-day hospital dismissal.
RESUMO
Objective: To review the relevant literature on the use of atrioventricular node ablation and pacing in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Methods: APubMed/MEDLINE and SCOPUS search was performed in order to assess the clinical outcomes of atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation, as well as the complications that may occur. Results: Several clinical trials, observational analyses and meta-analyses have shown that the "pace and ablate" strategy not only improves symptoms but also can enhance cardiac performance in patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation. Although this procedure is effective and safe, some complications may occur including worsening of heart failure, permanent fibrillation, arrhythmias and sudden death. Regarding pacemaker implantation, cardiac resynchronization therapy is shown to be the optimal choice compared to right ventricle apical pacing. His bundle pacing is a promising alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy and has shown beneficial effects, while left bundle branch pacing is an innovative modality. Conclusions: Atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implantation is shown to have beneficial effects on clinical outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation ± heart failure who do not respond or are intolerant to medical treatment. Cardiac resynchronization therapy is the treatment of choice and His bundle pacing seems to be an effective alternative way of pacing in these patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Implantation of a permanent pacemaker and atrioventricular (AV) node ablation (pace-and-ablate) is an established approach for rate and symptom control in elderly patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a physiological pacing strategy that might overcome right ventricular pacing-induced dyssynchrony. In this study, the feasibility and safety of performing LBBAP and AV node ablation in a single procedure in the elderly was investigated. METHODS: Consecutive patients with symptomatic AF referred for pace-and-ablate underwent the treatment in a single procedure. Data on procedure-related complications and lead stability were collected at regular follow-up at one day, ten days and six weeks after the procedure and continued every six months thereafter. RESULTS: 25 patients (mean age 79.2 ± 4.2 years) were included and underwent successful LBBAP. In 22 (88%) patients, AV node ablation and LBBAP were performed in the same procedure. AV node ablation was postponed in two patients due to lead-stability concerns and in one patient on their own request. No complications related to the single-procedure approach were observed with no lead-stability issues at follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP combined with AV node ablation in a single procedure is feasible and safe in elderly patients with symptomatic AF.
RESUMO
In patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation refractory to optimal medical therapy, atrioventricular node ablation followed by permanent pacemaker implantation is an effective treatment option. A 66-year-old woman with symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures was referred to our institution. After optimal drug therapy, the patient still had obvious symptoms. Sequential His-Purkinje conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation were performed. Left bundle branch pacing was used as a backup pacing method if thresholds of His bundle pacing were too high or loss of His bundle capture occurred in the follow-up. At the 6-month follow-up, the European Heart Rhythm Association classification for AF was improved, the score of the Atrial Fibrillation Effect on Quality of Life was enhanced, and the 6-Minute Walk Test was ameliorated. The present case was subjected to His-Purkinje conduction system pacing in combination with atrioventricular node ablation as treatment for a symptomatic persistent atrial fibrillation refractory to multiple ablation procedures, and this procedure alleviated symptoms and improved the quality of life in a short-term follow-up.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is currently no particularly effective strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation accompanying heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), especially with recurrent atrial fibrillation after ablation. In this study, we will evaluate a new treatment strategy for patients with persistent atrial fibrillation who had at least two attempts (â§2 times) of radio-frequency catheter ablation but experienced recurrence, and physiologic conduction was reconstructed after atrioventricular node ablation or drug therapy, to control the patient's ventricular rate to maintain a regular heart rhythm, which is called His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) with atrioventricular node ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: This investigator-initiated, multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial aimed to recruit 296 randomized HFpEF patients with recurrent atrial fibrillation. All the enrolled patients were randomly assigned to the pacing group or the drug treatment group. The primary endpoint is differences in cardiovascular events and clinical composite endpoints (all-cause mortality) between patients in the HPCSP and drug-treated groups. Secondary endpoints included heart failure hospitalization, exercise capacity assessed by cardiopulmonary exercise tests, quality of life, echocardiogram parameters, 6-minute walk distance, NT-ProBNP, daily patient activity levels, and heart failure management report recorded by the CIED. It is planned to compete recruitment by the end of 2023 and report in 2025. CONCLUSIONS: The study aims to determine whether His-Purkinje conduction system pacing with atrioventricular node ablation can better improve patients' symptoms and quality of life, postpone the progression of heart failure, and reduce the rate of rehospitalization and mortality of patients with heart failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ChiCTR1900027723, URL: http://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=46128&htm=4.
RESUMO
Background: "Ablate and pace" strategy is a reasonable treatment option in refractory atrial fibrillation (AF) when sinus rhythm (SR) cannot be achieved with catheter ablation or pharmacological therapy. Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) combined with conduction system pacing (CSP), with left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) or His bundle pacing (HBP), is gaining recognition since it offers the most physiological activation of the left ventricle. However, the incidence of conversion to SR after AVNA with CSP is not known. The purpose of the investigation was to determine the incidence of spontaneous conversion to SR and its predicting factors in patients undergoing CSP and AVNA. Methods: Consecutive refractory symptomatic AF patients undergoing AVNA with CSP at our institution between June 2018 and December 2022 were retrospectively analyzed. Twelve lead electrocardiogram (ECG) recordings were analyzed at each outpatient follow-up visit. Echocardiographic and clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and six months after the implantation. Results: Sixty-eight patients (male 42.6%, age 71 ± 8 years, left ventricular ejection fraction 40 ± 15%) were included. Thirty-seven patients (54.4%) received HBP and 31 (45.6%) LBBP. During follow-up, spontaneous conversion to SR was registered in 6 patients (8.8%); 3 in the HBP group and 3 in the LBBP group. Baseline characteristics of patients who converted to SR did not differ from non-sinus rhythm (NSR) patients except for left atrial volume index (LAVI), which was significantly smaller in the SR group (45 mL/ m 2 (41-51) vs. 60 mL/ m 2 (52-75); p = 0.002). Multiple regression model confirmed an inverse association between LAVI and conversion to SR even after considering other clinically relevant covariates (odds ratio 1.273, p = 0.028). At follow-up, LAVI did not change in any group (SR: p = 0.345; NSR: p = 0.508). Improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class was comparable in both groups. Conclusions: Spontaneous conversion to SR after AVNA combined with CSP is not uncommon, especially in patients with smaller left atria. Further studies are warranted to clarify which patients should be considered for initial dual-chamber device implantation to provide atrio-ventricular synchrony in case of SR restoration.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Pacemaker implantation combined with atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) could be a practical choice for atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBaP) has been widely reported. OBJECTIVES: To explore the safety and efficacy of LBBaP combined with AVNA in AF patients with HF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Fifty-six AF patients with HF attempted LBBaP and AVNA from January 2019 to December 2020. Standard LBBaP was achieved in forty-six patients, and another ten received left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP). The cardiac function indexes and pacemaker parameters were evaluated at baseline, and we conducted a 1-month and 1-year follow-up. RESULT: At the time of implantation and 1-month and 1-year follow-up, QRS duration of LVSP group was longer than that of LBBaP group. The pacemaker parameters remained stable in both the LBBaP and LVSP groups. At 1-month and 1-year follow-up after LBBaP and AVNA, left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-diastolic diameter, and NYHA classification continued to improve. Baseline left ventricular ejection fraction and QRS duration change at implantation can predict the magnitude of improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction at 1-year after LBBaP. Baseline right atrial left-right diameter, the degree of tricuspid regurgitation, and interventricular septum thickness may be the factors affecting the success of LBBaP. CONCLUSION: LBBaP combined with AVNA is safe and effective for patients with AF and HF. Baseline right atrial left-right diameter, the degree of tricuspid regurgitation, and interventricular septum thickness may be the factors affecting the success of LBBaP.
RESUMO
Background: There is an ongoing debate on how cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the presence of total AV block affects atrial fibrillation (AF) episodes and symptoms in patients with AF. Methods: Seventy-five patients with symptomatic, drug and ablation refractory AF received, irrespective of their left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), either a CRT device and underwent subsequent atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation or already had a total AV block and underwent CRT upgrade. Long-lasting AF episodes (>48 h), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left atrial diameter (LAD), NTproBNP levels, EHRA score, and NYHA class had been monitored on the follow-up. Results: The number of patients experiencing long-lasting AF episodes (>48 h) and symptoms decreased significantly within 24 months after CRT implantation in the presence of total AV block (p < .001) from 57 (76%) to 25 (33.3%). Mean LAD decreased from 52 mm (IQR 48.0-56.0) to 48 mm (IQR 42.0-52.0, p < .001) and LVEDD from 54 mm (IQR 49.0-58.0) to 51 mm (IQR 46.5-54.0, p < .001). Conclusion: A combination of total AVN block and biventricular pacing markedly reduces long-lasting AF episodes, symptoms, left atrial diameter, and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter.
RESUMO
Introduction: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a prevalent arrhythmia that occurs in 2-4% of adults and poses a threat to human health. Thus, comparison of the efficacy and safety of therapies for AF is warranted. Here, we used network analysis to compare efficacy (arrhythmia recurrence and re-hospitalization) and safety (ischemic cerebral vascular events, all-cause mortality, and cardiovascular mortality) endpoints among five major therapies for AF. Methods: The PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase databases were searched, and relevant literature was retrieved. Only studies that made comparisons among the therapies of interest and involved patients with AF were included. Pairwise comparisons and frequentist method (SUCRA plot) analyses were conducted. Results: In total, 62 studies were included in the pooled analysis. In pairwise comparisons, atrioventricular nodal ablation plus permanent pacemaker (AVN + PPM) was associated with a significantly higher risk of atrial arrhythmia recurrence than surgical ablation [odds ratio (OR): 23.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.97-287.59, fixed-effect model; 3.82, 95% CI: 1.01-559.74, random-effects model]. Furthermore, radiofrequency ablation was associated with a significantly lower risk of cardiovascular mortality than medication in pairwise comparison (OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.29-0.83, fixed-effect model; OR: 0.49, 95% CI: 0.27-0.9, random-effects model). Frequentist analysis indicated that AVN + PPM had the best performance in reducing the risk of safety and efficacy endpoints. Conclusion: Non-pharmaceutical therapies showed superior performance to traditional drug therapy in lowering the risk of safety and efficiency endpoint events. AVN + PPM performed best in reducing the risk of safety and efficacy endpoints.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and pacemaker (PM) is performed in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) unresponsive to medical treatment and percutaneous ablation. This meta-analysis evaluated results after AVNA and PM. METHODS: Primary and secondary endpoints were early/late overall/cardiac-related mortality and early/late postoperative complications. Meta-regression explored mortality and preoperative characteristics relation. RESULTS: We selected 93 studies with 11,340 patients: 9105 right ventricular (RV)-PM, and 2235 biventricular PM (cardiac resynchronization therapy, CRT). Malignant arrhythmia (2.5%), heart failure (2.4%), and lead dislodgement (2.0%) were most common periprocedural complications. Pooled estimated 30-day mortality was 1.08% (95%CI:0.65-1.77). At 19.9 months median follow-up (IQR: 10.3-34 months), rehospitalization (0.79%/month) and heart failure (0.48%/month) were the most frequent complications. Overall mortality incidence rate (IR) was 0.43%/month (95%CI:0.36-0.51), and cardiac death IR 0.27%/month (95%CI:0.22-0.32). No mortality determinants emerged in the AVNA CRT subgroup. AVNA RV-PM subgroup univariable meta-regression showed inverse relationship between age, ejection fraction (EF), and late cardiac death (Beta = -0.0709 ± 0.0272; p = 0.0092 and Beta = -0.0833 ± 0.0249; p = 0.0008). Coronary artery disease (CAD) was directly associated to follow-up overall/cardiac mortality at univariable (Beta = 0.0550 ± 0.0136, p < 0.0001; Beta = 0.0540 ± 0.0130, p < 0.0001) and multivariable (Beta = 0.0460 ± 0.0189, p = 0.152; Beta = 0.0378 ± 0.0192, p = 0.0491) meta-regression. CONCLUSIONS: Solid long-term evidence supporting AVNA and pace is lacking. Younger patients with reduced LVEF% have increased follow-up cardiac mortality after AVNA RV and may require CRT. Alternative strategies to maintain sinus rhythm and ventricular synchronism should be compared to AVNA to support future treatment strategies.
Assuntos
Fibrilação Atrial , Terapia de Ressincronização Cardíaca , Ablação por Cateter , Insuficiência Cardíaca , Fibrilação Atrial/diagnóstico , Fibrilação Atrial/cirurgia , Nó Atrioventricular/cirurgia , Terapia de Ressincronização Cardíaca/métodos , Ablação por Cateter/efeitos adversos , Ablação por Cateter/métodos , Morte , Humanos , Taquicardia , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation and heart failure frequently co-exist and the combination is associated with a worse prognosis than either condition alone. A number of pharmacological agents and invasive procedures have been shown to benefit this complex patient group. OBJECTIVE: In this review, we compare different therapeutic approaches to atrial fibrillation and heart failure, including pharmacotherapy, left atrial catheter ablation and pace-and-ablate. EXPERT OPINION: Left atrial catheter ablation is an efficacious option for restoring sinus rhythm and is most likely to provide benefit to those in whom durable sinus rhythm can be expected, and whose life expectancy is not significantly reduced by other pathologies or advanced age. A pace-and-ablate approach, particularly with physiological pacing, may provide more benefit to those with low chance of maintaining sinus rhythm. Both invasive options generally outperform pharmacotherapy, although it is important to individualize the approach for each patient through shared decision-making.