Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of definition, prevalence, risk factors, and management.

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy is a potential complication of right ventricular pacing. Definition varies between studies and the optimal management approach is uncertain. We aimed to characterize definition, prevalence, risk factors, and treatment strategies of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCM). We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies that evaluated PiCM after pacemaker implantation identified through a literature search of PubMed and EMBASE up to March 2022. We collected data on the study definition of PiCM and calculated pooled prevalence across studies. Meta-analysis with random effects modeling was used to assess the association between potential risk factors and PiCM, reported as odds ratio with 95% confidence interval. Twenty-six studies (6 prospective studies) with a total of 57,993 patients (mean/median age range was 51-78 years; female 45%) were included in the final analysis. Fifteen unique definitions of PiCM were reported. The pooled prevalence of PiCM was 12% (95% confidence interval 11%-14%). In meta-analysis, risk factors included male sex, history of myocardial infarction, chronic kidney disease, atrial fibrillation, baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, native QRS duration, right ventricular pacing percentage, and paced QRS duration. Treatment strategies identified included biventricular cardiac resynchronization therapy (6 studies) and His-bundle pacing (3 studies). Definition of PiCM varied significantly between studies. More than 1 in 10 patients with chronic right ventricular pacing developed PiCM. Key risk factors included baseline left ventricular ejection fraction, native QRS duration, RV pacing percentage, and paced QRS duration. The optimal management strategy has yet to be defined. Further research is needed to define and treat this understated complication.

Outcomes of incidental findings on multi-detector computed tomography for transcatheter aortic valve implantation assessment: A single-centre study and review of the literature.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) require multi-detector computed tomography (MDCT) when considered for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Incidental findings on MDCT are common given the age group and region imaged. Our aim was to evaluate the frequency and outcome of incidental findings (IF) identified on MDCT and the impact on survival. METHODS: This single-centre analysis retrospectively reviewed severe AS patients who underwent MDCT during TAVI workup. MDCT reports were reviewed for any IF and defined into three categories: IF of no relevant clinical significance (IF-NoCS), IF of non-immediate clinical significance (IF-NICS) and IF of immediate clinical significance (IF-ICS). Demographics, follow-up of IF and survival were calculated from MDCT date. RESULTS: Two hundred and sixty-five patients underwent MDCT for TAVI suitability (mean age 83 ± 6 years, 52% male). The majority proceeded to TAVI (65%). Renal lesions (25%) and lung nodules (18%) were the most common IF. Fifty-nine patients (22%) had IF-NICS; 39% (23/59) were benign, 59% were not further investigated and one patient had suspected lung cancer. Six patients (2.3%) had IF-ICS and all were diagnosed with lung cancer. During a median follow-up of 272 days, there was no survival difference between patients with IF-ICS or IF-NICS versus patients without IF or IF-NoCS in the overall cohort (P = 0.44) or in TAVI patients (P = 0.88). CONCLUSION: Incidental findings on MDCT are common with one-quarter having IF-ICS or IF-NCIS. Most patients with IF-NICS did not undergo further investigation. Standardized reporting of MDCT may assist in clarifying the need for further investigation which will in turn influence decision and timing to proceed with TAVI.

Contemporary review of severe aortic stenosis.

Severe aortic stenosis (AS) is the most common form of valvular heart disease in the developed world, with a rising prevalence due to an ageing Australian population. Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) offers a less invasive option for the treatment of severe AS, with evidence supporting TAVI compared with medical therapy in inoperable patients and superior with surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in high-risk patients. Equal outcomes have been observed in all-comer intermediate-risk populations. The Heart Team utilises a shared decision-making approach between physicians and surgeons in risk-stratifying patients and reduces the intrinsic bias that may occur if decisions are made in isolation. Geriatric assessment is useful for identifying preoperative frailty, a major risk factor for death post-aortic valve intervention. In severe AS, a decision can be made collaboratively to pursue TAVI, SAVR, a Ross Procedure or conservative management. The learning curve associated with TAVI has improved markedly, with overall complication rates decreasing around the world. Contemporary changes in practice, such as conscious sedation without general anaesthesia, expedited recovery and early discharge, will likely improve cost-effectiveness. In 2018, TAVI is a well-established procedure in Australia that has revolutionised the management of severe AS. In the future, with an expanding elderly population, the number of patients to benefit from transcatheter therapies for severe AS is hypothesised to increase 4-10-fold. Heart Team assessment is crucial in patients with severe AS to direct appropriate management.

Invasive assessment of the coronary microcirculation in the catheter laboratory.

Historically much of our understanding of the coronary circulation has been centered towards the epicardial vessels. However, recent work has highlighted the importance of the coronary microcirculation across a broad spectrum of clinical conditions in influencing patient outcomes. Therefore an ability to measure microvascular function is most valuable. While evaluation of the epicardial coronary circulation is widely understood, interrogation of the coronary microcirculation is more complex. Many methods are available to assess the integrity of the microcirculation in the catheter laboratory. This review will discuss the physiology of the coronary microcirculation and evaluate the utility of available invasive techniques.