Rationale and Design of the Randomized Bayesian Multicenter COME-TAVI Trial in Patients With a New Onset Left Bundle Branch Block.

Patients with new-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) are at risk of developing delayed high-degree atrioventricular block. Management of new-onset LBBB post-TAVI remains controversial. In the Comparison of a Clinical Monitoring Strategy Versus Electrophysiology-Guided Algorithmic Approach in Patients With a New LBBB After TAVI (COME-TAVI) trial, consenting patients with new-onset LBBB that persists on day 2 after TAVI, meeting exclusion/inclusion criteria, are randomized to an electrophysiological study (EPS)-guided approach or 30-day electrocardiographic monitoring. In the EPS-guided approach, patients with a His to ventricle (HV) interval ≥ 65 ms undergo permanent pacemaker implantation. Patients randomized to noninvasive monitoring receive a wearable continuous electrocardiographic recording and transmitting device for 30 days. Follow-up will be performed at 3, 6, and 12 months. The primary endpoint is a composite outcome designed to capture net clinical benefit. The endpoint incorporates major consequences of both strategies in patients with new-onset LBBB after TAVI, as follows: (i) sudden cardiac death; (ii) syncope; (iii) atrioventricular conduction disorder requiring a pacemaker (for a class I or IIa indication); and (iv) complications related to the pacemaker or EPS. The trial incorporates a Bayesian design with a noninformative prior, outcome-adaptive randomization (initially 1:1), and 2 prespecified interim analyses once 25% and 50% of the anticipated number of primary endpoints are reached. The trial is event-driven, with an anticipated upper limit of 452 patients required to reach 77 primary outcome events over 12 months of follow-up. In summary, the aim of this Bayesian multicentre randomized trial is to compare 2 management strategies in patients with new-onset LBBB post-TAVI-an EPS-guided approach vs noninvasive 30-day monitoring. Trial registration number: NCT03303612.

Les patients chez qui un bloc de branche gauche (BBG) est récemment apparu à la suite de l'implantation valvulaire aortique par cathéter (IVAC) présentent un risque de bloc auriculoventriculaire de haut degré tardif. La prise en charge d'un BBG récemment apparu après une IVAC demeure controversée. Dans le cadre de l'essai COME-TAVI (Comparison of a ClinicalMonitoring Strategy VersusElectrophysiology-Guided Algorithmic Approach in Patients With a New LBBB AfterTAVI, ou comparaison d'une stratégie de surveillance clinique, par rapport à une approche guidée par étude électrophysiologique et fondée sur un algorithme, chez des patients présentant un BBG d'apparition récente à la suite d'une IVAC), des patients qui présentent un BBG d'apparition récente persistant le 2e jour après une IVAC, qui répondent aux critères d'admissibilité et qui ont donné leur consentement sont répartis aléatoirement pour être suivis à l'aide d'une approche guidée par une étude électrophysiologique (EEP) ou faire l'objet d'une surveillance électrocardiographique d'une durée de 30 jours. Un stimulateur cardiaque est implanté chez les patients du groupe de l'EEP dont l'intervalle HV (temps de conduction dans le tronc du faisceau de His jusqu'aux ventricules) est ≥ 65 ms. Les patients du groupe de surveillance non invasive reçoivent un dispositif portable d'enregistrement et de transmission continue de données électrocardiographiques pour une période de 30 jours. Le suivi sera réalisé aux 3e, 6e et 12e mois. Le critère d'évaluation principal est un paramètre composite conçu afin de saisir le bienfait clinique net. Il comprend les conséquences majeures des deux stratégies chez les patients présentant un BBG d'apparition récente après une IVAC, comme suit : (i) mort subite d'origine cardiaque; (ii) syncope; (iii) trouble de la conduction auriculoventriculaire nécessitant la pose d'un stimulateur cardiaque (pour une indication de classe I ou IIa); et (iv) complications relatives au stimulateur cardiaque ou à l'EEP. L'essai intègre une conception bayésienne avec une répartition aléatoire (dans un rapport initial de 1:1) antérieure non informative adaptée aux résultats et deux analyses intermédiaires définies au préalable lorsque 25 % et 50 % du nombre anticipé des critères d'évaluation principaux seront atteints. L'essai est axé sur les événements, et la limite supérieure anticipée pour atteindre 77 événements relatifs aux critères d'évaluation principaux sur 12 mois de suivi est de 452 patients. En résumé, l'objectif de cet essai bayésien multicentrique à répartition aléatoire est de comparer deux stratégies de prise en charge de patients présentant un BBG d'apparition récente après une IVAC, soit une approche guidée par une EEP, par rapport à une surveillance non invasive de 30 jours. Trial registration number: NCT03303612.

Incidence of premature battery depletion in subcutaneous cardioverter-defibrillator patients: insights from a multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous ICD established its role in the prevention of sudden cardiac death in recent years. The occurrence of premature battery depletion in a large subset of potentially affected devices has been a cause of concern. The incidence of premature battery depletion has not been studied systematically beyond manufacturer-reported data. METHODS: Retrospective data and the most recent follow-up data on S-ICD devices from fourteen centers in Europe, the US, and Canada was studied. The incidence of generator removal or failure was reported to investigate the incidence of premature S-ICD battery depletion, defined as battery failure within 60 months or less. RESULTS: Data from 1054 devices was analyzed. Premature battery depletion occurred in 3.5% of potentially affected devices over an observation period of 49 months. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of premature battery depletion of S-ICD potentially affected by a battery advisory was around 3.5% after 4 years in this study. Premature depletion occurred exclusively in devices under advisory. This is in line with the most recently published reports from the manufacturer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04767516 .

Atypical atrial flutter catheter ablation in the era of high-density mapping.

BACKGROUND: Mapping and ablating atypical atrial flutters (AAFLs) have evolved greatly with advances in high-density 3D mapping systems over the last years. METHODS: The objectives are to evaluate the feasibility of AAFL catheter ablation based on high-density mapping and minimizing entrainment and to better characterize AAFL circuits. Consecutive patients who underwent AAFL ablation using the EnSite Precision™ system and HD Grid™ mapping catheter (Abbott, Chicago, IL) between 06/2018 and 1/2022 were included. Mitral isthmus-dependent and roof-dependent AAFLs were classified as conventional circuits. All other AAFL circuits were classified as non-conventional circuits and were defined based on the location of the critical isthmus. RESULTS: Sixty-two patients underwent AAFL ablation (mean age 68±11 years). A total of 95 AAFLs were mapped and 92 (97%) were successfully ablated. Fifty-three (85%) patients had a previous AF/AFL ablation. Forty-four (46%) AAFL circuits were classified as conventional and 51 (54%) as non-conventional. Conventional AAFL circuits had longer critical isthmuses (19.0±9.0 vs 10.8±6.3mm, p<0.001), a lower prevalence of slow conduction at the critical isthmus (59% vs 86%, p=0.005), and a longer radiofrequency time to AAFL termination (117±119 vs 51±66 s, p=0.002). Entrainment was attempted in 19 (20%) flutters and its use declined significantly over the study period. Procedural success rates remained high whether entrainment was used or not. Freedom of any atrial tachycardia was 65% over a follow-up of 13.8±9.0 months. CONCLUSIONS: AAFL catheter ablation can be achieved with high procedural success rate using a contemporary strategy based on high-density mapping alone. Non-conventional circuits are frequent and present unique electrophysiological characteristics.

Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with atrioventricular conduction disease: A prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: The reported success rate of His-bundle pacing (HBP) in patients with infranodal atrioventricular (AV) conduction disease is only 52%-76%. The success rate of left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) in this cohort is not well studied. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, safety, and electrophysiological characteristics of LBBAP in patients with AV conduction disease. METHODS: Patients with AV conduction disease referred for pacemaker implantation at 2 centers between February 2019 and June 2021 were considered for LBBAP. Baseline demographic characteristics, procedural success rates, electrophysiological parameters, and complications were assessed. RESULTS: LBBAP was successful in 340 of 364 patients (93%). Mean age was 72 ± 13 years, and mean follow-up was 331 ± 244 days. Pacing indications were Mobitz I in 27 patients (7%), Mobitz II or 2:1 AV block or high-grade AV block in 94 patients (26%), complete heart block in 199 patients (55%), and sick sinus syndrome with isolated bundle branch block in 44 patients (12%). Left bundle branch block and right bundle branch block were present in 57 patients (16%) and 140 patients (38%), respectively. Procedural success rates did not differ between indications (92.6%, 93.6%, 92.9%, and 95%, respectively) or between patients with narrow (<120 ms) vs wide QRS (≥120 ms). Mean LBBAP threshold was 0.77 ± 0.34 V at 0.4 ms at implant and remained stable during follow-up. There were 4 (1.2%) acute LBBAP lead dislodgments. CONCLUSION: LBBAP is safe and feasible with high success rates for patients with AV conduction disease. In contrast to HBP, LBBAP success rates remain high over the entire spectrum of AV conduction disease, and lead parameters remain stable during follow-up.

Multifaceted Left Bundle Branch Block: What Are the Mechanisms?

Understanding different mechanisms of aberrant conduction is critical to better evaluate the need for cardiac pacing. Aberrant conduction is caused by 4 distinct electrophysiologic mechanisms: phase 3 block, acceleration-dependent block, phase 4 block, and concealed transseptal conduction. This case offers a unique opportunity to review all aberrant conduction mechanisms in the same patient. (Level of Difficulty: Intermediate.).

Mechanisms and Clinical Significance of Arrhythmia-Induced Cardiomyopathy.

Arrhythmia-induced cardiomyopathy (AIC) is characterized by left ventricular systolic dysfunction for which the primary cause is arrhythmia. The hallmark of AIC is its reversibility once the arrhythmia is properly controlled. Any tachyarrhythmia can potentially cause AIC (often called "tachycardiomyopathy"), with atrial fibrillation (AF) being by far the most common in clinical practice. The pathophysiological mechanisms underlying AIC need further clarification, but the available evidence, principally from animal models, implicates metabolic dysfunction due to increased oxygen requirements, neurohormonal adaptive mechanisms, and cellular Ca2+ mishandling as important contributors. Tachycardia is a common denominator of most cases of AIC, but other components specific to the patient and the arrhythmia have been implicated. The diagnosis of AIC requires the exclusion of a primary causative role of other conditions such as hypertension, primary cardiomyopathies, and valve disease, which may require specific pharmacological and invasive therapies. Catheter ablation is emerging as a safe and effective alternative to antiarrhythmic medication and has an established role in the management of AIC. Recent studies showing improved cardiac function and mortality rates in patients with heart failure and concomitant AF dramatically illustrate the often-unrecognized scope of AIC and the potential benefits of interventional therapy. Major AF trials do not otherwise focus specifically on AIC, and careful analysis of the literature is necessary to appreciate the clinical characteristics and therapeutic implications. This contemporary review summarizes the current understanding of pathophysiological mechanisms underlying AIC, discusses the clinical implications, and offers a general approach to management, with a particular focus on AF-induced cardiomyopathy.