Acute post-procedural inducibility is a poor predictor of clinical outcomes in high-risk patients (PAINESD > 17) undergoing scar-related ventricular tachycardia ablation.

AIMS: Ventricular tachycardia (VT) non-inducibility in response to programmed ventricular stimulation (PVS) is a widely used procedural endpoint for VT ablation despite inconclusive evidence with respect to clinical outcomes in high-risk patients. The aim is to determine the utility of acute post-ablation VT inducibility as a predictor of VT recurrence, mortality, or mortality equivalent in high-risk patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of high-risk patients (defined as PAINESD > 17) who underwent scar-related VT ablation at our institution between July 2010 and July 2022. Patients' response to PVS (post-procedure) was categorized into three groups: Group A, no clinical VT or VT with cycle length > 240 ms inducible; Group B, only non-clinical VT with cycle length > 240 ms induced; and Group C, all other outcomes (including cases where no PVS was performed). The combined primary endpoint included death, durable left ventricular assist device placement, and cardiac transplant (Cox analysis). Ventricular tachycardia recurrence was considered a secondary endpoint (competing risk analysis). Of the 1677 VT ablation cases, 123 cases met the inclusion criteria for analysis. During a 19-month median follow-up time (interquartile range 4-43 months), 82 (66.7%) patients experienced the composite primary endpoint. There was no difference between Groups A and C with respect to the primary [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.21 (0.94-1.57), P = 0.145] or secondary [HR = 1.18 (0.91-1.54), P = 0.210] outcomes. These findings persisted after multivariate adjustments. The size of Group B (n = 13) did not permit meaningful statistical analysis. CONCLUSION: The results of post-ablation PVS do not significantly correlate with long-term outcomes in high-risk (PAINESD > 17) VT ablation patients.

Outcomes of combined left bundle branch area pacing with atrioventricular nodal ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and pulmonary disease.

INTRODUCTION: Concomitant left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) with atrioventricular (AV) nodal ablation is emerging as a viable management option in atrial fibrillation refractory to medical management. Its viability in patients with pulmonary disease and atrial fibrillation is unknown. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a retrospective, observational cohort study in consecutive patients who underwent concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation with advanced pulmonary disease at the Cleveland Clinic Fairview Hospital between January 2019 and January 2023. Patient characteristics, comorbidities, and medication use were extracted via chart review. Rates of hospitalizations, medication use, and structural disease seen on echocardiography were compared before and after the procedure. There were 27 patients with group 3 pulmonary hypertension who underwent the procedure. In the 24 months preprocedure, there were 114 admissions for heart failure or atrial fibrillation compared to 9 admissions postprocedure (p < .001). Mean follow up was 17.3 ± 12.1 months. There were no significant complications or lead dislodgements. Echocardiographic characteristics were similar prior to and after pacemaker implantation. Use of medications for rate and rhythm control was common preprocedure, and was reduced dramatically postprocedure. CONCLUSION: This small, retrospective cohort study suggests concomitant LBBAP with AV nodal ablation may be safe and efficacious for management of atrial fibrillation in patients with advanced pulmonary disease.

Safety and performance of conduction system pacing: Real-world experience from a product surveillance registry.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), has been used as an alternative for pacemaker indicated patients requiring ventricular pacing. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to characterize the safety and performance of HBP and LBBAP among patients enrolled in the Medtronic product surveillance registry (PSR). METHODS: This observational analysis included patients who underwent pacemaker implantations for HBP or LBBAP with a Medtronic Model 3830 lead between January 2019 and December 2023 in the Medtronic PSR. The primary outcomes were lead-related complications and pacing capture threshold. Baseline characteristics, R-wave amplitude, impedance, and all-cause mortality were summarized. RESULTS: A total of 2342 patients were included across 77 centers (mean age 74 years; 38.9% female). Of the patients implanted with a 3830 lead for CSP, 64.1% (n = 1502) had LBBAP placement and 35.9% (n = 840) had HBP placement. The most commonly reported indications for CSP were sinus node dysfunction (67.0%) and atrioventricular block (57.2%). LBBAP had lower pacing thresholds, higher R-wave sensing, and higher impedance (all P <.001) through 30 months. At 36 months postimplant, the lead complication rate for LBBAP and HBP was 2.5% and 6.3%, ,respectively with no difference in all-cause mortality. CONCLUSION: In a multicenter cohort of LBBAP and HBP patients treated with the catheter-delivered 3830 lead, lead-related complication rates were low and electrical parameters were stable through 30 months.

Left Ventricular Mass as a Modulator of Ventricular Arrhythmia Risk and Sex Differences Following CRT for Non-Ischemic Cardiomyopathy and LBBB.

BACKGROUND: Risk for ventricular arrhythmias (VA) following cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been associated with ischemic disease/scar, sex, and possibly left ventricular mass (LVM). OBJECTIVE: To evaluate sex differences and baseline/post-implant change [Δ] of LVM on VA risk after CRT implant among patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) and left bundle branch block. METHODS: Among patients meeting the criteria, baseline and follow-up echocardiographic images were obtained for LVM assessment. VA events were reported from device diagnostics and therapies. VA risk was stratified by ROC (Youden-index cut-point) for baseline LVM and ΔLVM, and baseline patient characteristics using a multivariable Cox regression model. RESULTS: 118 patients (71[60.2%] female, age 60.5 ±11.3 years, LVEF 19.2 ±7.0%, QRS 165.6 ±20 ms, LVM 313.9 ±108.8 g) were enrolled and followed for median 90 (IQR 44-158) months. Thirty-five (29.6%) patients received appropriate shocks or anti-tachycardia pacing at a median of 73.5 (IQR 25-130) months post-implant. Males had a higher VA incidence (male 18/47 [38.3%] vs. female 17/71 [23.9%], P=0.02). Baseline LVM >308.9g separated patients with higher VA risk (P=0.001). Less than a 20% decrease in LVM increased VA risk (P<0.001). Baseline LVM was the only baseline characteristic predicting VA events in the Cox regression model (Hazard ratio 1.01 [95%CI, 1.001-1.009], Log-rank P=0.003). Sex differences in VA risk were eliminated by the baseline LVM parameters. CONCLUSION: VA risk after CRT in NICM was associated with baseline LV >308.9g and a decrease in LVM ≤ 20%, without sex differences.

Efficacy of Drug-Coated Balloon Angioplasty in Pulmonary Vein Stenosis or Total Occlusion.

BACKGROUND: Current therapies for pulmonary vein stenosis (PVS) or pulmonary vein total occlusion (PVTO) involving angioplasty and stenting are hindered by high rates of restenosis. OBJECTIVES: This study compares a novel approach of drug-coated balloon (DCB) angioplasty and stenting with the current standard of care in PVS or PVTO due to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). METHODS: A retrospective single-center study analyzed patients with PVS or PVTO due to PVI who underwent either angioplasty and stenting (NoDCB group; December 2012-December 2016) or DCB angioplasty and stenting (DCB group; January 2018-January 2021). Multivariable Andersen-Gill regression analysis assessed the risk of restenosis and target lesion revascularization (TLR). RESULTS: The NoDCB group comprised 58 patients and 89 veins, with a longer median follow-up of 35 months, whereas the DCB group included 26 patients and 33 veins, with a median follow-up of 11 months. The DCB group exhibited more PVTO (NoDCB: 12.3%; DCB: 42.4%; P = 0.0001), with a smaller reference vessel size (NoDCB: 10.2 mm; DCB: 8.4 mm; P = 0.0004). Follow-up computed tomography was performed in 82% of NoDCB and 85% of DCB, revealing lower unadjusted rates of restenosis (NoDCB: 26%; DCB: 14.3%) and TLR (NoDCB: 34.2%; DCB: 10.7%) in the DCB group. DCB use was associated with a significantly lower risk of restenosis and TLR (HR: 0.003: CI: 0.00009-0.118; P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: The novel approach of DCB angioplasty followed by stenting is effective and safe and significantly reduces the risk of restenosis and reintervention compared with the standard of care in PVS or PVTO due to PVI.