Sex differences among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: a propensity-matched, multicentre, international analysis from the i-SUSI project.

AIMS: Women have been historically underrepresented in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials. No data on sex differences regarding subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) carriers have been described. Aim of our study was to investigate sex-related differences among unselected S-ICD recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients enrolled in the multicentre, international i-SUSI registry were analysed. Comparisons between sexes were performed using a 1:1 propensity matching adjusted analysis for age, body mass index (BMI), left ventricular function, and substrate. The primary outcome was the rate of appropriate shocks during follow-up. Inappropriate shocks and other device-related complications were deemed secondary outcomes. A total of 1698 patients were extracted from the i-SUSI registry; 399 (23.5%) were females. After propensity matching, two cohorts of 374 patients presenting similar baseline characteristics were analysed. Despite similar periprocedural characteristics and a matched BMI, women resulted at lower risk of conversion failure as per PRAETORIAN score (73.4% vs. 81.3%, P = 0.049). Over a median follow-up time of 26.5 [12.7-42.5] months, appropriate shocks were more common in the male cohort (rate/year 3.4% vs. 1.7%; log-rank P = 0.049), while no significant differences in device-related complications (rate/year: 6.3% vs. 5.8%; log-rank P = 0.595) and inappropriate shocks (rate/year: 4.3% vs. 3.1%; log-rank P = 0.375) were observed. After controlling for confounders, sex remained significantly associated with the primary outcome (aHR 1.648; CI 0.999-2.655, P = 0.048), while not resulting predictor of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications. CONCLUSION: In a propensity-matched cohort of S-ICD recipients, women are less likely to experience appropriate ICD therapy, while not showing higher risk of device-related complications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0473876.

"Ablate and Pace" with Conduction System Pacing: Concomitant versus Delayed Atrioventricular Junction Ablation.

Objectives: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve the outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). In this setting, AVJA can be performed simultaneously with implantation or in a second procedure a few weeks after implantation. Comparison data on these two alternative strategies are lacking. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, observational study enrolled consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing CSP and AVJA performed in a single procedure or in two separate procedures. Data on the long-term outcomes and healthcare resource utilization were prospectively collected. Results: A total of 147 patients were enrolled: for 105 patients, CSP implantation and AVJA were performed simultaneously (concomitant AVJA); in 42, AVJA was performed in a second procedure, with a mean of 28.8 ± 19.3 days from implantation (delayed AVJA). After a mean follow-up of 12 months, the rate of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups (3.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.666). Concomitant AVJA was associated with a lower number of procedure-related hospitalizations per patient (1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 2.0 ± 0.3; p < 0.001) and with a lower number of hospital treatment days per patient (4.7 ± 1.8 vs. 7.4 ± 1.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Concomitant AVJA resulted as being as safe as delayed AVJA and was associated with a lower utilization of healthcare resources.

Impact of ventricular tachycardia ablation in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator carriers: a multicentre, international analysis from the iSUSI project.

AIMS: Catheter ablation (CA) of ventricular tachycardia (VT) has become an important tool to improve clinical outcomes in patients with appropriate transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks. The aim of our analysis was to test whether VT ablation (VTA) impacts long-term clinical outcomes even in subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) carriers. METHODS AND RESULTS: International Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (iSUSI) registry patients who experienced either an ICD shock or a hospitalization for monomorphic VT were included in this analysis. Based on an eventual VTA after the index event, patients were divided into VTA+ vs. VTA- cohorts. Primary outcome of the study was the occurrence of a combination of device-related appropriate shocks, monomorphic VTs, and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were addressed individually. Among n = 1661 iSUSI patients, n = 211 were included: n = 177 experiencing ICD shocks and n = 34 hospitalized for VT. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Both the crude and the yearly event rate of the primary outcome (5/59 and 3.8% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 41/152 and 16.4% yearly event rate in the VTA-; log-rank: P value = 0.0013) and the cardiovascular mortality (1/59 and 0.7% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 13/152 and 4.7% yearly event rate VTA-; log-rank P = 0.043) were significantly lower in the VTA + cohort. At multivariate analysis, VTA was the only variable remaining associated with a lower incidence of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio 0.262 (0.100-0.681), P = 0.006]. CONCLUSION: In a real-world registry of S-ICD carriers, the combined study endpoint of arrhythmic events and cardiovascular mortality was lower in the patient cohort undergoing VTA at long-term follow-up. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT0473876.

Impact on nurse workload and patient satisfaction of atrioventricular junction ablation performed simultaneously with conduction system pacing using a superior approach from the pocket compared to the conventional femoral approach.

AIMS: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Superior approach (SA) from the pocket, via axillary or subclavian vein, has been recently proposed as an alternative to the conventional femoral venous approach (FA) to perform AVJA. In this study we compared the impact of these alternative approaches on the nurse workload (NWL) and on patient satisfaction. METHODS AND RESULTS: Prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing simultaneous CSP and AVJA. ElectrophysiologyLaboratory (EP Lab) NWL was calculated with a self-developed model. Ward NWL was calculated using the MIDENF® validated scale. Patient satisfaction was collected using the Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Provider Systems (HCAHPS) questionnaire. A total of 119 patients were enrolled: in 50, AVJA was primarily attempted with SA, in 69 from FA. Compared to FA, SA was associated with a lower EP Lab NWL (169.8±26.7 vs. 202.7±38.9 minutes; p<0.001), and a lower Ward NWL (474.5±184.8 vs. 808.6±289.9 minutes; p<0.001). Multivariate analysis identified SA as an independent predictor of lower EP Lab NWL (hazard ratio 4.60; p=0.001), and of lower Ward NWL (hazard ratio 45.13; p<0.001). Compared to FA, SA was associated with a higher patient-reported rating regarding the experience during hospital stay (p=0.035), and the overall hospital evaluation (p=0.026). CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing simultaneous CSP and AVJA, the use of a SA for ablation is a valid alternative to conventional FA. Compared to FA, this approach significantly reduces NWL, and is associated with greater patient satisfaction.

Conduction system disease management in patients candidate and/or treated for the aortic valve disease: an Italian Survey promoted by Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC).

BACKGROUND: Conduction system disorders represent a frequent complication in patients undergoing surgical (surgical aortic valve replacement, SAVR) or percutaneous (transcatheter aortic valve implantation, TAVI) aortic valve replacement. The purpose of this survey was to evaluate experienced operators approach in this clinical condition. METHODS: This survey was independently conducted by the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC) and it consisted of 24 questions regarding the respondents' profile, the characteristics of participating centres, and conduction disease management in different scenarios. RESULTS: Fifty-five physicians from 55 Italian arrhythmia centres took part in the survey. Prophylactic pacemaker implantation is rare. In case of persistent complete atrioventricular block (AVB), 49% and 73% respondents wait less than one week before implanting a definitive pacemaker after SAVR and TAVI, respectively. In case of second degree AVB, the respondents wait some days more for definitive implantation. Respondents consider bundle branch blocks, in particular pre-existing left bundle branch block (LBBB), the worst prognostic factors for pacemaker implantation after TAVI. The implanted valve type is considered a relevant element to evaluate. In patients with new-onset LBBB and severe/moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction, respondents would implant a biventricular pacemaker in 100/55% of cases, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Waiting time before a definitive pacemaker implantation after aortic valve replacement has reduced compared to the past, and it is anticipated in TAVI vs. SAVR. Bundle branch blocks are considered the worse prognostic factor for pacemaker implantation after TAVI. The type of pacemaker implanted in new-onset LBBB patients without severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction is heterogeneous.

Complications of left bundle branch area pacing compared with biventricular pacing in candidates for resynchronization therapy: Results of a propensity score-matched analysis from a multicenter registry.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well-established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction, heart failure, and left bundle branch block. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a feasible and effective alternative to BVP. Comparative data on the risk of complications between LBBAP and BVP among patients undergoing CRT are lacking. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the long-term risk of procedure-related complications between LBBAP and BVP in a cohort of patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: This prospective, multicenter, observational study enrolled 668 consecutive patients (mean age 71.2 ± 10.0 years; 52.2% male; 59.4% with New York Heart Association class III-IV heart failure symptoms) with left ventricular ejection fraction 33.4% ± 4.3% who underwent BVP (n = 561) or LBBAP (n = 107) for a class I or II indication for CRT. Propensity score matching for baseline characteristics yielded 93 matched pairs. The rate and nature of intraprocedural and long-term post-procedural complications occurring during follow-up were prospectively collected and compared between the 2 groups. RESULTS: During a mean follow-up of 18 months, procedure-related complications were observed in 16 patients: 12 in BVP (12.9%) and 4 in LBBAP (4.3%) (P = .036). Compared with patients who underwent LBBAP, those who underwent BVP showed a lower complication-free survival (P = .032). In multivariate analysis, BVP resulted an independent predictive factor associated with a higher risk of complications (hazard ratio 3.234; P = .042). Complications related to the coronary sinus lead were most frequently observed in patients who underwent BVP (50.0% of all complications). CONCLUSION: LBBAP was associated with a lower long-term risk of device-related complications compared with BVP in patients with an indication for CRT.

Upgrade from leadless to transvenous pacemaker with left bundle branch area pacing: A case report.

An 80-years-old patient with permanent atrial fibrillation and symptomatic, paroxysmal atrioventricular blocks (AVBs) underwent leadless pacemaker (L-PM) implantation. Seven years after implantation, as a consequence of a progression of the AVB towards a persistent form, resulting in an increased need for pacing, he developed a pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. He then underwent a successful upgrade from L-PM to a transvenous pacemaker (T-PM) with left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). The L-PM did not interfere with the T-PM and was turned off and abandoned. One month after the upgrading the patient showed a significant improvement in cardiac function and functional capacity.

Catheter ablation in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation and absence of structural heart disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Introduction: Rhythm control strategy in paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) can be performed with antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD) or catheter ablation (CA). Nevertheless, a clear overview of the percentage of freedom from AF over time and complications is lacking. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CA versus AAD. Methods: We searched databases up to 5 May 2023 for RCTs focusing on CA versus AAD. The study endpoints were atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) recurrence, progression to persistent AF, overall complications, stroke/TIA, bleedings, heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality. Results: Twelve RCTs enrolling 2393 patients were included. CA showed a significantly lower AT recurrence rate at one year [27.4 % vs 56.3 %; RR: 0.45; p < 0.00001], at two years [39.9 % vs 62.7 %; RR: 0.56; p = 0.0004] and at three years [45.7 % vs 80.9 %; RR: 0.54; p < 0.0001] compared to AAD. Furthermore, CA significantly reduced the progression to persistent AF [1.6 % vs 12.9 %; RR: 0.14; p < 0.00001] with no differences in overall complications [5.9 % vs 4.5 %; RR: 1.27; p = 0.22], stroke/TIA [0.6 % vs 0.6 %; RR: 1.10; p = 0.86], bleedings [0.4 % vs 0.6 %; RR: 0.90; p = 0.84], HF hospitalization [0,3% vs 0,7%; RR: 0.56; p = 0.37] and all-cause mortality [0,4% vs 0.5 %; RR: 0.78; p = 0.67]. Subgroup analysis between radiofrequency and cryo-ablation or considering RCTs with CA as first-line treatment showed no significant differences. Conclusion: CA demonstrated lower rates of AT recurrence over the time, as well as a significant reduction in the progression from paroxysmal to persistent AF, with no difference in terms of energy source, complications, and clinical outcomes.

High power short duration versus low power long duration ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: High-power-short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency (RF) ablation is a viable alternative to low-power-long-duration (LPLD) RF for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Nevertheless, trials showed conflicting results regarding atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences and few data concerning complications. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing HPSD versus LPLD. METHODS: We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 31, 2023 focusing on HPSD versus LPLD. The study endpoints were AF recurrence, procedural times and overall complications. RESULTS: Five studies enrolling 424 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 61.1 years; 54.3% paroxysmal AF; mean LVEF 58.2%). Compared to LPLD, HPSD showed a significantly lower AF recurrence rate [16.3% vs. 30,1%; RR: 0.54 (95% CI: 0.38-0.79); p = 0.001] at a mean 10.9 months follow-up. Moreover, HPSD led to a significant reduction in total procedural time [MD: -26.25 min (95%CI: -42.89 to -9.61); p = 0.002], PVI time [MD: -26.44 min (95%CI: -38.32 to -14.55); p < 0.0001], RF application time [MD: -8.69 min (95%CI: -11.37 to -6.01); p < 0.00001] and RF lesion number [MD: -7.60 (95%CI: -10.15 to -5.05); p < 0.00001]. No difference was found in either right [80.4% vs. 78.2%; RR: 1.04 (95% CI: 0.81-1.32); p = 0.77] or left [92.3% vs. 90.2%; RR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.94-1.11); p = 0.58] first-pass isolation and overall complications [6% vs. 3.7%; RR: 1.45 (95%CI: 0.53-3.99); p = 0.47] between groups. CONCLUSION: In our metanalysis of randomized trials, HPSD ablation appeared to be associated to a significantly improved freedom from AF and shorter procedures, without increasing the risk of complications.

Superior approach from the pocket for atrioventricular junction ablation performed at the time of conduction system pacing implantation.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Superior approach (SA) from the pocket via axillary or subclavian vein has been proposed as an alternative to the conventional femoral venous access (FA) to perform AVJA. OBJECTIVE: To assess the feasibility and safety of SA for AVJA performed simultaneously with CSP, and to compare this approach with FA. METHODS: A prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing simultaneous CSP and AVJA. RESULTS: A total of 107 patients were enrolled: in 50, AVJA was primarily attempted with SA, in 69 from FA. AVJA with SA was successful in 38 patients (76.0%), while in 12 patients, a subsequent FA was required. AVJA from FA was successful in 68 patients (98.5%), while in one patient, a left-sided approach via femoral artery was required. Compared with FA, SA was associated with a significantly longer duration of ablation (238.0 ± 218.2 vs. 161.9 ± 181.9 s; p = .035), a significantly shorter procedure time (28.1 ± 19.8 vs. 19.8 ± 16.8 min; p = .018), an earlier ambulation (2.7 ± 3.2 vs. 19.8 ± 0.1 h; p < .001), and an earlier discharge from procedure completion (24.0 ± 2.7 vs. 27.1 ± 5.1 h; p < .001). After a median follow-up of 12 months, the rate of complications was similar in the two groups (2.0% in SA, 4.3% in FA; p = .483). CONCLUSION: Simultaneous CSP and AVJA with SA is feasible, with a safety profile similar to FA. Compared to FA, this approach reduces the procedure times and allows earlier ambulation and discharge.

Spontaneous Sinus Rhythm Restoration in Patients With Refractory, Permanent Atrial Fibrillation Who Underwent Conduction System Pacing and Atrioventricular Junction Ablation.

Ablate and pace (A&P) with conduction system pacing (CSP) improves outcomes in patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (AF). Data on spontaneous sinus rhythm restoration (SSRR) in this setting are lacking. This study aimed to assess the incidence and the predictors of SSRR in a population of patients with permanent AF who underwent A&P with CSP. Prospective, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients with symptomatic permanent AF (of documented duration >6 months) and uncontrolled, drug-refractory high ventricular rate, who underwent A&P with CSP. The incidence and predictors of SSRR were prospectively assessed. A total of 107 patients (79.0 ± 9.1 years, 33.6% male, 74.8% with New York Heart Association class ≥III, 56.1% with ejection fraction <40%) were enrolled: 40 received His' bundle pacing, 67 left bundle branch area pacing. During a median follow-up of 12 months SSRR was observed in 14 patients (13.1%), occurring a median of 3 months after A&P (interquartile range 1 to 6; range 0 to 17). Multivariable analysis identified a duration of permanent AF <12 months (hazard ratio 7.7, p = 0.040) and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 (hazard ratio 14.8, p = 0.008) as independent predictors of SSRR. In patients with coexistence of both predictors the incidence of SSRR was of 41.4%. In a population of patients with symptomatic, permanent AF, treated with A&P with CSP, SSRR was observed in 13% of patients during follow-up. A duration of permanent AF <12 months and a left atrial volume index <49 ml/m2 were independent predictors of this phenomenon.

Ablate and pace: Comparison of outcomes between conduction system pacing and biventricular pacing.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP), including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), have been proposed as alternatives to biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients scheduled for ablate and pace (A&P) strategy. The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes, including the rate and nature of device-related complications, between BVP and CSP in a cohort of patients undergoing A&P. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, observational study, enrolling consecutive patients undergoing A&P. The risk of device-related complications and of heart failure (HF) hospitalization was prospectively assessed. RESULTS: A total of 373 patients (75.3 ± 8.7 years, 53.9% male, 68.9% with NYHA class ≥III) were enrolled: 263 with BVP, 68 with HBP, and 42 with LBBAP. Baseline characteristics of the three groups were similar. Compared to BVP and HBP, LBBAP was associated with the shortest mean procedural and fluoroscopy times and with the lowest acute capture thresholds (all p < .05). At 12-month follow-up LBBAP maintained the lowest capture thresholds and showed the longest estimated residual battery longevity (all p < .05). At 12-months follow-up the three study groups showed a similar risk of device-related complications (5.7%, 4.4%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .650), and of HF hospitalization (2.7%, 1.5%, and 2.4% for BVP, HBP, and LBBAP, respectively; p = .850). CONCLUSIONS: In the setting of A&P, CSP is a feasible pacing modality, with a midterm safety profile comparable to BVP. LBBAP offers the advantage of reducing procedural times and obtaining lower and stable capture thresholds, with a positive impact on the device longevity.

Possible systolic fascicular potentials in patients with left bundle branch block undergoing left bundle branch area pacing: A case series.

INTRODUCTION: In left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), several methods allow determination of lead depth during active fixation inside the septum: among these, visualization of a Purkinje potential indicates that the subendocardial area has been reached. In LBB block (LBBB) patients, fascicular potentials are visible as presystolic only in rare conditions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Since October 2022 until August 2023, LBBAP was attempted in 21 patients with LBBB at our Center: among the 18 consecutive patients (86%) in which it was successful, focusing on the terminal part of the unipolar ventricular electrogram (VEGM) recorded in the LBBA (where fixation beats occurred and conduction system (CS) capture was confirmed), we always observed discrete high-frequency, low-amplitude signals during spontaneous rhythm with LBBB morphology, showing a consistent coupling with the QRS onset, falling in a portion of QRS interval ranging from 58% to 80% of its overall duration, and disappearing during pacing. As found in a recently published case report, these sharp signals could represent the activation of left ventricular CS fibers, occurring passively from the septal working myocardium, and thus appearing lately in the VEGM. CONCLUSION: The possibility of recognizing discrete high-frequency, low-amplitude signals within the terminal portion of the unipolar VEGM, possibly representing left CS potentials, even in patients with LBBB, may constitute a useful additional means to notice operators about having reached the LBBA, thus helping to avoid perforation in the left ventricle.

Modern subcutaneous implantable defibrillator therapy in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies: data from a large multicentre registry.

AIMS: Patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies are usually younger and have a predominantly arrhythmia-related prognosis; they have nearly normal life expectancy thanks to the protection against sudden cardiac death provided by the implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) is an effective alternative to the transvenous ICD and has evolved over the years. This study aimed to evaluate the rate of inappropriate shocks (IS), appropriate therapies, and device-related complications in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies who underwent modern S-ICD implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: We enrolled consecutive patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies who had undergone implantation of a modern S-ICD from January 2016 to December 2020 and who were followed up until December 2022. A total of 1338 S-ICD implantations were performed within the observation period. Of these patients, 628 had cardiomyopathies or channelopathies. The rate of IS at 12 months was 4.6% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.8-6.9] in patients with cardiomyopathies and 1.1% (95% CI: 0.1-3.8) in patients with channelopathies (P = 0.032). No significant differences were noted over a median follow-up of 43 months [hazard ratio (HR): 0.76; 95% CI: 0.45-1.31; P = 0.351]. The rate of appropriate shocks at 12 months was 2.3% (95% CI: 1.1-4.1) in patients with cardiomyopathies and 2.1% (95% CI: 0.6-5.3) in patients with channelopathies (P = 1.0). The rate of device-related complications was 0.9% (95% CI: 0.3-2.3) and 3.2% (95% CI: 1.2-6.8), respectively (P = 0.074). No significant differences were noted over the entire follow-up. The need for pacing was low, occurring in 0.8% of patients. CONCLUSION: Modern S-ICDs may be a valuable alternative to transvenous ICDs in patients with cardiomyopathies and channelopathies. Our findings suggest that modern S-ICD therapy carries a low rate of IS. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier: NCT02275637.

Success and complication rates of conduction system pacing: a meta-analytical observational comparison of left bundle branch area pacing and His bundle pacing.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) and His bundle pacing (HBP) are the main strategies to achieve conduction system pacing (CSP), but only observational studies with few patients have compared the two pacing strategies, sometimes with unclear results given the different definitions of the feasibility and safety outcomes. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare the success and complications of LBBAP versus HBP. METHODS: We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 22, 2023, and focusing on LBBAP versus HBP. The study endpoints were CSP success rate, device-related complications, CSP lead-related complications and non-CSP lead-related complications. RESULTS: Fifteen observational studies enrolling 2491 patients met the inclusion criteria. LBBAP led to a significant increase in procedural success [91.1% vs 80.9%; RR: 1.15 (95% CI: 1.08-1.22); p < 0.00001] with a significantly lower complication rate [1.8% vs 5.2%; RR: 0.48 (95% CI: 0.29-0.78); p = 0.003], lead-related complications [1.1% vs 4.3%; RR: 0.38 (95% CI: 0.21-0.72); p = 0.003] and lead failure/deactivation [0.2% vs 3.9%; RR: 0.16 (95% CI: 0.07-0.35); p < 0.00001] than HBP. No significant differences were found between CSP lead dislodgement and non-CSP lead-related complications. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis of observational studies showed a higher success rate of LBBAP compared to HBP with a lower incidence of complications.

Sex differences in leadless pacemaker implantation: A propensity-matched analysis from the i-LEAPER registry.

BACKGROUND: The impact of sex in clinical and procedural outcomes in leadless pacemaker (LPM) patients has not yet been investigated. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to investigate sex-related differences in patients undergoing LPM implantation. METHODS: Consecutive patients enrolled in the i-LEAPER registry were analyzed. Comparisons between sexes were performed within the overall cohort using an adjusted analysis with 1:1 propensity matching for age and comorbidities. The primary outcome was the comparison of major complication rates. Sex-related differences regarding electrical performance and all-cause mortality during follow-up were deemed secondary outcomes. RESULTS: In the overall population (n = 1179 patients; median age 80 years), 64.3% were men. After propensity matching, 738 patients with no significant baseline differences among groups were identified. During median follow-up of 25 [interquartile range 24-39] months, female sex was not associated with LPM-related major complications (hazard ratio [HR] 2.03; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70-5.84; P = .190) or all-cause mortality (HR 0.98; 95% CI 0.40-2.42; P = .960). LPM electrical performance results were comparable between groups, except for a higher pacing impedance in women at implant and during follow-up (24 months: 670 [550-800] Ω vs 616 [530-770] Ω; P = .014) that remained within normal limits. CONCLUSION: In a real-world setting, we found differences in sex-related referral patterns for LPM implantation with an underrepresentation of women, although major complication rate and LPM performance were comparable between sexes. Female patients showed higher impedance values, which had no impact on overall device performance. Electrical parameters remained within normal limits in both groups during the entire follow-up.

Endocardial versus epicardial pacing in pacemaker-dependent patients after device extraction: a meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Pacemaker-dependent (PM) patients with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection require implantation of a temporary-pacemaker (TP) and delayed endocardial reimplantation or implantation of an epicardial-pacing-system (EPI) before device extraction. Our aim was to compare the TP and EPI-strategy after CIED extraction through a meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched electronic databases up to 25 March 2022, for observational studies that reported clinical outcomes of PM-dependent patients implanted with TP or EPI-strategy after device extraction. RESULTS: 3 studies were included enrolling 339 patients (TP: 156 patients; EPI: 183 patients). TP compared to EPI showed reduction in the composite outcome of relevant complications (all-cause death, infections, need for revision or upgrading of the reimplanted CIED) (12.1% vs 28.9%; RR: 0.45; 95%CI: 0.25-0.81; p = 0.008) and a trend in reduction of all-cause death (8.9% vs 14.2%; RR: 0.58; 95%CI: 0.33-1.05; p = 0.07). Furthermore, TP-strategy proved to reduce need of upgrading (0% vs 12%; RR: 0.07; 95%CI: 0.01-0.52; p = 0.009), reintervention on reimplanted CIED (1.9% vs 14.7%; RR: 0.15; 95%CI: 0.05-0.48; p = 0.001) and significant increase in pacing threshold (0% vs 5.4%; RR: 0.17; 95%CI: 0.03-0.92; p = 0.04), with a longer discharge time (MD: 9.60 days; 95%CI: 1.98-17.22; p = 0.01). CONCLUSION: TP-strategy led to a reduction of the composite outcome of all-cause death and complications, upgrading, reintervention on reimplanted CIED, and risk of increase in pacing threshold compared to EPI-strategy, with longer discharge time.