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.

Utilization of and perceived need for simulators in clinical electrophysiology: results from an EHRA physician survey.

AIMS: Simulator training has been recently introduced in electrophysiology (EP) programmes in order to improve catheter manipulation skills without complication risks. The aim of this study is to survey the current use of EP simulators and the perceived need for these tools in clinical training and practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 20-item online questionnaire developed by the Scientific Initiatives Committee of the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) in collaboration with EHRA Digital Committee was disseminated through the EHRA Scientific Research Network members, national EP groups, and social media platforms. Seventy-four respondents from 22 countries (73% males; 50% under 40 years old) completed the survey. Despite being perceived as useful among EP professionals (81%), EP simulators are rarely a part of the institutional cardiology training programme (20%) and only 18% of the respondents have an EP simulator at their institution. When available, simulators are mainly used in EP to train transseptal puncture, ablation, and mapping, followed by device implantation (cardiac resynchronization therapy [CRT], leadless, and conduction system pacing [CSP]). Almost all respondents (96%) believe that simulator programmes should be a part of the routine institutional EP training, hopefully developed by EHRA, in order to improve the efficacy and safety of EP procedures and in particular CSP 58%, CRT 42%, leadless pacing 38%, or complex arrhythmia ablations (VT 58%, PVI 45%, and PVC 42%). CONCLUSION: This current EHRA survey identified a perceived need but a lack of institutional simulator programme access for electrophysiologists who could benefit from it in order to speed up the learning curve process and reduce complications of complex EP procedures.

Evolving Concepts in Cardiac Physiologic Pacing in the Era of Conduction System Pacing.

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP) has become a well-established therapy for patients with cardiomyopathy (left ventricular ejection fraction <35%) in the presence of a left bundle branch block. In addition, CPP can be highly beneficial in patients with pacing-induced cardiomyopathy and patients with existing cardiomyopathy expected to have a right ventricular pacing burden of >40%. The benefits of CPP with traditional biventricular pacing are only realized if adequate resynchronization can be achieved. However, left ventricular lead implantation can be limited by individual anatomic variation within the coronary venous system and can be adversely affected by underlying abnormal myocardial substrate (i.e., scar tissue), especially if located within the basal lateral wall. In the last 7 years the investigation of conduction system pacing (CSP) and its potential salutary benefits are being realized and have led to a rapid evolution in the field of cardiac resynchronization pacing. However, supportive evidence for CSP for patients eligible for cardiac resynchronization remains limited compared with data available for biventricular cardiac resynchronization, mostly derived from leading CSP investigative centers. In this review, we perform an up-to-date comprehensive review of the available literature on CPP.

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.

Safety and efficacy of left bundle branch area pacing compared with right ventricular pacing in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Right Ventricular Pacing (RVP) may have detrimental effects in ventricular function. Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing (LBBAP) is a new pacing strategy that appears to have better results. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to compare the safety and efficacy of LBBAP vs RVP in patients with bradyarrhythmia and conduction system disorders. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE and Pubmed databases were searched for studies comparing LBBAP with RVP. Outcomes were all-cause mortality, atrial fibrillation (AF) occurrence, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH) and complications. QRS duration, mechanical synchrony and LVEF changes were also assessed. Pairwise meta-analysis was conducted using random and fixed effects models. RESULTS: Twenty-five trials with 4250 patients (2127 LBBAP) were included in the analysis. LBBAP was associated with lower risk for HFH (RR:0.33, CI 95%:0.21 to 0.50; p < 0.001), all-cause mortality (RR:0.52 CI 95%:0.34 to 0.80; p = 0.003), and AF occurrence (RR:0.43 CI 95%:0.27 to 0.68; p < 0.001) than RVP. Lead related complications were not different between the two groups (p = 0.780). QRSd was shorter in the LBBAP group at follow-up (WMD: -32.20 msec, CI 95%: -40.70 to -23.71; p < 0.001) and LBBAP achieved better intraventricular mechanical synchrony than RVP (SMD: -1.77, CI 95%: -2.45 to -1.09; p < 0.001). LBBAP had similar pacing thresholds (p = 0.860) and higher R wave amplitudes (p = 0.009) than RVP. CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP has better clinical outcomes, preserves ventricular electrical and mechanical synchrony and has excellent pacing parameters, with no difference in complications compared to RVP.

Cardiac Conduction System Pacing: A Comprehensive Update.

The field of cardiac pacing has changed rapidly in the last several years. Since the initial description of His bundle pacing targeting the conduction system, recent advances in pacing the left bundle branch and its fascicles have evolved. The field and investigators' knowledge of conduction system pacing including relevant anatomy and physiology has advanced significantly. The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive update on recent advances in conduction system pacing.

Cardiac pacing and lead devices management: 25 years of research at EP Europace journal.

AIMS: Cardiac pacing represents a key element in the field of electrophysiology and the treatment of conduction diseases. Since the first issue published in 1999, EP Europace has significantly contributed to the development and dissemination of the research in this area. METHODS: In the last 25 years, there has been a continuous improvement of technologies and a great expansion of clinical indications making the field of cardiac pacing a fertile ground for research still today. Pacemaker technology has rapidly evolved, from the first external devices with limited longevity, passing through conventional transvenous pacemakers to leadless devices. Constant innovations in pacemaker size, longevity, pacing mode, algorithms, and remote monitoring highlight that the fascinating and exciting journey of cardiac pacing is not over yet. CONCLUSION: The aim of the present review is to provide the current 'state of the art' on cardiac pacing highlighting the most important contributions from the Journal in the field.

Bilateral Bundle Branch Block.

Left bundle branch block (LBBB) and right bundle branch block (RBBB) are classic manifestations of bundle branch conduction disorders. However, a third form that is uncommon and underrecognized may exist that has features and pathophysiology of both: bilateral bundle branch block (BBBB). This unusual form of bundle branch block exhibits an RBBB pattern in lead V1 (terminal R wave) and an LBBB pattern in leads I and aVL (absence of S wave). This unique conduction disorder may confer an increased risk of adverse cardiovascular events. BBBB patients may be a subset of patients that respond well to cardiac resynchronization therapy.

Clinical outcomes of conduction system pacing versus biventricular pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is observed to produce greater improvements in echocardiographic and hemodynamic parameters as compared to conventional biventricular pacing (BiVP). However, whether these surrogate endpoints directly translate to improvements in hard clinical outcomes such as death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) with CSP remains uncertain as studies reporting these outcomes are scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to analyze the existing data to compare the clinical outcomes of CSP versus BiVP. METHODS: A systematic search of the Embase and PubMed database was performed for studies comparing CSP and BiVP for patients indicated to receive a CRT device. The coprimary endpoints were all-cause mortality and HFH. Other secondary outcomes included change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), change in NYHA class, and increase in NYHA class ≥1. A random-effects model was chosen a priori to analyze the composite effects given the anticipated heterogeneity of included trials. RESULTS: Twenty-one studies (4 randomized and 17 observational) were identified reporting either primary outcome and were included in the meta-analysis. In total 1960 patients were assigned to CSP and 2367 to BiVP. Median follow-up time was 10.1 months (ranging 2-33 months). CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality (odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.56-0.83) and HFH (OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.44-0.63). Mean improvement in LVEF was also greater with CSP (mean difference 4.26, 95% CI: 3.19-5.33). Reduction in NYHA class was significantly greater with CSP (mean difference -0.36, 95% CI: -0.49 to -0.22) and the number of patients with an increase in NYHA class ≥1 was significantly greater with CSP (OR 2.02, 95% CI: 1.70-2.40). CONCLUSIONS: CSP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality and HFH when compared to conventional BiVP for CRT. Further large-scale randomized trials are needed to verify these observations.

Predictors of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy detection and outcomes demonstration after conduction system pacing upgrade on patients with long-term persistent atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the predictors of pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) and illustrate the safety and feasibility of conduction system pacing (CSP) upgrade on patients with long-term persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: All patients with long-term persistent AF and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥50% were consecutively enrolled from January 2008 to December 2017, and all the patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) and high right ventricular pacing (RVP) percentage of at least 40%. The predictors of PICM were identified, and patients with PICM were followed up for at least 1 year regardless of CSP upgrade. Cardiac performances and lead outcomes were investigated in all patients before and after CSP upgrade. RESULTS: The present study included 139 patients, out of which 37 (26.62%) developed PICM, resulting in a significant decrease in the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) from 56.11 ± 2.56% to 38.10 ± 5.81% (p< .01). The median duration for the development of PICM was 5.43 years. Lower LVEF (≤52.50%), longer paced QRS duration (≥175 ms), and higher RVP percentage (≥96.80%) were identified as independent predictors of PICM. Furthermore, the morbidity of PICM progressively increased with an increased number of predictors. The paced QRS duration (183.90 ± 22.34 ms vs. 136.57 ± 20.71 ms, p < .01), LVEF (39.35 ± 2.71% vs. 47.50 ± 7.43%, p < .01), and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (55.53 ± 5.67 mm vs. 53.20 ± 5.78 mm, p = .03) improved significantly on patients accepting CSP upgrade. CSP responses and complete reverse remodeling (LVEF ≥50% and LVEDD < 50 mm) were detected in 80.95% (17/21) and 42.9% (9/21) of patients. The pacing threshold (1.52 ± 0.78 V/0.4 ms vs. 1.27 ± 0.59 V/0.4 ms, p = .16) was stable after follow-up. CONCLUSION: PICM is very common in patients with long-term persistent AF, and CSP upgrade was favorable for better cardiac performance in this patient population.

Clinical Outcomes in Conduction System Pacing Compared to Right Ventricular Pacing in Bradycardia.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) provides more physiological ventricular activation than right ventricular pacing (RVP). OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes in patients receiving CSP and RVP. METHODS: Consecutive patients with pacemakers implanted for bradycardia from 2016 to 2021 in 2 centers were prospectively followed for the primary composite outcome of heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, upgrade to biventricular pacing, or all-cause mortality, stratified by ventricular pacing burden (Vp) . RESULTS: Among 860 patients (mean age 74 ± 11 years, 48% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 628 received RVP and 231 received CSP (95 His-bundle pacing, 136 left bundle branch pacing). The primary outcome occurred in 217 (25%) patients, more commonly in patients with RVP than CSP (30% vs 13%, P < 0.001). In multivariable analyses, CSP was independently associated with 47% reduction of the primary outcome (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 0.53; 95% CI: 0.29-0.97; P = 0.04) and HF hospitalization alone (AHR: 0.40; 95% CI: 0.17-0.95; P = 0.04), among only patients with Vp >20%. The incidence of the primary outcome was highest among RVP with Vp >20% and lowest in CSP with Vp >20% (35% vs 10%, P < 0.001). Compared with RVP with Vp >20%, both CSP with Vp >20% (AHR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28-0.91; P = 0.02) and all patients with Vp ≤20% (AHR: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.54-0.99; P = 0.04) were independently associated with reduced primary outcome, driven primarily by reductions in HF hospitalizations (P < 0.05). Event-free survival was similar between CSP with Vp >20% and those needing ≤20% Vp. CONCLUSIONS: CSP significantly reduced adverse clinical outcomes for bradycardic patients requiring ventricular pacing and should be the preferred pacing modality of choice.

Outcomes of conduction system pacing for cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients with heart failure: A multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Whether conduction system pacing (CSP) is an alternative option for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with heart failure remains an area of active investigation. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the echocardiographic and clinical outcomes of CSP compared to biventricular pacing (BiVP). METHODS: This multicenter retrospective study included patients who fulfilled CRT indications and received CSP. Patients with CSP were matched using propensity score matching and compared in a 1:1 ratio to patients who received BiVP. Echocardiographic and clinical outcomes were assessed. Response to CRT was defined as an absolute increase of ≥5% in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) at 6 months post-CRT. RESULTS: A total of 238 patients were included. Mean age was 69.8 ± 12.5 years, and 66 (27.7%) were female. Sixty-nine patients (29%) had His-bundle pacing, 50 (21%) had left bundle branch area pacing, and 119 (50%) had BiVP. Mean follow-up duration in the CSP and BiVP groups was 269 ± 202 days and 304 ± 262 days, respectively (P = .293). The proportion of CRT responders was greater in the CSP group than in the BiVP group (74% vs 60%, respectively; P = .042). On Kaplan-Meier analysis, there was no statistically significant difference in the time to first heart failure hospitalization (log-rank P = .78) and overall survival (log-rank P = .68) between the CSP and BiVP groups. CONCLUSION: In patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction, CSP resulted in greater improvement in LVEF compared to BiVP. Large-scale randomized trials are needed to validate these outcomes and further investigate the different options available for CSP.

Incidence and management of atrioventricular conduction disorders in new-onset left bundle branch block after TAVI: A prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: New-onset left bundle branch block (LBBB) is one of the most frequent complications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and is associated with delayed high degree atrioventricular (AV) block. OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this study were to determine the incidence of AV block in such a population and to assess the performance and safety of a risk stratification algorithm on the basis of electrophysiology study (EPS) followed by implantation of a pacemaker or implantable loop recorder (ILR). METHODS: This was a prospective open-label study with 12-month follow-up. From June 8, 2015, to November 8, 2018, 183 TAVI recipients (mean age 82.3 ± 5.9 years) were included at 10 centers. New-onset LBBB after TAVI persisting for >24 hours was assessed by electrophysiology study during initial hospitalization. High-risk patients (His-ventricle interval ≥70 ms) were implanted with a dual-chamber pacemaker recording AV conduction disturbance episodes. Patients at lower risk were implanted with an ILR with automatic remote monitoring. RESULTS: A high-grade AV conduction disorder was identified in 56 patients (30.6%) at 12 months. Four subjects were symptomatic, all in the ILR group. No complications were associated with the stratification procedure. Patients with His-ventricle interval ≥70 ms displayed more high-grade AV conduction disorders (53.2% [25 of 47] vs 22.8% [31 of 136]; P < .001). In a multivariate analysis, His-ventricle interval ≥70 ms was independently associated with the occurrence of a high-grade conduction disorder (subdistribution hazard ratio 2.4; 95% confidence interval 1.2-4.8; P = .010). CONCLUSION: New-onset LBBB after TAVI was associated with high rates of high-grade AV conduction disturbances. The stratification algorithm provided safe and valuable aid to management decisions and reliable guidance on pacemaker implantation.

Upgrading right ventricular pacemakers to biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Guidelines recommend patients undergoing a first pacemaker implant who have even mild left ventricular (LV) impairment should receive biventricular or conduction system pacing (CSP). There is no corresponding recommendation for patients who already have a pacemaker. We conducted a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies assessing device upgrades. The primary outcome was the echocardiographic change in LV ejection fraction (LVEF). Six RCTs (randomizing 161 patients) and 47 observational studies (2644 patients) assessing the efficacy of upgrade to biventricular pacing were eligible for analysis. Eight observational studies recruiting 217 patients of CSP upgrade were also eligible. Fourteen additional studies contributed data on complications (25 412 patients). Randomized controlled trials of biventricular pacing upgrade showed LVEF improvement of +8.4% from 35.5% and observational studies: +8.4% from 25.7%. Observational studies of left bundle branch area pacing upgrade showed +11.1% improvement from 39.0% and observational studies of His bundle pacing upgrade showed +12.7% improvement from 36.0%. New York Heart Association class decreased by -0.4, -0.8, -1.0, and -1.2, respectively. Randomized controlled trials of biventricular upgrade found improvement in Minnesota Heart Failure Score (-6.9 points) and peak oxygen uptake (+1.1 mL/kg/min). This was also seen in observational studies of biventricular upgrades (-19.67 points and +2.63 mL/kg/min, respectively). In studies of the biventricular upgrade, complication rates averaged 2% for pneumothorax, 1.4% for tamponade, and 3.7% for infection over 24 months of mean follow-up. Lead-related complications occurred in 3.3% of biventricular upgrades and 1.8% of CSP upgrades. Randomized controlled trials show significant physiological and symptomatic benefits of upgrading pacemakers to biventricular pacing. Observational studies show similar effects between biventricular pacing upgrade and CSP upgrade.

Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Pacing in Heart Failure and Wide QRS Patients: LEVEL-AT Trial.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as an alternative to biventricular pacing (BiVP). Randomized studies comparing both therapies are scarce and do not include left bundle branch pacing. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare ventricular resynchronization achieved by CSP vs BiVP in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication. METHODS: LEVEL-AT (Left Ventricular Activation Time Shortening with Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Resynchronization Therapy) was a randomized, parallel, controlled, noninferiority trial. Seventy patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication were randomized 1:1 to BiVP or CSP, and followed up for 6 months. Crossover was allowed when primary allocation procedure failed. Primary endpoint was the change in left ventricular activation time, measured using electrocardiographic imaging. Secondary endpoints were left ventricular reverse remodeling and the combined endpoint of heart failure hospitalization or death at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients were allocated to each group. Eight (23%) patients crossed over from CSP to BiVP; 2 patients (6%) crossed over from BiVP to CSP. Electrocardiographic imaging could not be performed in 2 patients in each group. A similar decrease in left ventricular activation time was achieved by CSP and BiVP (-28 ± 26 ms vs -21 ± 20 ms, respectively; mean difference -6.8 ms; 95% CI: -18.3 ms to 4.6 ms; P < 0.001 for noninferiority). Both groups showed a similar change in left ventricular end-systolic volume (-37 ± 59 mL CSP vs -30 ± 41 mL BiVP; mean difference: -8 mL; 95% CI: -33 mL to 17 mL; P = 0.04 for noninferiority) and similar rates of mortality or heart failure hospitalizations (2.9% vs 11.4%, respectively) (P = 0.002 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Similar degrees of cardiac resynchronization, ventricular reverse remodeling, and clinical outcomes were attained by CSP as compared to BiVP. CSP could be a feasible alternative to BiVP. (LEVEL-AT [Left Ventricular Activation Time Shortening With Conduction System Pacing vs Biventricular Resynchronization Therapy]; NCT04054895).

Bradykarde Herzrhythmusstörungen ­ neue Devices und Techniken.

Abnormalities of the sinus node, atrial tissue, atrioventricular node tissue, and specialized conduction system can all contribute to bradycardia. For this reason, the diagnosis and treatment of bradycardia have become challenging. In order to further optimize the assessment and treatment of patients with bradycardia, new guidelines on cardiac pacemaker therapy and cardiac resynchronization therapy were published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) last year. These include new recommendations for diagnostics, dealing with reflex syncope and treatment algorithms for syncope and bundle branch block. The use of leadless pacemakers is being discussed in selected and especially multimorbid patients as an alternative to conventional transvenous pacemaker implantation. Conduction system pacing as a physiological form of stimulation was included in the guidelines for the first time.

Monitoring conduction disturbances following TAVR: Feasibility study of early discharge using a novel telemetry patch.

INTRODUCTION: Despite the technological advances and increasing operator experience, the rate of permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) after transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) has not decreased over time. With a continuous downward trend in post-TAVR length of stay, prolonged home-monitoring may have a key role in detecting potentially serious conduction abnormalities after TAVR discharge. METHODS: In this study, the ZioPatch-AT monitor was used to detect conduction abnormalities after TAVR discharge. The cardiac monitoring device was systematically provided to all patients having pre-existing right bundle branch block or developing intra-/peri-procedural conduction disturbances, in the absence of guideline indication for PPI at discharge. RESULTS: From a total of 75 patients at high-risk of conduction disturbances, 8 (11%) of them underwent PPI and most of them (6/8) were detected before symptoms' occurrence. Paired analysis between baseline and discharge electrocardiograms detected a significant widening of the QRS in all patients; on the contrary, PR length was significantly increased only in the group experiencing HAVB after discharge (p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In an early post-TAVR discharge era, 30-day outpatient cardiac rhythm monitoring is potentially a safe solution to allow timely recognition of new conduction disturbances requiring PPI.

Management of conduction disorders after transcatheter aortic valve implantation: results of the EHRA survey.

Conduction disorders such as left bundle branch block (LBBB) are common after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Consensus regarding a reasonable strategy to manage conduction disturbances after TAVI has been elusive. The European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) conducted a survey to capture contemporary clinical practice for conduction disorders after TAVI. A 25-item online questionnaire was developed and distributed among the EHRA electrophysiology (EP) research network centres. Of 117 respondents, 44% were affiliated with university hospitals. A standardized management protocol for advanced conduction disorders such as LBBB or atrioventricular block (AVB) after TAVI was available in 63% of participating centres. Telemetry after TAVI was chosen as the most frequent management strategy for patients with new-onset or pre-existing LBBB (79% and 70%, respectively). Duration of telemetry in patients with new-onset LBBB varied, with a 48-h period being the most frequently chosen, but almost half monitoring continued for at least 72 h. Similarly, in patients undergoing EP study due to new-onset LBBB, the HV interval cut-off point leading to pacemaker implantation was heterogeneous among European centres, although an HV >75 ms threshold was the most common. Conduction system pacing was chosen as a preferred approach by 3.7% of respondents for patients with LBBB and normal left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and by 5.6% for patients with LBBB and reduced LVEF. This survey suggests some heterogenity in the management of conduction disorders after TAVI across European centres. The risk stratification strategies vary substantially. Conduction system pacing in patients with LBBB after TAVI is still underused.

Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular pacing (RVP) may cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony leading to impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We investigated the outcomes of RVP with His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker (PPM) for bradyarrhythmia. METHODS AND RESULTS: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing HBP or LBP with RVP for de novo PPM implantation between 01 January 2013 and 17 November 2020 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), LVEF, QRS duration, lead revision, atrial fibrillation, procedure parameters, and pacing metrics. Overall, 9 studies were included (6 observational, 3 randomised). HBP compared with RVP was associated with decreased HFH (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49-0.94), preservation of LVEF (mean difference [MD] 0.81, 95% CI - 1.23 to 2.85 vs. - 5.72, 95% CI - 7.64 to -3.79), increased procedure duration (MD 15.17 min, 95% CI 11.30-19.04), and increased lead revisions (RR 5.83, 95% CI 2.17-15.70, p = 0.0005). LBBP compared with RVP was associated with shorter paced QRS durations (MD 5.6 ms, 95% CI - 6.4 to 17.6) vs. (51.0 ms, 95% CI 39.2-62.9) and increased procedure duration (MD 37.78 min, 95% CI 20.04-55.51). CONCLUSION: Of the limited studies published, this meta-analysis found that HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in maintaining physiological ventricular activation as an initial pacing strategy.