Transvenous extraction of conduction system pacing leads: An international multicenter (TECSPAM) study.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) by His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is incorporated into Heart Rhythm Society guidelines for the management of bradycardia and cardiac resynchronization therapy. Despite increasing adoption with both lumenless leads and stylet-driven leads, concerns regarding the feasibility and safety of the extraction of CSP leads remain. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to report on the safety, feasibility, and clinical outcomes of the extraction of CSP leads. METHODS: Patients undergoing the extraction of CSP leads from 10 international centers were enrolled in this retrospective study. Data regarding indications, lead location, lead type, extraction tools, procedural success, complications, and reimplantation in the conduction system were collected. RESULTS: Overall, 341 patients (age 69 ± 15 years; female 34%; cardiomyopathy 46%; lead dwell time 22 ± 26 months) underwent the extraction of 224 His bundle pacing and 117 LBBAP leads (lumenless leads 321; stylet-driven leads 20). Complete procedural success was achieved in 338 (99%), while clinical success was 100% with retained distal fragments in 3 patients (1%). Among patients with a lead dwell time of >6 months (6-193 months; n = 226), manual extraction was successful in 198 (87%), mechanical tools in 22 (10%), and laser in 6 (3%). Femoral tools were necessary in 3 patients. Minor complications occurred in 7 patients (2.1%). CSP reimplantation was successful in 233 of 244 patients attempted (95%). CONCLUSION: The overall success rates of the extraction of CSP leads were very high (although the LBBAP lead dwell time was <3 years), with a low need for extraction tools and minimal complication. Reimplantation in the conduction system is feasible and safe.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP. METHODS: The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model. RESULTS: Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.

Adjunct posterior wall isolation reduces the recurrence of atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing cryoballoon ablation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Recurrence rates of atrial fibrillation (AF) remain high even after complete wide area circumferential pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). In recent years adjunct posterior wall isolation (PWI) has been performed in patients with more persistent forms of AF but the benefits remain unclear. AIM: The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of adjunct posterior wall isolation in reducing recurrence rates of AF using cryoballoon ablation (CBA). METHODS: We searched PubMed, Google Scholar, Clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane CENTRAL. We included studies comparing PVI to PVI + PWI in patients with either persistent or paroxysmal AF (PAF) undergoing CBA. After data extraction and quality assessment of the studies, we assessed recurrence rates of atrial tachy-arrhythmias (AF, atrial flutter, and atrial tachycardia) as well as total ablation time and procedural adverse events. Risk ratio (RR), mean difference (MD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Review Manager. RESULTS: Concomitant PWI exhibited a substantial reduction in the risk of AF recurrence (RR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.42-0.63, p < .00001), as well as all atrial arrhythmias (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.49-0.68, p < .00001). On subgroup analysis, in patients with only PAF, adjunct PWI resulted in significant reduction in recurrence risk of AF (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41-0.76, p = .0002) as well. There was no significant difference in adverse events between both groups (RR: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.44-1.86; p = .78), whereas total ablation time was significantly increased in PVI + PWI group (MD: 21.75; 95% CI: 11.13-32.37, p < .0001). CONCLUSION: Adjunct PWI when compared to PVI alone decreases recurrence rates of atrial fibrillation after CBA of patients with persistent as well as paroxysmal atrial fibrillation.

Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: This observational study included patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included endpoints of death, HFH, and echocardiographic changes. RESULTS: A total of 1,778 patients met inclusion criteria: 981 BVP, 797 LBBAP. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% ± 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 ± 19 ms vs 161 ± 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 ± 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% ± 6% to 41% ± 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% ± 7% to 37% ± 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% ± 12% vs 10% ± 12%; P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, the primary outcome was significantly reduced with LBBAP compared with BVP (20.8% vs 28%; HR: 1.495; 95% CI: 1.213-1.842; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.

Insertable cardiac monitoring devices versus external cardiac monitoring for detecting atrial fibrillation and preventing the recurrence of stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is a major risk factor for stroke, which is the second leading cause of death worldwide. It remains uncertain whether insertable cardiac monitors (ICMs) enhance the ability to recognize AF over external cardiac monitoring in patients who have experienced a stroke. AIM: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine whether ICM devices are more effective than external cardiac monitoring for the detection of AF in stroke patients. METHODS: We included studies that reported an AF detection rate in stroke patients with a follow-up of at least 12 months. We analyzed the data of 1233 patients from 3 randomized control trials (RCTs). RESULTS: When compared to external cardiac monitoring, ICM devices (Medtronic Reveal LINQ and Reveal XT) showed a significantly higher detection rate of AF (RR = 5.04, 95% CI = 2.93-8.68; p < 0.05; ARR = 10.47%, NNT = 10). The ICM arm had significantly higher usage of oral anticoagulants (OAC) as compared to the control arm. (RR = 2.76, 95% CI = 1.89-4.02, p < 0.05). Additionally, ICM usage was associated with a higher incidence of mild to moderate adverse events (RR = 10.52, 95% CI =1.35-82.14; p = 0.02) and a higher number of severe adverse events as compared to the control arm (RR = 7.61, 95% CI = 1.36-42.51; p = 0.02). CONCLUSION: ICM devices are associated with better detection rates of AF and higher usage of OAC as compared to external cardiac monitoring in post-stroke patients. However, ICM insertion is associated with a higher incidence of mild/moderate and severe adverse effects.

Tc-99m PSMA and Lu-177 PSMA Theranostic Pair in a Patient of Metastatic Castration Resistant Prostate Cancer.

Prostate specific membrane antigen (PSMA) targeted PET-CT imaging labeled with Gallium-68 (68Ga) is a standard diagnostic investigation in patients of carcinoma of prostate, for detection of primary tumour, initial staging of high risk disease for metastases as well as detection of recurrence. 99mTechnetium labeled PSMA SPECT-CT is a more cost-effective and logistically simple alternative for it. We present pre-therapy images of 99mTc-PSMA and post-therapy scan with 177Lu- PSMA in the same patient.