Multicenter prospective comparison of conventional and high-power short duration radiofrequency application for pulmonary vein isolation: the high-power short-duration radiofrequency application for faster and safer pulmonary vein ablation (POWER FAST III) trial.

BACKGROUND: Electrical isolation of pulmonary veins (PV) with high-power short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency application (RFa) may reduce the duration of atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, without compromising the procedural efficacy and safety in comparison with the conventional approach. This hypothesis has been generated in several observational studies; the POWER FAST III will test it in a randomized multicenter clinical trial. METHODS: It is a multicenter randomized, open-label and non-inferiority clinical trial with two parallel groups. AF ablation using 70 W and 9-10 s RFa is compared with the conventional technique using 25-40 W RFa guided by numerical lesion indexes. The main efficacy objective is the incidence of atrial arrhythmia recurrences electrocardiographically documented during 1-year follow-up. The main safety objective is the incidence of endoscopically detected esophageal thermal lesions (EDEL). This trial includes a substudy of incidence of asymptomatic cerebral lesions detected by magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) after ablation. RESULTS: A randomized clinical trial compares for the first time high-power short-duration and conventional ablation in order to obtain data about the efficacy and safety of the high-power technique in an adequate methodological context. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the POWER FAST III could support the use of the high-power short-duration ablation in clinical practice. REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NTC04153747.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in non-ischemic cardiomyopathy: a comparative non-randomized study of His Bundle pacing versus biventricular pacing.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via permanent His bundle pacing (pHBP) has gained acceptance globally, but robust studies comparing pHBP-CRT with classic CRT are lacking. In this study, we aimed to compare the improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) after pHBP-CRT versus classic CRT. METHODS: This was a single-center study comparing a prospective series of pHBP-CRT with a historical series of CRT via classic biventricular pacing (BVP). Patients with non-ischemic cardiomyopathy, baseline LVEF < 35%, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and CRT indications were selected. RESULTS: Fifty-one patients underwent classic CRT and 52 patients underwent pHBP-CRT. In the classic CRT group, the median (interquartile range) basal LVEF was 30% (IQR, 29-35%) before implantation and 40% (35-48%) at follow-up. In the pHBP-CRT group, the median basal LVEF was 30% (28-34%) before implantation and 55% (45-60%) at follow-up, with significant differences between both modalities at follow-up (p = 0.001). The median long term His recruitment threshold with LBBB correction was 1.25 (1-2.5) V at 0.4 ms in cases of pHBP-CRT, compared to a left ventricular coronary sinus threshold of 1.25 (1-1.75) V in cases of classic CRT (p = 0.48). After CRT, the median paced QRS was 135 (120-145) ms for pHBP-CRT versus 140 (130-150) ms for BVP-CRT (p = 0.586). CONCLUSIONS: The improvement in LVEF was superior with pHBP-CRT than with classic CRT. The thresholds at follow-up were similar in both groups.

Effectiveness and safety of AV node ablation after His bundle pacing in patients with uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias.

INTRODUCTION: In patients with uncontrolled atrial fibrillation, atrioventricular (AV) node ablation after permanent His bundle pacing (p-HBP) could be a therapeutic option for heart rate (HR) control. We aimed to demonstrate the advantages of AV node ablation with p-HBP, and to describe its effectiveness and safety. METHODS: This descriptive observational study included patients with uncontrolled permanent atrial arrhythmias who were candidates for HR control (January 2019 to July 2020) and underwent p-HBP and AV node ablation. RESULTS: A total of 39 patients were included. The median left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 55% (45-60); 46.1% in NYHA class II and 43.6% in NYHA class III. p-HBP was achieved in 92.3% (n = 36), and AV node ablation was successfully performed in all patients. The LVEF improved in patients with reduced LVEF (baseline, 35% [23.8-45.3%]; follow-up, 40% [35-56.5%], p < 0.05); the NYHA class also showed improvement (baseline, 71.4% patients in class III and 7.1% in class II, and at follow-up, 78.6% patients in class II and 14.3% in class I). In patients with previously normal LVEF, LVEF remained stable; nevertheless, a significant NYHA class improvement was observed (baseline, 63.6% class II and 31.8% class III patients; follow-up, 54.5% class I and 45.5% class II patients). The His thresholds and lead parameter values did not significantly change during the follow-up and remained stable. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with uncontrolled atrial arrhythmias who underwent AV node ablation after p-HBP, the NYHA class improved and the LVEF increased in those with reduced baseline LVEF. The values of pacing parameters were acceptable and remained stable during the follow-up.

Electrocardiographic patterns predictive of left bundle branch block correction with His bundle pacing.

INTRODUCTION: Permanent His bundle pacing (p-HBP) could be an alternative for traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), but an important limitation is that p-HBP cannot always correct the left bundle branch block (LBBB). The purpose of this article is to assess electrocardiographic patterns of LBBB that can predict electrocardiographic response (QRS narrowing) to His bundle pacing. METHODS: We designed a prospective descriptive study of patients with LBBB and CRT indication proposed for CRT by p-HBP. We analyzed the correlation between the different electrocardiographic patterns and the correction of conduction disturbance (LBBB). RESULTS: We included 70 patients. Pacing at the location where His bundle electrogram was recorded narrowed the QRS in 81.4% (n = 57). Basically, we identified two electrocardiographic patterns in lead V1: QS or rS. The QS pattern was a sensitivity of 56%, a specificity of 84.6%, and a positive predictive value (PPV) of 94.1% to predict the correction of the LBBB (area under the curve [AUC] = .70). In patients with rS pattern, a ratio between the descending and the ascending S wave component duration ≥0.64 was a very good predictor of the correction of the LBBB (AUC = .968); with a value ≥0.64, the sensitivity, specificity, and PPV was 92%, 100%, and 100%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with LBBB and CRT indication, the QS pattern in lead V1 predicts the correction of the QRS with HBP. In the case of rS pattern in lead V1, the ratio descending/ascending S wave component duration has a strong correlation with the LBBB correction.

Early improvement of left ventricular ejection fraction by cardiac resynchronization through His bundle pacing in patients with heart failure.

AIMS: Permanent His bundle pacing (p-HBP) can correct intraventricular conduction disorders and could be an alternative to traditional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via the coronary sinus. We describe the short-term impact of HBP on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and improvement of left intraventricular synchrony. METHODS AND RESULTS: This prospective descriptive study, performed from January 2018 to February 2019, included patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and an CRT indication who were resynchronized by p-HBP. We used the Medtronic C315 His catheter or a combination of the CPS-Direct-Universal introducer, CPS-AIM™-Universal subselector (Abbot), and SelectSecure™ MRI-SureScan™ 3830 lead. Correction of the LBBB by HBP had been previously checked. At 1 month of follow-up, we analysed the quantification of LVEF and measurement of the delay of the septal wall with the posterior wall as a parameter of intraventricular synchrony. We included 48 patients with LBBB and an indication for CRT. With HBP, we corrected the LBBB in 81% of patients (n = 39), and we achieved cardiac resynchronization through permanent HBP in 92% of these patients (n = 36). Left ventricular ejection fraction and intraventricular mechanical resynchronization improved in all patients, which was demonstrated by echocardiography through the improvement of the delay of the septal wall with the posterior wall from 138 ms (range 131-151) to 41 ms (19-63). CONCLUSION: There is early improvement after p-HBP in LVEF and left ventricular electromechanical synchronization in patients with LBBB, heart failure, and an indication for CRT.

Intoxicación por metanol. ¿Otra fuente de donantes? / Methanol posioning Is it another source of donors?

No disponible