Initial experience of left bundle branch area pacing using stylet-driven pacing leads: A multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been performed exclusively using lumen-less pacing leads (LLL) with fixed helix design. This registry study explores the safety and feasibility of LBBAP using stylet-driven leads (SDL) with extendable helix design in a multicenter patient population. METHODS: This study prospectively enrolled consecutive patients who underwent LBBAP for bradycardia pacing or heart failure indications at eight Belgian hospitals. LBBAP was attempted using SDL (Solia S60; Biotronik) delivered through dedicated delivery sheath (Selectra3D). Implant success, complications, procedural, and pacing characteristics were recorded at implant and follow-up. RESULTS: The study enrolled 353 patients (mean age 76 ± 39 years, 43% female). The mean number of implants per center was 25 (range: 5-162). Overall, LBBAP with SDL was successful in 334/353 (94%), varying from 93% to 100% among centers. Pacing response was labeled as left bundle branch pacing in 73%, whereas 27% were labeled as myocardial capture. Mean paced QRS duration and stimulus to left ventricular activation time measured 126 ± 21 ms and 74 ± 17. SDL-LBBAP resulted in low pacing thresholds (0.6 ± 0.4 V at 0.4 ms), which remained stable at 12 months follow-up (0.7 ± 0.3, p = .291). Lead revisions for SDL-LBBAP occurred in 5 (1.4%) patients occurred during a mean follow up of 9 ± 5 months. Five (1.4%) septal coronary artery fistulas and 8 (2%) septal perforations occurred, none of them causing persistent ventricular septal defects. CONCLUSION: The use of SDL to achieve LBBAP is safe and feasible, characterized by high implant success in low and high volume centers, low complication rates, and stable low pacing thresholds.

Ten year experience with the concomitant Maze IV procedure for atrial fibrillation.

OBJECTIVE: The Maze IV (M-IV) procedure is regarded as the golden standard in treatment for surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF); however, long-term follow-up results are scarce. We present our institutional 10-year experience. METHODS: We collected data of 117 consecutive patients who have undergone a concomitant M-IV procedure between April 2006 and April 2016. Primary endpoints are freedom of atrial arrhythmias and freedom of atrial arrhythmias off antiarrhythmic drugs (AAD). RESULTS: Forty-seven patients (40.2%) had paroxysmal AF. Two-thirds of the procedures included mitral valve surgery. The average follow-up time per patient was 3.8 years (SD 2.8). Freedom of AF at 1 year was 79%, at 5 years freedom of AF was 69% and freedom of AF off AAD was 56%. Predictors of AF recurrence in multivariate analysis were age, preoperative pacemakers, redo cardiac surgery and in-hospital AF. Preoperative PVI ablation was found to be a protective factor. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term outcomes of the M-IV procedure are good and remain stable over the years. Results could be improved if follow-up were to be intensified and recurrences dealt with aggressively. Key question: How many patients are free from AF in a 10-year period after concomitant M-IV surgical ablation? Key findings: In the long term around 70% of patients are free of AF with an increasing need for anti-arrhythmic drugs. Take home message: Early to midterm freedom from AF after concomitant M-IV procedure is high and remains stable after 3 years.

Left ventricular sensing and pacing for sensing difficulties in internal cardioverter defibrillator therapy for arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy.

Arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy (ARVC) is a disease where therapy with an internal cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is frequently indicated, but the use of these devices is often challenged because of sensing dysfunction with low right ventricular sensing amplitude. We present the case of an ARVC patient in whom ICD sensing difficulties were overcome by the implantation of a coronary sinus lead for pacing and sensing.