RESUMEN
Aims: With recurrence rates up to 50% after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in persistent atrial fibrillation (AF), predictive tools to improve patient selection are needed. Patient selection based on left atrial late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) has been proposed previously (UTAH-classification). However, this approach has not been widely established, in part owed to the lack of standardization of the LGE quantification method. We have recently established a standardized LGE-CMR method enabling reproducible LGE-quantification. Here, the ability of this method to predict outcome after PVI was evaluated. Methods and results: This dual-centre study (n = 219) consists of a prospective derivation cohort (n = 37, all persistent AF) and an external validation cohort (n = 182; 66 persistent, 116 paroxysmal AF). All patients received an LGE-CMR prior to first-time PVI-only ablation. LGE was quantified based on the signal-intensity-ratio relative to the blood pool, applying a uniform LGE-defining threshold of >1.2. In patients with persistent AF in the derivation cohort, left atrial LGE-extent above a cut-off value of 12% was found to best predict relevant low-voltage substrate (≥2â cm two with <0.5â mV during sinus rhythm) and arrhythmia-free survival 12 months post-PVI. When applied to the external validation cohort, this cut-off value was also predictive of arrhythmia-free survival for both, the total cohort and the subgroup with persistent AF (LGE < 12%: 80% and 76%; LGE > 12%: 55% and 44%; P = 0.007 and P = 0.029, respectively). Conclusion: This dual-centre study established and validated a standardized, reproducible LGE-CMR method discriminating PVI responders from non-responders, which may improve choice of therapeutic approach or ablation strategy for patients with persistent AF.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP), as either His bundle or left bundle branch pacing, could be an alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (BiVCRT) for patients with left ventricular dysfunction needing ventricular pacing due to atrioventricular block. The aim of the study is to compare the echocardiographic response and clinical improvement between HPCSP and BiVCRT. METHODS: Consecutive patients who successfully received HPCSP were compared with a historical cohort of BiVCRT patients. Patients were 1:1 matched by age, LVEF, atrial fibrillation, renal function and cardiomyopathy type. Responders were defined as patients who survived, did not require heart transplantation and increased LVEF ≥5 points at 6-month follow-up. RESULTS: HPCSP was successfully achieved in 92.5% (25/27) of patients. During follow-up, 8% (2/25) of HPCSP patients died and 4% (1/25) received a heart transplant, whereas 4% (1/25) of those in the BiVCRT cohort died. LVEF improvement was 10% ± 8% HPCSP versus 7% ± 5% BiVCRT (p = .24), and the percentage of responders was 76% (19/25) HPCSP versus 64% (16/25) BiVCRT (p = .33). Among survivors, the percentage of patients who improved from baseline II-IV mitral regurgitation (MR) to 0-I MR was 9/11 (82%) versus 2/8 (25%) (p = .02). Compared to those with BiVCRT, patients with HPCSP achieved better NYHA improvement: 1 point versus 0.5 (OR 0.34; p = .02). CONCLUSION: HPCSP in patients with LVEF ≤45% and atrioventricular block improved the LVEF and induced a response similar to that of BiVCRT. HPCSP significantly improved MR and NYHA functional class. HPCSP may be an alternative to BiVCRT in these patients. (Figure 1. Central Illustration). [Figure: see text].
