Sequencing and titrating approach of therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction following the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines: an international cardiology survey.

AIMS: In symptomatic patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), recent international guidelines recommend initiating four major therapeutic classes rather than sequential initiation. It remains unclear how this change in guidelines is perceived by practicing cardiologists versus heart failure (HF) specialists. METHODS AND RESULTS: An independent academic web-based survey was designed by a group of HF specialists and posted by email and through various social networks to a broad community of cardiologists worldwide 1 year after the publication of the latest European HF guidelines. Overall, 615 cardiologists (38 [32-47] years old, 63% male) completed the survey, of which 58% were working in a university hospital and 26% were HF specialists. The threshold to define HFrEF was ≤40% for 61% of the physicians. Preferred drug prescription for the sequential approach was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors first (74%), beta-blockers second (55%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists third (52%), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (53%) fourth. Eighty-four percent of participants felt that starting all four classes was feasible within the initial hospitalization, and 58% felt that titration is less important than introducing a new class. Age, status in training, and specialization in HF field were the principal characteristics that significantly impacted the answers. CONCLUSION: In a broad international cardiology community, the 'historical approach' to HFrEF therapies remains the preferred sequencing approach. However, accelerated introduction and uptitration are also major treatment goals. Strategy trials in treatment guidance are needed to further change practices.

Biventricular versus Conduction System Pacing after Atrioventricular Node Ablation in Heart Failure Patients with Atrial Fibrillation.

Conduction system pacing (CSP) modalities, including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), are increasingly used as alternatives to biventricular (BiV) pacing in heart failure (HF) patients scheduled for pace and ablate strategy. The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes of HF patients with refractory AF who received either BiV pacing or CSP in conjunction with atrio-ventricular node ablation (AVNA). Fifty consecutive patients (male 48%, age 70 years (IQR 9), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 39% (IQR 12)) were retrospectively analysed. Thirteen patients (26%) received BiV pacing, 27 patients (54%) HBP and 10 patients (20%) LBBP. All groups had similar baseline characteristics and acute success rate. While New York Heart. Association (NYHA) class improved in both HBP (p < 0.001) and LBBP (p = 0.008), it did not improve in BiV group (p = 0.096). At follow-up, LVEF increased in HBP (form 39% (IQR 15) to 49% (IQR 16), p < 0.001) and LBBP (from 28% (IQR 13) to 40% (IQR 13), p = 0.041), but did not change in BiV group (p = 0.916). Conduction system pacing modalities showed superior symptomatic and echocardiographic improvement compared to BiV pacing after AVNA. With more stable pacing parameters, LBBP could present a more feasible pacing option compared to HBP.

Biventricular versus His bundle pacing after atrioventricular node ablation in heart failure patients with narrow QRS.

Background: His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to biventricular (BiV) pacing. We compared short-term results of both pacing approaches in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with moderately reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF ≥35% and <50%) and narrow QRS (≤120 ms) who underwent atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA).Methods: Thirty consecutive AF patients who received BiV pacing or HBP in conjunction with AVNA between May 2015 and January 2020 were retrospectively assessed. Electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and clinical data at baseline and 6 months after the procedure were assessed.Results: Twenty-four patients (age 68.8 ± 6.5 years, 50% female, EF 39.6 ± 4%, QRS 95 ± 10 ms) met the inclusion criteria, 12 received BiV pacing and 12 HBP. Both groups had similar acute procedure-related success and complication rates. HBP was superior to BiV pacing in terms of post-implant QRS duration, implantation fluoroscopy times, reduction of indexed LV volumes (EDVi 63.8 (49.6-81) mL/m2 vs. 79.9 (66-100) mL/m2, p = 0.055; ESVi 32.7 (25.6-42.6) mL/m2 vs. 46.4 (42.9-68.1) mL/m2, p = 0.009) and increase in LVEF (46 (41-55) % vs. 38 (35-42) %, p = 0.005). However, the improvement of the NYHA class was similar in both groups.Conclusions: In symptomatic AF patients with moderately reduced EF and narrow QRS undergoing AVNA, HBP could be a conceivable alternative to BiV pacing. Further prospective studies are warranted to address the outcomes between both 'ablate and pace' strategies.