Bipolar ablation involving coronary venous system for refractory left ventricular summit arrhythmias.

Background: Catheter ablation of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs) and ventricular tachycardia (VT) from the left ventricular summit (LVS) may require advanced ablation techniques. Bipolar ablation from the coronary veins and adjacent endocardial structures can be effective for refractory LVS arrhythmias. Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the outcomes of bipolar ablation performed between the coronary venous system and adjacent endocardial left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) or right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT). Methods: This multicenter study included consecutive patients with LVS PVC/VT who underwent bipolar ablation between the anterior interventricular vein (AIV) or great cardiac vein (GCV) and the endocardial LVOT/RVOT after failed unipolar ablation. Ablation was started with powers of 10-20 W and uptitrated to achieve an impedance drop of at least 10%. Angiography was performed in all cases to confirm a safe distance (>5 mm) of the catheter from the major coronary arteries. Results: Between 2013 and 2023, bipolar radiofrequency ablation between the AIV/GCV and the adjacent LVOT/RVOT was attempted in 20 patients (4 female; age 57 ± 16 years). Unipolar ablation from sites of early activation (AIV/GCV, LVOT, aortic cusps, RVOT) failed to effectively suppress the PVC/VT in all subjects. Bipolar ablation was delivered with a maximum power of 30 ± 8 W and total duration of 238 ± 217 s and led to acute PVC/VT elimination in all patients. No procedural-related complications occurred. Over a follow-up period of 30 ± 24 months, the freedom from arrhythmia recurrence was 85% (1 recurrence in the VT group and 2 in the PVC group). PVC burden was reduced from 22% ± 10% to 4% ± 8% (P <.001). Conclusion: In cases of LVS PVC/VT refractory to unipolar ablation, bipolar ablation between the coronary venous system and adjacent endocardial LVOT/RVOT is safe and effective if careful titration of power and intraprocedural angiography are performed to ensure a safe distance from the coronary arteries.

Left bundle branch pacing versus left ventricular septal pacing as a primary procedural endpoint during left bundle branch area pacing: Evaluation of two different implant strategies.

INTRODUCTION: Implant procedure features and clinical implications of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) have not been yet fully described. We sought to compare two different left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implant strategies: the first one accepting LVSP as a procedural endpoint and the second one aiming at achieving LBBP in every patient in spite of evidence of previous LVSP criteria. METHODS: LVSP was accepted as a procedural endpoint in 162 consecutive patients (LVSP strategy group). In a second phase, LBBP was attempted in every patient in spite of achieving previous LVSP criteria (n = 161, LBBP strategy group). Baseline patient characteristics, implant procedure, and follow-up data were compared. RESULTS: The final capture pattern was LBBP in 71.4% and LVSP in 24.2% in the LBBP strategy group compared to 42.7% and 50%, respectively, in the LVSP strategy group. One hundred and eighty-four patients (57%) had proven LBB capture criteria with a significantly shorter paced QRS duration than the 120 patients (37%) with LVSP criteria (115 ± 9 vs. 121 ± 13 ms, p < .001). Implant parameters were comparable between the two strategies but the LBBP strategy resulted in a higher rate of acute septal perforation (11.8% vs. 4.9%, p = .026) without any clinical sequelae. Patients with CRT indications significantly improved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) during follow-up irrespective of the capture pattern (from 35 ± 11% to 45 ± 14% in proven LBBP, p = .024; and from 39 ± 13% to 47 ± 12% for LVSP, p = .003). The presence of structural heart disease and baseline LBBB independently predicted unsuccessful LBB capture. CONCLUSION: The LBBP strategy was associated with comparable implant parameters than the LVSP strategy but resulted in higher rates of septal perforation. Proven LBB capture and LVSP showed comparable effects on LVEF during follow-up.

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.

Sex-Specific Outcomes of LBBAP Versus Biventricular Pacing: Results From I-CLAS.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) has been associated with greater clinical improvement in women than men. Recently, left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be an alternative form of CRT. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate sex-specific outcomes for death and heart failure events in a large, international, multicenter, cohort of patients undergoing CRT with BVP or LBBAP. METHODS: In this international study of 1,778 patients (575 female and 1203 male), sex-specific survival analysis was performed to compare the effect of LBBAP-CRT relative to BVP-CRT on the combined endpoint of death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH), and secondary endpoints of HFH only, and death alone. RESULTS: Female patients were more likely to have nonischemic cardiomyopathy and left bundle branch block (LBBB) and less likely to have hypertension, diabetes, or coronary artery disease than were male patients. Overall, female patients had a better result with LBBAP compared with BVP than did male patients, with a significant 36% reduction in death or HFH (HR: 0.64; 95% CI: 0.43 to 0.97; P = 0.03) and a significant 60% reduction in HFH alone (HR: 0.4; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.69, P < 0.01). Women had a greater reduction in death or HFH among those with nonischemic cardiomyopathy (HR: 0.45 95% CI: 0.26 to 0.79; P < 0.01) and LBBB (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.27 to 0.87; P < 0.01). Sex-specific echocardiographic outcomes were better in women than in men. CONCLUSIONS: Women obtained significantly greater reductions in the combined endpoint of death or HFH (primarily driven by reduction in HFH) with LBBAP compared with BVP among patients requiring CRT than did men.

Conduction System Pacing for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via biventricular pacing (BiVP-CRT) is considered a mainstay treatment for symptomatic heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction and wide QRS. However, up to one-third of patients receiving BiVP-CRT are considered non-responders to the therapy. Multiple strategies have been proposed to maximize the percentage of CRT responders including two new physiological pacing modalities that have emerged in recent years: His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Both pacing techniques aim at restoring the normal electrical activation of the ventricles through the native conduction system in opposition to the cell-to-cell activation of conventional right ventricular myocardial pacing. Conduction system pacing (CSP), including both HBP and LBBAP, appears to be a promising pacing modality for delivering CRT and has proven to be safe and feasible in this particular setting. This article will review the current state of the art of CSP-based CRT, its limitations, and future directions.

Registro español de ablación con catéter. XXII informe oficial de la Asociación del Ritmo Cardiaco de la Sociedad Española de Cardiología (2022) / Spanish catheter ablation registry. 22nd official report of the Heart Rhythm Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (2022)

Introducción y objetivos: Se presentan los resultados del Registro español de ablación con catéter correspondientes a 2022. Métodos: Registro de actividad restrospectivo de los datos introducidos en la plataforma REDCap utilizando un formulario específico. Resultados: Participaron 103 centros (75 públicos, 28 privados) que comunicaron 23.360 procedimientos de ablación, con una media de 227±173 y una mediana de 202 [intervalo intercuartílico, 77-312] procedimientos por centro. Se ha producido un incremento muy significativo de la actividad (+5.419 casos,+30,2%) y de los centros participantes (10 centros más que en 2021). El procedimiento más frecuente sigue siendo la ablación de fibrilación auricular (FA) (el 35%, 8.185 casos) seguido de la ablación del istmo cavotricuspídeo (el 20%, 4.640 casos) y la taquicardia por reentrada intranodular (el 17%, 3.898 casos). Crecen todos los sustratos, especialmente la ablación de FA (+40%), y aumenta ligeramente el éxito agudo global, que alcanza el 96%, y disminuyen las tasas de complicaciones hasta el 1,8% (n=422) y de mortalidad (0,04%; n=10). Se realizaron 525 ablaciones en pacientes pediátricos (2,2%). Conclusiones: El Registro español de ablación con catéter recoge de manera sistemática e ininterrumpida la trayectoria nacional, que este año muestra un incremento muy significativo de la actividad en todos los sustratos, pero especialmente la referente a ablación de FA. Aumenta ligeramente la tasa de éxito y se reducen tanto la tasa de complicaciones como la mortalidad.(AU)

Introduction and objectives: This article presents results of the Spanish catheter ablation registry for the year 2022. MethodsData were retrospectively entered into a REDCap platform using a specific form. Results: A total of 103 centers participated (75 public, 28 private), which reported 23 360 ablation procedures, with a mean of 227±173 and a median of 202 [interquartile range, 77-312] procedures per center. Activity significantly increased (+5419 procedures,+30.2%) with more centers participating in the registry (10 more than in 2021). The most common procedure continued to be atrial fibrillation ablation (35%, 8185 procedures) followed by cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (20%, 4640 procedures), and intranodal re-entrant tachycardia (17%, 3898 procedures). There was an increase in all reported substrates, especially atrial fibrillation ablation (+40%), with slightly higher global acute success (96%) and lower complication rates (1.8%) and mortality (0.04%, n=10). In total, 525 procedures were performed in pediatric patients (2.2%). Conclusions: The Spanish catheter ablation registry systematically and continuously collects the national trajectory, which experienced a significant activity increase in 2022 in all of the reported substrates but especially in atrial fibrillation ablation. Acute success increased, while both complications and mortality decreased.(AU)

Spanish catheter ablation registry. 22nd official report of the Heart Rhythm Association of the Spanish Society of Cardiology (2022).

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: This article presents results of the Spanish catheter ablation registry for the year 2022. METHODS: Data were retrospectively entered into a REDCap platform using a specific form. RESULTS: A total of 103 centers participated (75 public, 28 private), which reported 23 360 ablation procedures, with a mean of 227±173 and a median of 202 [interquartile range, 77-312] procedures per center. Activity significantly increased (+5419 procedures,+30.2%) with more centers participating in the registry (10 more than in 2021). The most common procedure continued to be atrial fibrillation ablation (35%, 8185 procedures) followed by cavotricuspid isthmus ablation (20%, 4640 procedures), and intranodal re-entrant tachycardia (17%, 3898 procedures). There was an increase in all reported substrates, especially atrial fibrillation ablation (+40%), with slightly higher global acute success (96%) and lower complication rates (1.8%) and mortality (0.04%, n=10). In total, 525 procedures were performed in pediatric patients (2.2%) CONCLUSIONS: The Spanish catheter ablation registry systematically and continuously collects the national trajectory, which experienced a significant activity increase in 2022 in all of the reported substrates but especially in atrial fibrillation ablation. Acute success increased, while both complications and mortality decreased.

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.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: endorsed by the Asia Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS), and Latin American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last five years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique.

EHRA clinical consensus statement on conduction system pacing implantation: executive summary. Endorsed by the Asia-Pacific Heart Rhythm Society (APHRS), Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CHRS) and Latin-American Heart Rhythm Society (LAHRS).

Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a more physiological alternative to right ventricular pacing and is also being used in selected cases for cardiac resynchronization therapy. His bundle pacing was first introduced over two decades ago and its use has risen over the last years with the advent of tools which have facilitated implantation. Left bundle branch area pacing is more recent but its adoption is growing fast due to a wider target area and excellent electrical parameters. Nevertheless, as with any intervention, proper technique is a prerequisite for safe and effective delivery of therapy. This document aims to standardize the procedure and to provide a framework for physicians who wish to start CSP implantation, or who wish to improve their technique. A synopsis is provided in this print edition of EP-Europace. The full document may be consulted online, and a 'Key Messages' App can be downloaded from the EHRA website.

Conduction System Pacing Versus Conventional Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Congenital Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Dyssynchrony-associated left ventricular systolic dysfunction is a major contributor to heart failure in congenital heart disease (CHD). Although conventional cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has shown benefit, the comparative efficacy of cardiac conduction system pacing (CSP) is unknown. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was compare the clinical outcomes of CSP vs conventional CRT in CHD with biventricular, systemic left ventricular anatomy. METHODS: Retrospective CSP data from 7 centers were compared with propensity score-matched conventional CRT control subjects. Outcomes were lead performance, change in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), and QRS duration at 12 months. RESULTS: A total of 65 CSP cases were identified (mean age 37 ± 21 years, 46% men). The most common CHDs were tetralogy of Fallot (n = 12 [19%]) and ventricular septal defect (n = 12 [19%]). CSP was achieved after a mean of 2.5 ± 1.6 attempts per procedure (38 patients with left bundle branch pacing, 17 with HBP, 10 with left ventricular septal myocardial). Left bundle branch area pacing [LBBAP] vs HBP was associated with a smaller increase in pacing threshold (Δ pacing threshold 0.2 V vs 0.8 V; P = 0.05) and similar sensing parameters at follow-up. For 25 CSP cases and control subjects with baseline left ventricular systolic dysfunction, improvement in LVEF was non-inferior (Δ LVEF 9.0% vs 6.0%; P = 0.30; 95% confidence limits: -2.9% to 10.0%) and narrowing of QRS duration was more pronounced for CSP (Δ QRS duration 35 ms vs 14 ms; P = 0.04). Complications were similar (3 [12%] CSP, 4 [16%] conventional CRT; P = 1.00). CONCLUSIONS: CSP can be reliably achieved in biventricular, systemic left ventricular CHD patients with similar improvement in LVEF and greater QRS narrowing for CSP vs conventional CRT at 1 year. Among CSP patients, pacing electrical parameters were superior for LBBAP vs HBP.

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads.

BACKGROUND: Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS: We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS: The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary.

Acute performance of stylet driven leads for left bundle branch area pacing: A comparison with lumenless leads.

Background: Lumenless leads (LLLs) are widely used for left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Recently, stylet-driven leads (SDLs) have also been used for LBBAP. Objective: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acute performance of SDLs during LBBAP in comparison with LLLs. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing LBBAP for bradycardia or cardiac resynchronization therapy indications at 2 high-volume, early conduction system pacing adopters, tertiary centers were included from January 2019 to July 2023. Patients received either SDLs or LLLs at the discretion of the implanting physician. Acute performance and follow-up data of both lead types were evaluated. Results: A total of 925 LBBAP implants were included, 655 using LLLs and 270 using SDLs. Overall, LBBAP acute success was significantly higher with LLLs than SDLs (95.3% vs 85.1%, respectively; P <.001) even after the learning curve (97% vs 86%; P = .013). LLLs were implanted in more mid-basal septal positions in comparison with SDLs, which tended to be implanted in more inferior and mid-apical septal positions. Acute lead-related complications were higher with SDLs than LLLs (15.9% vs 6.1%, respectively; P <.001) with 15 cases of lead damage during implant (4.4% vs 0.5%; P <.001) but decreased with acquired experience and were comparable in the last 100 patients included in each group. Lead implant and fluoroscopy times were shorter for SDLs, with lead dislodgment occurring in 0.9% with LLLs and 1.5% with SDLs (P = .489). Conclusion: Acute lead performance proved to be different between LLLs and SDLs. A specific learning curve should be considered for SDLs even for implanters with extensive previous experience with LLLs.

Left bundle branch area pacing in patients with heart failure and right bundle branch block: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative-Study Group.

Background: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing has limited efficacy in patients with heart failure (HF) and right bundle branch block (RBBB). Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a novel physiologic pacing option. Objective: The aim of the study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LBBAP in HF patients with RBBB and reduced left ventricular systolic function, and indication for CRT or ventricular pacing. Methods: LBBAP was attempted in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <50%, RBBB, HF, and indications for CRT or ventricular pacing. Procedural, pacing, and electrocardiographic parameters; clinical response (no HF hospitalization and improvement in NYHA class); and echocardiographic response (≥5% increase in ejection fraction) to LBBAP were assessed. Results: LBBAP was attempted in 121 patients and successful in 107 (88%). Patient characteristics included age 74 ± 12 years, female 25%, ischemic cardiomyopathy 49%, and ejection fraction 35% ± 9%. QRS axis at baseline was normal in 24%, left axis 63%, right axis 13%. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.8 ± 0.3 V @ 0.5 ms and 10 ± 9 mV at implant and remained stable during mean follow-up of 13 ± 8 months. LBBAP resulted in narrowing of QRS duration (156 ± 20 ms to 150 ± 24 ms (P = .01) with R-wave peak times in V6 of 85 ± 16 ms. LVEF improved from 35% ± 9% to 43% ± 12% (P < .01). Clinical and echocardiographic response was observed in 60% and 61% of patients, respectively. Female sex and reduction in QRS duration with LBBAP were predictive of echocardiographic response and super-response. Conclusion: LBBAP is a feasible alternative to deliver CRT or physiologic ventricular pacing in patients with RBBB, HF, and LV dysfunction.

Left bundle branch area pacing outcomes: the multicentre European MELOS study.

AIMS: Permanent transseptal left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) is a promising new pacing method for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. However, data regarding safety, feasibility and capture type are limited to relatively small, usually single centre studies. In this large multicentre international collaboration, outcomes of LBBAP were evaluated. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a registry-based observational study that included patients in whom LBBAP device implantation was attempted at 14 European centres, for any indication. The study comprised 2533 patients (mean age 73.9 years, female 57.6%, heart failure 27.5%). LBBAP lead implantation success rate for bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications was 92.4% and 82.2%, respectively. The learning curve was steepest for the initial 110 cases and plateaued after 250 cases. Independent predictors of LBBAP lead implantation failure were heart failure, broad baseline QRS and left ventricular end-diastolic diameter. The predominant LBBAP capture type was left bundle fascicular capture (69.5%), followed by left ventricular septal capture (21.5%) and proximal left bundle branch capture (9%). Capture threshold (0.77 V) and sensing (10.6 mV) were stable during mean follow-up of 6.4 months. The complication rate was 11.7%. Complications specific to the ventricular transseptal route of the pacing lead occurred in 209 patients (8.3%). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP is feasible as a primary pacing technique for both bradyarrhythmia and heart failure indications. Success rate in heart failure patients and safety need to be improved. For wider use of LBBAP, randomized trials are necessary to assess clinical outcomes.

Rescue left bundle branch area pacing in coronary venous lead failure or nonresponse to biventricular pacing: Results from International LBBAP Collaborative Study Group.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) using biventricular pacing (BVP) is effective in patients with heart failure, left bundle branch block (LBBB), and reduced left ventricular function. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been reported as an alternative option for CRT. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility and outcomes of LBBAP in patients who failed conventional BVP because of coronary venous (CV) lead complications or who were nonresponders to BVP. METHODS: At 16 international centers, LBBAP was attempted in patients with conventional CRT indication who failed BVP because of CV lead complications or lack of therapeutic response to BVP. Heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and death, echocardiographic outcomes, procedural data, pacing parameters, and lead complications including CV lead failure are reported. RESULTS: LBBAP was successfully performed in 200 patients (CV lead failures 156; nonresponders 44) (age 68 ± 11 years; female 35%; LBBB 55%; right ventricular pacing 23%; ischemic cardiomyopathy 28%; nonischemic cardiomyopathy 63%; left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF] ≤35% in 80%). Procedural duration was 119.5 ± 59.6 minutes, and fluoroscopy duration was 25.7 ± 18.5 minutes. LBBAP threshold and R-wave amplitudes were 0.68 ± 0.35 V @ 0.45 ms and 10.4 ± 5 mV at implant, respectively, and remained stable during mean follow-up of 12 ± 10.1 months. LBBAP resulted in significant QRS narrowing from 170 ± 28 ms to 139 ± 25 ms (P <.001) with V6 R-wave peak times of 85 ± 17 ms. LVEF improved from 29% ± 10% at baseline to 40% ± 12% (P <.001) during follow-up. The risk of death or HFH was lower in those with CV lead failure than in nonresponders (hazard ratio 0.357; 95% confidence interval 0.168-0.756; P = .007) CONCLUSION: LBBAP is a viable alternative to CRT in patients who failed conventional BVP due to CV lead failure or who were nonresponders.

Implantation of cardiac electronic devices in active COVID-19 patients: Results from an international survey.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation rates as well as the clinical and procedural characteristics and outcomes in patients with known active coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to gather information regarding CIED procedures during active COVID-19, performed with personal protective equipment, based on an international survey. METHODS: Fifty-three centers from 13 countries across 4 continents provided information on 166 patients with known active COVID-19 who underwent a CIED procedure. RESULTS: The CIED procedure rate in 133,655 hospitalized COVID-19 patients ranged from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 patients (P <.001). Most devices were implanted due to high-degree/complete atrioventricular block (112 [67.5%]) or sick sinus syndrome (31 [18.7%]). Of the 166 patients in the study survey, the 30-day complication rate was 13.9% and the 180-day mortality rate was 9.6%. One patient had a fatal outcome as a direct result of the procedure. Differences in patient and procedural characteristics and outcomes were found between Europe and North America. An older population (76.6 vs 66 years; P <.001) with a nonsignificant higher complication rate (16.5% vs 7.7%; P = .2) was observed in Europe vs North America, whereas higher rates of critically ill patients (33.3% vs 3.3%; P <.001) and mortality (26.9% vs 5%; P = .002) were observed in North America vs Europe. CONCLUSION: CIED procedure rates during known active COVID-19 disease varied greatly, from 0 to 16.2 per 1000 hospitalized COVID-19 patients worldwide. Patients with active COVID-19 infection who underwent CIED implantation had high complication and mortality rates. Operators should take these risks into consideration before proceeding with CIED implantation in active COVID-19 patients.

Atrial low voltage areas: A comparison between atrial fibrillation and sinus rhythm.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrosis can promote atrial fibrillation (AF). Electroanatomic mapping (EAM) can provide information regarding local voltage abnormalities that may be used as a surrogate marker for fibrosis. Specific voltage cut-off values have been reproduced accurately to identify fibrosis in the ventricles, but these values are not well defined in atrial tissue. METHODS: This study is a prospective single-center study. Patients with persistent AF referred for ablation were included. EAM was performed before ablation. We recorded bipolar signals, first in AF and later in sinus rhythm (SR). Two thresholds delimited low-voltage areas (LVA), 0.5 and 0.3 mV. We compared LVA extension between maps in SR and AF in each patient. RESULTS: A total of 23 patients were included in the study. The percentage of points with voltage lower than 0.5 mV and 0.3 mV was significantly higher in maps in AF compared with maps in SR: 38.2% of points < 0.5 mV in AF vs. 22.9% in SR (p < 0.001); 22.3% of points < 0.3 mV in AF vs. 14% in SR (p < 0.001). Areas with reduced voltage were significantly larger in maps in AF (0.5 mV threshold, mean area in AF 41.3 ± 42.5 cm2 vs. 11.7 ± 17.9 cm2 in SR, p < 0.001; 0.3 mV threshold, mean area in AF 15.6 ± 22.1 cm2 vs. 6.2 ± 11.5 cm2 in SR, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Using the same voltage thresholds, LVA extension in AF is greater than in SR in patients with persistent AF. These findings provide arguments for defining a different atrial fibrosis threshold based on EAM rhythm.

The Atrioventricular Conduction Axis and its Implications for Permanent Pacing.

Extensive knowledge of the anatomy of the atrioventricular conduction axis, and its branches, is key to the success of permanent physiological pacing, either by capturing the His bundle, the left bundle branch or the adjacent septal regions. The inter-individual variability of the axis plays an important role in underscoring the technical difficulties known to exist in achieving a stable position of the stimulating leads. In this review, the key anatomical features of the location of the axis relative to the triangle of Koch, the aortic root, the inferior pyramidal space and the inferoseptal recess are summarised. In keeping with the increasing number of implants aimed at targeting the environs of the left bundle branch, an extensive review of the known variability in the pattern of ramification of the left bundle branch from the axis is included. This permits the authors to summarise in a pragmatic fashion the most relevant aspects to be taken into account when seeking to successfully deploy a permanent pacing lead.