Emerging Technologies in Cardiac Pacing.

Cardiac pacing to treat bradyarrhythmias has evolved in recent decades. Recognition that a substantial proportion of pacemaker-dependent patients can develop heart failure due to electrical and mechanical dyssynchrony from traditional right ventricular apical pacing has led to development of more physiologic pacing methods that better mimic normal cardiac conduction and provide synchronized ventricular contraction. Conventional biventricular pacing has been shown to benefit patients with heart failure and conduction system disease but can be limited by scarring and fibrosis. His bundle pacing and left bundle branch area pacing are novel techniques that can provide more physiologic ventricular activation as an alternative to conventional or biventricular pacing. Leadless pacing has emerged as another alternative pacing technique to overcome limitations in conventional transvenous pacemaker systems. Our objective is to review the evolution of cardiac pacing and explore these new advances in pacing strategies.

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.

Left bundle branch area pacing using a lumenless lead: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for delivering physiological pacing, data are largely limited to single-center reports. The aim of this analysis was to systematically assess the safety and efficacy of LBBAP with the Model 3830 lead among primarily bradycardia patients. METHODS AND RESULTS: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP using the SelectSecure Model 3830 lumenless lead. Rates and means were estimated using random- and mixed-effects models. Of 3395 articles, 53 met inclusion criteria, representing 6061 patients undergoing an implant attempt. Average patient age was 68.1 years (95% CI: 66.6, 69.6) and 53.1% were male (95% CI: 50.5%, 55.7%). The average implant success rate among bradycardia-indicated patients was 92.7% (95% CI: 89.5%, 94.9%). The overall estimated procedural adverse event rate was 2.5% (95% CI: 1.1%, 5.4%). The estimated septal perforation rate at implant was 1.6% (95% CI: 1.0%, 2.6%) with no adverse clinical sequelae reported. Pacing thresholds were low at implant (0.67 V [95% CI: 0.64, 0.70]) and remained stable through 12 months (0.76 V [95% CI: 0.72, 0.80]). Among bradycardia-indicated patients, LVEF remained stable from baseline to post-implant (59.5% [95% CI: 57.9%, 61.1%] vs. 60.1% [95% CI: 58.5%, 61.7%]). CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis including 6061 patients implanted with a Model 3830 lead for LBBAP found an average implant success rate of 92.7% and a procedural adverse event rate of 2.5% with stable electrical parameters and LVEF post-implant.

AV-optimized conduction system pacing for treatment of AV dromotropathy: A randomized, cross-over study.

BACKGROUND: Severe first-degree atrioventricular (AV) block may produce symptoms similar to heart failure due to AV dyssynchrony, a syndrome termed AV dromotropathy. According to guidelines, it should be considered for permanent pacemaker implantation, yet evidence supporting this treatment is scarce. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the impact of AV-optimized conduction system pacing (CSP) in patients with symptomatic severe first-degree AV block and echocardiographic signs of AV dyssynchrony. METHODS: Patients with symptomatic first-degree AV block (PR > 250 ms), preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, narrow QRS, and AV dyssynchrony were included in the study. In a single-blind cross-over design, patients were randomized to AV sequential CSP or backup VVI pacing with a base rate of 40 bpm. We compared exercise capacity, echocardiographic parameters, and symptom occurrence at the end of 3 months of each period. RESULTS: Fourteen patients completed the study. During the AV-optimized CSP compared to the backup pacing period, patients achieved a higher workload on exercise test (147.2 ± 50.9 vs. 140.7 ± 55.8 W; p = .032), with a trend towards higher peak VO2 (23.3 ± 7.1 vs. 22.8 ± 7.1 mL/min/kg; p = .224), and higher left ventricular stroke volume (LVSV 74.5 ± 13.8 vs. 66.4 ± 12.5 mL; p < .001). Symptomatic improvement was recorded, with fewer patients reporting general tiredness and 71% of patients preferring the AV-optimized CSP (p = .008). CONCLUSIONS: AV-optimized CSP could improve symptoms, exercise capacity and LVSV in patients with severe first-degree AV block.

Result of the left bundle branch area pacing data collection registry, an international multicenter study of conduction system pacing with a Tendril STS 2088 stylet-driven lead.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area (LBBA) pacing (LBBAP) has been proposed as an alternative therapy option in patients indicated for cardiac pacing to treat bradycardia or heart failure. The aim of the study was to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of LBBAP in patients implanted with a Tendril 2088 stylet-driven lead. METHODS: The international retrospective data collection registry included 11 sites from 5 countries globally. Patients with attempted implants of the Tendril lead in the LBBA were followed for at least 6 months post the implant attempt. The primary safety and efficacy endpoints were freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse events and the composite of LBBA capture threshold of ≤2.0 V and R-wave amplitudes ≥5 mV (or ≥value at implant), respectively. RESULTS: Of 221 patients with attempted implants of the Tendril 2088 lead in the LBBA, 91.4% (202/221) had successful implants for LBBAP. Regardless of the LBBAP implant success, all patients were followed for at least 6 months (8.7 ± 7.3 months). Baseline characteristics: 44% female, 84% ≥65 years old, 34% coronary artery disease, and 86% of primary indications for pacemaker implant. Both primary safety and effectiveness endpoints were met (freedom from LBBAP lead-related serious adverse device effects of 99.5% and electrical performance composite success rate of 93%). The capture thresholds in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms and 0.8 ± 0.3 V@0.4 ± 0.1 ms. The rate of patients with capture threshold rise ≥1 V was 1.5% through 6 months. The R-wave amplitudes in LBBAP at implant and 6 months were 9.3 ± 3.2 mV and 10.6 ± 3.0 mV. CONCLUSIONS: This large multicenter study demonstrates that the stylet-driven Tendril™ STS 2088 lead is safe and effective for LBBAP with high success and low complication rates.

His-bundle pacing from the right atrium: Solving pacemaker implantation challenges post-TriClip.

INTRODUCTION: This case report highlights the novel role of His-bundle pacing (HBP) from right atrium, not just for preserving cardiac function, but also for avoiding interference with TriClip devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: A 78-year-old female with severe tricuspid regurgitation received two TriClip devices. Postprocedure, frequent significant sinus pauses required a pacemaker. HBP was chosen to avoid lead complications. Under local anesthesia, a His pacing lead was inserted via the axillary vein using specialized catheter. Follow-ups over 2.5 years showed stable parameters with no complications. CONCLUSION: HBP is effective for patients with TriClip devices, ensuring optimal cardiac function and lead stability.

Assessment of ventricular electrical heterogeneity in left bundle branch pacing and left ventricular septal pacing by using various electrophysiological methods.

INTRODUCTION: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) comprises pacing at the left ventricular septum (LVSP) or left bundle branch (LBBP). The aim of the present study was to investigate the differences in ventricular electrical heterogeneity between LVSP, LBBP, right ventricular pacing (RVP) and intrinsic conduction with different dyssynchrony measures using the ECG, vectorcardiograpy, ECG belt, and Ultrahigh frequency (UHF-)ECG. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients with a pacemaker indication for bradycardia or cardiac resynchronization therapy underwent LBBAP implantation. ECG, vectorcardiogram, ECG belt and UHF-ECG signals were recorded during RVP, LVSP and LBBP, and intrinsic activation. QRS duration (QRSd) was measured from the ECG, QRS area was calculated from the vectorcardiogram, LV activation time (LVAT) and standard deviation of activation time (SDAT) from ECG belt and electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS16) from UHF-ECG. RESULTS: Both LVSP and LBBP significantly reduced ventricular electrical heterogeneity as compared to underlying LBBB and RV pacing in terms of QRS area (p < .001), SDAT (p < .001), LVAT (p < .001) and e-DYS16 (p < .001). QRSd was only reduced as compared to RV pacing(p < .001). QRS area was similar during LBBP and normal intrinsic conduction, e-DYS16 was similar during LVSP and normal intrinsic conduction, whereas SDAT was similar for LVSP, LBBP and normal intrinsic conduction. For all these variables there was no significant difference between LVSP and LBBP. CONCLUSION: Both LVSP and LBBP resulted in a more synchronous LV activation than LBBB and RVP. Especially LBBP resulted in levels of LV synchrony comparable to normal intrinsic conduction.

Prognostic benefits of His-Purkinje capture in physiological pacemakers for bradycardia.

INTRODUCTION: Clinical outcomes of long-term ventricular septal pacing (VSP) without His-Purkinje capture remain unknown. This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes between conduction system pacing (CSP), VSP, and right ventricular pacing (RVP). METHODS: Consecutive patients with bradycardia indicated for pacing from 2016 to 2022 were prospectively followed for the clinical endpoints of heart failure (HF)-hospitalizations and all-cause mortality at 2 years. VSP was defined as septal pacing due to unsuccessful CSP implant or successful CSP followed by loss of His-Purkinje capture within 90 days. RESULTS: Among 1016 patients (age 73.9 ± 11.2 years, 47% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 612 received RVP, 335 received CSP and 69 received VSP. Paced QRS duration was similar between VSP and RVP, but both significantly longer than CSP (p < .05). HF-hospitalizations occurred in 130 (13%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 16% vs. VSP 13%, p = .001), and all-cause mortality in 143 (14%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 19% vs. VSP 9%, p < .001). The association of pacing modality with clinical events was limited to those with ventricular pacing (Vp) > 20% (pinteraction < .05). Adjusting for clinical risk factors among patients with Vp > 20%, VSP (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 4.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57-14.36) and RVP (AHR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.44-6.60) were associated with increased hazard of HF-hospitalizations, and RVP (2.52, 95% CI: 1.19-5.35) with increased mortality, compared to CSP. Clinical endpoints did not differ between VSP and RVP with Vp > 20%, or amongst groups with Vp < 20%. CONCLUSION: Conduction system capture is associated with improved clinical outcomes. CSP should be preferred over VSP or RVP during pacing for bradycardia.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy guided by interventricular conduction delay: How to choose between biventricular pacing or conduction system pacing.

BACKGROUND: Biventricular pacing (BIV) is the gold standard for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Thirty percent of patients do not respond to CRT. Conduction system pacing (CSP) represents a viable alternative. Interventricular conduction delay (IVCD), as electrical desynchrony marker, is a CRT response predictor. The aim of this study was to determine the incidence of CRT responders by selecting the best approach between BIV and CPS based on intraoperative IVCD measurement in patients with HFrEF and LBBB. METHODS: Ninety-six patients were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either a standard BIV group(control group, CG) or a group where the CRT approach was determined based on IVCD evaluation(study group, SG). If the right ventricular sensed electrogram (RVs)-left ventricular sensed electrogram (LVs) interval was ≥100 ms, the lead was left in its original position; otherwise, the LV lead was removed, and CSP was performed instead. Clinical, EKG, and echocardiographic features have been assessed pre- and 6 months post-implant. Echocardiographic and clinical responder were evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-seven percent of patients in the SG underwent CSP, as the operative algorithm. The incidence of CRT responders was significantly higher in the SG (echocardiographic criterion: 92.5% vs. 69.8%, p:.009; clinical criterion 87.5% vs. 62.8%, p:.014). The SG showed a significantly greater difference in EF between pre- and post-implant as well as reduced end-diastolic and systolic volumes. Univariate and multivariate regression analysis indicated that enrollment in the SG was the only factor associated with CRT response. CONCLUSION: Intraoperative assessment of IVCD could help determine the optimal CRT approach between BIV and CSP, leading to a significant improvement in the rate of CRT responders.

Conduction system pacing: how far are we from the "electrical" bypass?

Conduction system pacing is an alternative practice to conventional right ventricular apical pacing. It is a method that maintains physiologic ventricular activation, based on a correct pathophysiological basis, in which the pacing lead bypasses the lesion of the electrical fibers and the electrical impulse transmits through the intact adjacent conduction system. For this reason, it might be reasonably characterized by the term "electrical bypass" compared to the coronary artery bypass in revascularization therapy. In this review, reference is made to the sequence of events in which conventional right ventricular pacing may cause adverse outcomes. Furthermore, there is a reference to alternative strategies and pacing sites. Interest focuses on the modalities for which there are data from the literature, namely for the right ventricular (RV) septal pacing, the His bundle pacing (HBP), and the left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). A more extensive reference is about the HBP, for which there are the most updated data. We analyze the considerations that limit HBP-wide application in three axes, and we also present the data for the implantation and follow-up of these patients. The indications with their most important studies to date are then described in detail, not only in their undoubtedly positive findings but also in their weak aspects, because of which this pacing mode has not yet received a strong recommendation for implementation. Finally, there is a report on LBBP, focusing mainly on its points of differentiation from HBP.

Extraction of lumenless pacing leads from the His bundle and left bundle branch area: outcomes of the high-volume centre.

AIMS: The application of conduction system pacing (CSP) in clinical practice is growing, and the need for lead extraction will also increase. The data on outcomes and safety of CSP lead extraction are limited. The aim of this study was to assess procedural outcomes and safety of CSP lead removal. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-seven patients from the EXTRACT Registry with the indication for CSP lead removal were enrolled in the study conducted at the Department of Electrocardiology in Katowice, Poland. Extraction technique, outcomes, safety, and complication were evaluated. Forty-three (91.5%) leads were successfully removed, and 41 (87.2%) were removed with traction only. The dwelling time of 28 extracted leads was longer than 1 year, and the oldest extracted lead was implanted for 89 months. Seven (14.9%) leads were removed from the left bundle branch (LBB) area and 36 from the His bundle (HB). Transient complete atrioventricular block occurred during the procedure in two patients. In 27 out of 31 attempts (87.1%), new CSP leads were implanted: nine (33.3%) HB pacing leads and 18 (66.7%) LBB area pacing leads. CONCLUSION: The CSP lead extraction is safe and feasible with a low complication rate and high rate of CSP lead reimplantation.

Mid-term performance of His bundle pacing and usefulness of backup leads.

Ventricular backup leads may be considered in selected patients with His bundle pacing (HBP), but it remains unknown to what extent this is useful. A total of 184 HBP patients were studied. At last follow-up, 147 (79.9%) patients retained His bundle capture at programmed output. His bundle pacing lead revision was performed in 5/36 (13.9%) patients without a backup lead and in 3/148 (2.0%) patients with a backup lead (P = 0.008). One patient without a backup lead had syncope due to atrial oversensing. Thus, implantation of ventricular backup leads may avoid lead revision and adverse events in selected HBP patients.

Current of injury amplitude during left bundle branch area pacing implantation: impact of filter settings, ventricular pacing, and lead type.

AIMS: Monitoring current of injury (COI) during left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) implantation is useful to evaluate lead depth. Technical aspects for recording COI amplitude have not been well studied. Our aims were to evaluate the impact of high-pass filter settings on electrogram recordings during LBBAP implantation. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with successful LBBAP implantation had unipolar recordings of COI at final lead position at different high-pass filter settings (0.01-1 Hz) from the tip electrode during sensing and pacing, and from the ring electrode during sensing. Duration of saturation-induced signal loss was also measured at each filter setting. COI amplitudes were compared between lumenless and stylet-driven leads. A total of 156 patients (96 males, aged 81.4 ± 9.6 years) were included. Higher filter settings led to significantly lower COI amplitudes. In 50 patients with COI amplitude < 10 mV, the magnitude of the drop was on average 1-1.5 mV (and up to 4 mV) between 0.05 and 0.5 Hz, meaning that cut-offs may not be used interchangeably. Saturation-induced signal loss was on average 10 s at 0.05 Hz and only 2 s with 0.5 Hz. When pacing was interrupted, the sensed COI amplitude varied (either higher or lower) by up to 4 mV, implying that it is advisable to periodically interrupt pacing to evaluate the sensed COI when reaching levels of ∼10 mV. Lead type did not impact COI amplitude. CONCLUSION: High-pass filters have a significant impact on electrogram characteristics at LBBAP implantation, with the 0.5 Hz settings having the most favourable profile.

Evolution and prognosis of tricuspid and mitral regurgitation following cardiac implantable electronic devices: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: Significant changes in tricuspid regurgitation (TR) and mitral regurgitation (MR) post-cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are increasingly recognized. However, uncertainty remains as to whether the risk of CIED-associated TR and MR differs with right ventricular pacing (RVP) via CIED with trans-tricuspid RV leads, compared with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), conduction system pacing (CSP), and leadless pacing (LP). The study aims to synthesize extant data on risk and prognosis of significant post-CIED TR and MR across pacing strategies. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library databases published until 31 October 2023. Significant post-CIED TR and MR were defined as ≥ moderate. Fifty-seven TR studies (n = 13 723 patients) and 90 MR studies (n = 14 387 patients) were included. For all CIED, the risk of post-CIED TR increased [pooled odds ratio (OR) = 2.46 and 95% CI = 1.88-3.22], while the risk of post-CIED MR reduced (OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.58-0.94) after 12 and 6 months of median follow-up, respectively. Right ventricular pacing via CIED with trans-tricuspid RV leads was associated with increased risk of post-CIED TR (OR = 4.54, 95% CI = 3.14-6.57) and post-CIED MR (OR = 2.24, 95% CI = 1.18-4.26). Binarily, CSP did not alter TR risk (OR = 0.37, 95% CI = 0.13-1.02), but significantly reduced MR (OR = 0.15, 95% CI = 0.03-0.62). Cardiac resynchronization therapy did not significantly change TR risk (OR = 1.09, 95% CI = 0.55-2.17), but significantly reduced MR with prevalence pre-CRT of 43%, decreasing post-CRT to 22% (OR = 0.49, 95% CI = 0.40-0.61). There was no significant association of LP with post-CIED TR (OR = 1.15, 95% CI = 0.83-1.59) or MR (OR = 1.31, 95% CI = 0.72-2.39). Cardiac implantable electronic device-associated TR was independently predictive of all-cause mortality [pooled hazard ratio (HR) = 1.64, 95% CI = 1.40-1.90] after median of 53 months. Mitral regurgitation persisting post-CRT independently predicted all-cause mortality (HR = 2.00, 95% CI = 1.57-2.55) after 38 months. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that, when possible, adoption of pacing strategies that avoid isolated trans-tricuspid RV leads may be beneficial in preventing incident or deteriorating atrioventricular valvular regurgitation and might reduce mortality.

Stepping back for good reasons: a reappraisal of the DF-1 connector for defibrillator leads.

The DF-4 defibrillator standard has been rapidly adopted due to its convenience at implantation. There are however trade-offs compared to the traditional DF-1 standard that are underappreciated. This viewpoint outlines the advantages and limitations of current defibrillator lead standards that should be kept in mind, as they impact the options that are available to deal with issues that may arise.

Helix breakage during left bundle pacing area implantation.

A left bundle pacing stimulation pacemaker was implanted using stylet driver lead. The screw incarceration occurred after positioning of the lead. The screw rupture occurred during lead retraction; the distal portion of the screw remained incarcerated at the interventricular septum.

Single operator experience, learning curve, outcomes, and insights gained with conduction system pacing.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is increasingly utilized to prevent and correct dyssynchrony. Barriers to CSP adoption include limited training, methodologic variability, laboratory slot allocation, and few data on learning curves. We report learning curves/clinical outcomes from a single experienced electrophysiologist who was new to CSP, and share gained insights. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent attempted CSP implantation (2016-2023). Patient characteristics, ECGs, echocardiograms, fluoroscopy/procedure times, lead data were recorded at implant and follow-up. RESULTS: CSP leads were implanted successfully in 167/191(87.4%) patients with a follow-up of 278 ± 378 days. His-bundle pacing (HBP = 59) and left-bundle-area pacing (LBAP = 108) had similar procedure/fluoroscopy times, QRS duration decreases, and ejection fraction improvements (all p > NS). Eight HBP lead revisions were required for high capture thresholds LBAP demonstrated lower pacing thresholds, higher lead impedances, and greater R-wave amplitudes at implant and follow-up. After 25 HBP cases, implant pacing thresholds, fluoroscopy, procedural times did not decrease. After 25 LBAP cases, there were significant decreases in all these parameters (p < 0.05). A separate analysis in LBAP patients with recorded Purkinje signals showed no differences in paced ECG characteristics between patients with pre- QRS Purkinje signals versus patients with Purkinje signals post-QRS onset. CONCLUSIONS: Experienced implanters who are new to CSP can achieve steady-state procedural/fluoroscopy times after a learning curve of 25 implants. LBAP showed lower capture thresholds and higher success rates. Adequate depth of lead deployment (as determined by published parameters) does not require Purkinje potential to be pre-QRS. Operators new to CSP.can forego HBP and directly implement LBAP.

Left-bundle branch optimized CRT implantation in a patient with persistent left superior vena cava.

Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is one of the anatomical variations, which can make device implantation more challenging and lead to incorrect lead placement, dislodgement, and procedure failure. Conduction system pacing (CSP) can be an alternative to traditional CRT implantation. Herein, we describe a brief case report of successful LBBAP-optimized CRT (LOT-CRT) via an innominate vein in a patient with PLSVC.

Outcome of tailored therapy in rheumatic heart disease with persistent atrial fibrillation (RHD-AF).

INTRODUCTION: Rheumatic heart disease with persistent atrial fibrillation (RHD-AF) is associated with increased morbidity. However, there is no standardized approach for the maintenance of sinus rhythm (SR) in them. We aimed to determine the utility of a stepwise approach to achieve SR in RHD-AF. METHODS: Consecutive patients with RHD-AF from July 2021 to August 2023 formed the study cohort. The stepwise approach included pharmacological rhythm control and/or electrical cardioversion (Central illustration). In patients with recurrence, additional options included AF ablation or pace and ablate strategy with conduction system pacing or biventricular pacing. Clinical improvement, NT-proBNP, 6-Minute Walk Test (6MWT), heart failure (HF) hospitalizations, and thromboembolic complications were documented during follow-up. RESULTS: Eighty-three patients with RHD-AF (mean age 56.13 ± 9.51 years, women 72.28%) were included. Utilizing this approach, 43 (51.81%) achieved and maintained SR during the study period of 11.04 ± 7.14 months. These patients had improved functional class, lower NT-proBNP, better distance covered for 6MWT, and reduced HF hospitalizations. The duration of AF was shorter in patients who achieved SR, compared to those who remained in AF (3.15 ± 1.29 vs 6.93 ± 5.23, p = 0.041). Thirty-five percent (29) maintained SR after a single cardioversion over the study period. Only one underwent AF ablation. Of the 24 who underwent pace and ablate strategy, atrial lead was implanted in 22 (hybrid approach), and 50% of these achieved and maintained SR. Among these 24, none had HF hospitalizations, but patients who maintained SR had further improvement in clinical and functional parameters. CONCLUSIONS: RHD-AF patients who could achieve SR with a stepwise approach, had better clinical outcomes and lower HF hospitalizations.

The Year in Electrophysiology: Selected Highlights From 2023.

This special article is a continuation of an annual series for the Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia, highlighting the latest developments in the field of electrophysiology, particularly concerning cardiac anesthesiologists. The selected topics in the specialty for 2023 include consensus statements on left atrial appendage closure, outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure after ablation, further developments in the field of pulse field ablation, alternate defibrillation strategies for refractory ventricular fibrillation, updates on conduction system pacing, new devices such as the Aurora EV system and AVEIR leadless pacemaker system, artificial intelligence and its use in electrocardiogram-based diagnosis and latest evidence regarding the impact of anesthetic techniques on patient outcomes undergoing electrophysiology procedures.