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.

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, a European survey: insights from clinical practice.

AIMS: The field of conduction system pacing (CSP) is evolving, and our aim was to obtain a contemporary picture of European CSP practice. METHODS AND RESULTS: A survey was devised by a European CSP Expert Group and sent electronically to cardiologists utilizing CSP. A total of 284 physicians were invited to contribute of which 171 physicians (60.2%; 85% electrophysiologists) responded. Most (77%) had experience with both His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP). Pacing indications ranked highest for CSP were atrioventricular block (irrespective of left ventricular ejection fraction) and when coronary sinus lead implantation failed. For patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB) and heart failure (HF), conventional biventricular pacing remained first-line treatment. For most indications, operators preferred LBBAP over HBP as a first-line approach. When HBP was attempted as an initial approach, reasons reported for transitioning to utilizing LBBAP were: (i) high threshold (reported as >2 V at 1 ms), (ii) failure to reverse bundle branch block, or (iii) > 30 min attempting to implant at His-bundle sites. Backup right ventricular lead use for HBP was low (median 20%) and predominated in pace-and-ablate scenarios. Twelve-lead electrocardiogram assessment was deemed highly important during follow-up. This, coupled with limitations from current capture management algorithms, limits remote monitoring for CSP patients. CONCLUSIONS: This survey provides a snapshot of CSP implementation in Europe. Currently, CSP is predominantly used for bradycardia indications. For HF patients with LBBB, most operators reserve CSP for biventricular implant failures. Left bundle branch area pacing ostensibly has practical advantages over HBP and is therefore preferred by many operators. Practical limitations remain, and large randomized clinical trial data are currently lacking.

Pacing of the specialized His-Purkinje conduction system: 'back to the future'.

The conduction system of the human heart is composed of specialized cardiomyocytes that initiate and propagate the electric impulse with consequent rhythmic and synchronized contraction of the atria and ventricles, resulting in the normal cardiac cycle. Although the His-Purkinje system (HPS) was already described more than a century ago, there has been a recent resurgence of conduction system pacing (CSP), where pacing leads are positioned in the His bundle region and left bundle branch area to provide physiological cardiac activation as alternatives to the unnatural myocardial stimulation obtained with conventional right ventricular and biventricular pacing. In this review, we describe the fundamental anatomical and pathophysiological aspects of the specialized HPS along with the CSP technique's nuts and bolts to highlight its potential benefits in everyday clinical practice.

Left bundle branch area pacing results in more physiological ventricular activation than biventricular pacing in patients with left bundle branch block heart failure.

Biventricular pacing (Biv) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) are methods of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). Currently, little is known about how they differ in terms of ventricular activation. This study compared ventricular activation patterns in left bundle branch block (LBBB) heart failure patients using an ultra-high-frequency electrocardiography (UHF-ECG). This was a retrospective analysis including 80 CRT patients from two centres. UHF-ECG data were obtained during LBBB, LBBAP, and Biv. Left bundle branch area pacing patients were divided into non-selective left bundle branch pacing (NSLBBP) or left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) and into groups with V6 R-wave peak times (V6RWPT) < 90 ms and ≥ 90 ms. Calculated parameters were: e-DYS (time difference between the first and last activation in V1-V8 leads) and Vdmean (average of V1-V8 local depolarization durations). In LBBB patients (n = 80) indicated for CRT, spontaneous rhythms were compared with Biv (39) and LBBAP rhythms (64). Although both Biv and LBBAP significantly reduced QRS duration (QRSd) compared with LBBB (from 172 to 148 and 152 ms, respectively, both P < 0.001), the difference between them was not significant (P = 0.2). Left bundle branch area pacing led to shorter e-DYS (24 ms) than Biv (33 ms; P = 0.008) and shorter Vdmean (53 vs. 59 ms; P = 0.003). No differences in QRSd, e-DYS, or Vdmean were found between NSLBBP, LVSP, and LBBAP with paced V6RWPTs < 90 and ≥ 90 ms. Both Biv CRT and LBBAP significantly reduce ventricular dyssynchrony in CRT patients with LBBB. Left bundle branch area pacing is associated with more physiological ventricular activation.

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.

Left ventricular septal pacing - can we trust the ECG?

In contrast to left bundle branch pacing, the criteria for left ventricular septal pacing (LVSP) were never validated. LVSP is usually defined as deep septal deployment of the pacing lead with a pseudo-right bundle branch morphology in V1. The case report describes an implant procedure during which this definition of LVSP was fulfilled in four of five pacing locations within the septum, with the shallowest of them present in less than 50% of the septal thickness. The case highlights the need for a more precise definition of LVSP.

The V6-V1 interpeak interval: a novel criterion for the diagnosis of left bundle branch capture.

AIMS: We hypothesized that during left bundle branch (LBB) area pacing, the various possible combinations of direct capture/non-capture of the septal myocardium and the LBB result in distinct patterns of right and left ventricular activation. This could translate into different combinations of R-wave peak time (RWPT) in V1 and V6. Consequently, the V6-V1 interpeak interval could differentiate the three types of LBB area capture: non-selective (ns-)LBB, selective (s-)LBB, and left ventricular septal (LVS). METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with unquestionable evidence of LBB capture were included. The V6-V1 interpeak interval, V6RWPT, and V1RWPT were compared between different types of LBB area capture. A total of 468 patients from two centres were screened, with 124 patients (239 electrocardiograms) included in the analysis. Loss of LVS capture resulted in an increase in V1RWPT by ≥15 ms but did not impact V6RWPT. Loss of LBB capture resulted in an increase in V6RWPT by ≥15 ms but only minimally influenced V1RWPT. Consequently, the V6-V1 interval was longest during s-LBB capture (62.3 ± 21.4 ms), intermediate during ns-LBB capture (41.3 ± 14.0 ms), and shortest during LVS capture (26.5 ± 8.6 ms). The optimal value of the V6-V1 interval value for the differentiation between ns-LBB and LVS capture was 33 ms (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 84.7%). A specificity of 100% for the diagnosis of LBB capture was obtained with a cut-off value of >44 ms. CONCLUSION: The V6-V1 interpeak interval is a promising novel criterion for the diagnosis of LBB area capture.

Novel approach to diagnosis of His bundle capture using individualized left ventricular lateral wall activation time as reference.

BACKGROUND: During nonselective His bundle (HB) pacing, it is clinically important to confirm His bundle capture versus right ventricular septal (RVS) capture. The present study aimed to validate the hypothesis that during HB capture, left ventricular lateral wall activation time, approximated by the V6 R-wave peak time (V6 RWPT), will not be longer than the corresponding activation time during native conduction. METHODS: Consecutive patients with permanent HB pacing were recruited; cases with abnormal His-ventricle interval or left bundle branch block were excluded. Two corresponding intervals were compared: stimulus-V6 RWPT and native HB potential-V6 RWPT. The difference between these two intervals (delta V6 RWPT), which was diagnostic of lack of HB capture, was identified using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. RESULTS: A total of 723 electrocardiograms (ECGs) (219 with native rhythm, 172 with selective HB, 215 with nonselective HB, and 117 with RVS capture) were obtained from 219 patients. The native HB-V6 RWPT, nonselective-, and selective-HB paced V6 RWPT were nearly equal, while RVS V6 RWPT was 32.0 (±9.5) ms longer. The ROC curve analysis indicated delta V6 RWPT > 12 ms as diagnostic of lack of HB capture (specificity of 99.1% and sensitivity of 100%). A blinded observer correctly diagnosed 96.7% (321/332) of ECGs using this criterion. CONCLUSIONS: We validated a novel criterion for HB capture that is based on the physiological left ventricular activation time as an individualized reference. HB capture can be diagnosed when paced V6 RWPT does not exceed the value obtained during native conduction by more than 12 ms, while longer paced V6 RWPT indicates RVS capture.

Nonselective versus selective His bundle pacing: An acute intrapatient speckle-tracking strain echocardiographic study.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to compare the acute differences in left ventricular (LV) function and mechanical synchrony during nonselective His bundle pacing (ns-HBP) versus selective His bundle pacing (s-HBP) using strain echocardiography. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients with permanent His bundle pacing, in whom it was possible to obtain both s-HBP and ns-HBP, were studied in two centers. In each patient, echocardiography was performed sequentially during s-HBP and ns-HBP. Speckle-tracking echocardiography parameters were analyzed: Global longitudinal strain (GLS), the time delay between peak systolic strain in the basal septal and basal lateral segments (BS-BL delay), peak strain dispersion (PSD) and strain delay index. Right ventricle function was assessed using tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) and tissue Doppler velocity of the lateral tricuspid annulus (S'). A total of 69 patients (age: 75.6 ± 10.5 years; males: 75%) were enrolled. There were no differences in LV ejection fraction and GLS between s-HBP and ns-HBP modes: 59% versus 60%, and -15.6% versus -15.7%, respectively; as well as no difference in BS-BL delay and strain delay index. The PSD value was higher in the ns-HBP group than in the s-HBP group with the most pronounced difference in the basal LV segments. No differences in right ventricular function parameters (TAPSE and S') were found. CONCLUSION: The ns-HBP and s-HBP modes seem comparable regarding ventricular function. The dyssynchrony parameters were significantly higher during ns-HBP, however, the difference seems modest and clarification of its impact on LV function requires a larger long-term study.

Ventricular activation pattern assessment during right ventricular pacing: Ultra-high-frequency ECG study.

BACKGROUND: Right ventricular (RV) pacing causes delayed activation of remote ventricular segments. We used the ultra-high-frequency ECG (UHF-ECG) to describe ventricular depolarization when pacing different RV locations. METHODS: In 51 patients, temporary pacing was performed at the RV septum (mSp); further subclassified as right ventricular inflow tract (RVIT) and right ventricular outflow tract (RVOT) for septal inflow and outflow positions (below or above the plane of His bundle in right anterior oblique), apex, anterior lateral wall, and at the basal RV septum with nonselective His bundle or RBB capture (nsHBorRBBp). The timings of UHF-ECG electrical activations were quantified as left ventricular lateral wall delay (LVLWd; V8 activation delay) and RV lateral wall delay (RVLWd; V1 activation delay). RESULTS: The LVLWd was shortest for nsHBorRBBp (11 ms [95% confidence interval = 5-17]), followed by the RVIT (19 ms [11-26]) and the RVOT (33 ms [27-40]; p < .01 between all of them), although the QRSd for the latter two were the same (153 ms (148-158) vs. 153 ms (148-158); p = .99). RV apical capture not only had a longer LVLWd (34 ms (26-43) compared to mSp (27 ms (20-34), p < .05), but its RVLWd (17 ms (9-25) was also the longest compared to other RV pacing sites (mean values for nsHBorRBBp, mSp, anterior and lateral wall captures being below 6 ms), p < .001 compared to each of them. CONCLUSION: RVIT pacing produces better ventricular synchrony compared to other RV pacing locations with myocardial capture. However, UHF-ECG ventricular dysynchrony seen during RVIT pacing is increased compared to concomitant capture of basal septal myocytes and His bundle or proximal right bundle branch.

Impact of His bundle pacing on right ventricular performance in patients undergoing permanent pacemaker implantation.

BACKGROUND: His-Bundle pacing (HBP) is an emerging technique for physiological pacing. However, its effects on right ventricle (RV) performance are still unknown. METHODS: We enrolled consecutive patients with an indication for pacemaker (PM) implantation to compare HBP versus RV pacing (RVP) effects on RV performance. Patients were evaluated before implantation and after 6 months by a transthoracic echocardiogram. RESULTS: A total of 84 patients (age 75.1±7.9 years, 64% male) were enrolled, 42 patients (50%) underwent successful HBP, and 42 patients (50%) apical RVP. At follow up, we found a significant improvement in RV-FAC (Fractional Area Change)% [baseline: HBP 34 IQR (31-37) vs. RVP 33 IQR (29.7-37.2),p = .602; 6-months: HBP 37 IQR (33-39) vs. RVP 30 IQR (27.7-35), p < .0001] and RV-GLS (Global Longitudinal Strain)% [baseline: HBP -18 IQR (-20.2 to -15) vs. RVP -16 IQR (-18.7 to -14), p = .150; 6-months: HBP -20 IQR(-23 to -17) vs. RVP -13.5 IQR (-16 to -11), p < .0001] with HBP whereas RVP was associated with a significant decline in both parameters. RVP was also associated with a significant worsening of tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion (TAPSE) (p < .0001) and S wave velocity (p < .0001) at follow up. Conversely from RVP, HBP significantly improved pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) [baseline: HBP 38 IQR (32-42) mmHg vs. RVP 34 IQR (31.5-37) mmHg,p = .060; 6-months: HBP 32 IQR (26-38) mmHg vs. RVP 39 IQR (36-41) mmHg, p < .0001] and tricuspid regurgitation (p = .005) irrespectively from lead position above or below the tricuspid valve. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing PM implantation, HBP ensues a beneficial and protective impact on RV performance compared with RVP.

Novel ultra-high-frequency electrocardiogram tool for the description of the ventricular depolarization pattern before and during cardiac resynchronization.

INTRODUCTION: The present study introduces a new ultra-high-frequency 14-lead electrocardiogram technique (UHF-ECG) for mapping ventricular depolarization patterns and calculation of novel dyssynchrony parameters that may improve the selection of patients and application of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). METHODS: Components of the ECG in sixteen frequency bands within the 150 to 1000 Hz range were used to create ventricular depolarization maps. The maximum time difference between the UHF QRS complex centers of mass of leads V1 to V8 was defined as ventricular electrical dyssynchrony (e-DYS), and the duration at 50% of peak voltage amplitude in each lead was defined as the duration of local depolarization (Vd). Proof of principle measurements was performed in seven patients with left (left bundle branch block) and four patients with right bundle branch block (right bundle branch block) before and during CRT using biventricular and His-bundle pacing. RESULTS: The acquired activation maps reflect the activation sequence under the tested conditions. e-DYS decreased considerably more than QRS duration, during both biventricular pacing (-50% vs -8%) and His-bundle pacing (-77% vs -13%). While biventricular pacing slightly increased Vd, His-bundle pacing reduced Vd significantly (+11% vs -36%), indicating the contribution of the fast conduction system. Optimization of biventricular pacing by adjusting VV-interval showed a decrease of e-DYS from 102 to 36 ms with only a small Vd increase and QRS duration decrease. CONCLUSIONS: The UHF-ECG technique provides novel information about electrical activation of the ventricles from a standard ECG electrode setup, potentially improving the selection of patients for CRT and application of CRT.

Can QRS morphology be used to differentiate between true septal vs. apparently septal lead placement? An analysis of ECG of real mid-septal, apparent mid-septal, and apical pacing.

The location of the pacemaker lead is based on the shape of the lead on fluoroscopy only, typically in the left and right anterior oblique positions. However, these fluoroscopy criteria are insufficient and many leads apparently considered to be in septum are in fact anchored in anterior wall. Periprocedural ECG could determine the correct lead location. The aim of the current analysis is to characterize ECG criteria associated with a correct position of the right ventricular (RV) lead in the mid-septum. Patients with indications for a pacemaker had the RV lead implanted in the apex (Group A) or mid-septum using the standard fluoroscopic criteria. The exact position of the RV lead was verified using computed tomography. Based on the findings, the mid-septal group was divided into two subgroups: (i) true septum, i.e. lead was found in the mid-septum, and (ii) false septum, i.e. lead was in the adjacent areas (anterior wall, anteroseptal groove). Paced ECGs were acquired from all patients and multiple criteria were analysed. Paced ECGs from 106 patients were analysed (27 in A, 36 in true septum, and 43 in false septum group). Group A had a significantly wider QRS, more left-deviated axis and later transition zone compared with the true septum and false septum groups. There were no differences in presence of q in lead I, or notching in inferior or lateral leads between the three groups. QRS patterns of true septum and false septum groups were similar with only one exception of the transition zone. In the multivariate model, the only ECG parameters associated with correct lead placement in the septum was an earlier transition zone (odds ratio (OR) 2.53, P = 0.001). ECGs can be easily used to differentiate apical pacing from septal or septum-close pacing. The only ECG characteristic that could help to identify true septum lead position was the transition zone in the precordial leads. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02412176.

Electrocardiographic characterization of non-selective His-bundle pacing: validation of novel diagnostic criteria.

AIMS: Permanent His-bundle (HB) pacing is usually accompanied by simultaneous capture of the adjacent right ventricular (RV) myocardium-this is described as a non-selective (ns)-HB pacing. It is of clinical importance to confirm HB capture using standard electrocardiogram (ECG). Our aim was to identify ECG criteria for loss of HB capture during ns-HB pacing. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with permanent HB pacing were recruited. Electrocardiograms during ns-HB pacing and loss of HB capture (RV-only capture) were obtained. Electrocardiogram criteria for loss/presence of HB capture were identified. In the validation phase, these criteria and the 'HB ECG algorithm' were tested using a separate, sizable set of ECGs. A total of 353 ECG (226 ns-HB and 128 RV-only) were obtained from 226 patients with permanent HB pacing devices. QRS notch/slur in left ventricular leads and R-wave peak time (RWPT) in lead V6 were identified as the best features for differentiation. The 'HB ECG algorithm' based on these features correctly classified 87.1% of cases with sensitivity and specificity of 93.2% and 83.9%, respectively. The criteria for definitive diagnosis of ns-HB capture (no QRS slur/notch in Leads I, V1, V4-V6, and the V6 RWPT ≤ 100 ms) presented 100% specificity. CONCLUSION: A novel ECG algorithm for the diagnosis of loss of HB capture and criteria for definitive confirmation of HB capture were formulated and validated. The algorithm might be useful during follow-up and the criteria for definitive confirmation of ns-HB capture offer a simple and reliable ancillary procedural endpoint during HB device implantation.

Variants in miRNA regulating cardiac growth are not a common cause of hypertrophic cardiomyopathy.

OBJECTIVES: A substantial proportion of patients with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) do not have causative mutations in the genes for heart sarcomere. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between microRNA (miRNA) sequence variants and HCM. METHODS: We performed genetic testing on 56 HCM patients who had previously been found to be negative for mutations in the 4 major genes for sarcomeric proteins. The coding and adjacent regions (120-220 nt) of selected miRNAs were analyzed for the presence of sequence variants. The testing was based on PCR amplification of DNA-encoding miRNAs and subsequent denaturing capillary electrophoresis. RESULTS: A total of 3 different variants were detected in the 11 selected miRNAs. These included polymorphisms rs45489294 in miRNA 208b, rs13136737 in miRNA 367 and rs9989532 in miRNA 1-2. In the patient group, the most frequent polymorphism was in miRNA 208b (10 times) followed by miRNA 367 (7 times). Both polymorphisms were found to occur with similar frequencies in the group of healthy controls. The remaining detected variant was not present in the control group, but was not connected with the HCM phenotype in the children of the probands. CONCLUSION: Sequence variants in miRNAs of patients with HCM are not frequent and the contribution of these variants to the development of this disease was not demonstrated.