Marek Jastrzębski

Bio: Marek Jastrzębski is an academic researcher from Jagiellonian University. The author has contributed to research in topics: QRS complex & Cardiac resynchronization therapy. The author has an hindex of 20, co-authored 134 publications receiving 1137 citations. Previous affiliations of Marek Jastrzębski include Jagiellonian University Medical College.

Transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of central sleep apnoea in heart failure

Abstract: Aims Periodic breathing with central sleep apnoea (CSA) is common in heart failure patients and is associated with poor quality of life and increased risk of morbidity and mortality. We conducted a prospective, non-randomized, acute study to determine the feasibility of using unilateral transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation for the treatment of CSA in heart failure patients. Methods and results Thirty-one patients from six centres underwent attempted transvenous lead placement. Of these, 16 qualified to undergo two successive nights of polysomnography—one night with and one night without phrenic nerve stimulation. Comparisons were made between the two nights using the following indices: apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI), central apnoea index (CAI), obstructive apnoea index (OAI), hypopnoea index, arousal index, and 4% oxygen desaturation index (ODI4%). Patients underwent phrenic nerve stimulation from either the right brachiocephalic vein ( n = 8) or the left brachiocephalic or pericardiophrenic vein ( n = 8). Therapy period was (mean ± SD) 251 ± 71 min. Stimulation resulted in significant improvement in the AHI [median (inter-quartile range); 45 (39–59) vs. 23 (12–27) events/h, P = 0.002], CAI [27 (11–38) vs. 1 (0–5) events/h, P ≤ 0.001], arousal index [32 (20–42) vs. 12 (9–27) events/h, P = 0.001], and ODI4% [31 (22–36) vs. 14 (7–20) events/h, P = 0.002]. No significant changes occurred in the OAI or hypopnoea index. Two adverse events occurred (lead thrombus and episode of ventricular tachycardia), though neither was directly related to phrenic nerve stimulation therapy. Conclusion Unilateral transvenous phrenic nerve stimulation significantly reduces episodes of CSA and restores a more natural breathing pattern in patients with heart failure. This approach may represent a novel therapy for CSA and warrants further study. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: [NCT00909259][1]. [1]: /lookup/external-ref?link_type=CLINTRIALGOV&access_num=NCT00909259&atom=%2Fehj%2Fearly%2F2011%2F08%2F19%2Feurheartj.ehr298.atom

His bundle pacing, learning curve, procedure characteristics, safety, and feasibility: Insights from a large international observational study

Abstract: Background His-bundle pacing (HBP) provides physiological ventricular activation. Observational studies have demonstrated the techniques' feasibility; however, data have come from a limited number of centers. Objectives We set out to explore the contemporary global practice in HBP focusing on the learning curve, procedural characteristics, and outcomes. Methods This is a retrospective, multicenter observational study of patients undergoing attempted HBP at seven centers. Pacing indication, fluoroscopy time, HBP thresholds, and lead reintervention and deactivation rates were recorded. Where centers had systematically recorded implant success rates from the outset, these were collated. Results A total of 529 patients underwent attempted HBP during the study period (2014-19) with a mean follow-up of 217 ± 303 days. Most implants were for bradycardia indications. In the three centers with the systematic collation of all attempts, the overall implant success rate was 81%, which improved to 87% after completion of 40 cases. All seven centers reported data on successful implants. The mean fluoroscopy time was 11.7 ± 12.0 minutes, the His-bundle capture threshold at implant was 1.4 ± 0.9 V at 0.8 ± 0.3 ms, and it was 1.3 ± 1.2 V at 0.9 ± 0.2 ms at last device check. HBP lead reintervention or deactivation (for lead displacement or rise in threshold) occurred in 7.5% of successful implants. There was evidence of a learning curve: fluoroscopy time and HBP capture threshold reduced with greater experience, plateauing after approximately 30-50 cases. Conclusion We found that it is feasible to establish a successful HBP program, using the currently available implantation tools. For physicians who are experienced at pacemaker implantation, the steepest part of the learning curve appears to be over the first 30-50 cases.

Comparison of five electrocardiographic methods for differentiation of wide QRS-complex tachycardias

Abstract: Aims To compare the sensitivity (SN), specificity (SP), and diagnostic accuracy (ACC) for ventricular tachycardia (VT) diagnosis of five electrocardiographic methods for wide QRS-complex tachycardia (WCT) differentiation, specifically the Brugada, Bayesian, Griffith, and aVR algorithms, and the lead II R-wave-peak-time (RWPT) criterion. Methods and results We retrospectively analysed 260 WCTs from 204 patients with proven diagnoses. The SN, SP, ACC, and likelihood ratios (LRs) were determined for the five methods. Of the 260 tracings, there were 159 VTs and 101 supraventricular tachycardias. All five methods were found to have a similar ACC although the RWPT had a lower ACC than the Brugada algorithm (68.8 vs. 77.5%, P = 0.04). The RWPT had lower (60%) SN than the Brugada (89.0%), Griffith (94.2%), and Bayesian (89%) algorithms ( P < 0.001). The Griffith algorithm showed lower (39.8%) SP than the RWPT (82.7%), Brugada (59.2%), and Bayesian (52.0%) algorithms ( P < 0.05). The positive LRs for a VT diagnosis for the RWPT criterion and the Brugada, Bayesian, aVR, and Griffith algorithms were 3.46, 2.18, 1.86, 1.67, and 1.56, respectively. Conclusion The present study is the first independent ‘head-to-head’ comparison of several WCT differentiation methods. We found that all five algorithms/criteria had rather moderate ACC, and that the newer methods were not more accurate than the classic Brugada algorithm. However, the algorithms/criteria differed significantly in terms of SN, SP, and LR, suggesting that the value of a diagnosis may differ depending on the method used.

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

Abstract: Abstract 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.

2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure

Abstract: ACC/AHA : American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ACCF/AHA : American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACEI : angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ACS : acute coronary syndrome AF : atrial fibrillation

2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure

Abstract: ACC/AHA : American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association ACCF/AHA : American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACEI : angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ACS : acute coronary syndrome AF : atrial fibrillation

Esc guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 (ending)

Abstract: ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure 2008 (ending).