BACKGROUND Chronic right ventricular (RV) pacing is associated with an increased incidence of heart failure and mortality. Left bundle branch (LBB) pacing could produce near-physiological electrical activation and mechanical synchrony. We aimed to report the effects of upgrading to LBB pacing in heart failure patients after chronic RV pacing. METHODS The indications included pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) in Group 1 and heart failure after RV pacing with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≥ 50% in Group 2. LBB pacing was achieved by penetrating the pacing lead to the subendocardium of left-sided interventricular septum through the venous access. Left ventricular activation time (LVAT) was measured from the pacing stimulus to the ascending peak of lead V5 or V6. All patients underwent clinical and echocardiographic evaluations before and after upgrading. RESULTS Totally 27 patients (13 in Group 1 and 14 in Group 2) were consecutively enrolled. The mean follow-up time after upgrade was 10.4 ± 6.1 months. Paced QRS duration was significantly shortened from 174.1 ± 15.8 milliseconds to 116.6 ± 11.7 milliseconds (p < .0001). The mean LVAT was 83.2 ± 11.7 milliseconds. LVEF increased from 40.3 ± 5.2% before upgrading to 48.1 ± 9.5% at follow-up in patients with PICM. Serum N-terminal probrain natriuretic peptide levels decreased and New York Heart Association classification improved in both groups. No upgrade-related complications were observed. CONCLUSIONS Upgrading to LBB pacing was feasible and effective with improved cardiac function in heart failure patients with both reduced and preserved LVEF after RV pacing.

Efficacy of upgrading to left bundle branch pacing in patients with heart failure after right ventricular pacing

Background: A single procedure combining left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) plus catheter ablation (CA) has been proven to be safe and feasible for treating atrial fibrillation (AF). However, the influence of treatment modality on left atrial (LA) function is not thoroughly explained. Objective: We aimed to investigate the changes of LA function in persistent AF patients undergoing concomitant LAAC and CA. Methods: The study population comprised 65 patients who underwent combined AF ablation and Watchman LAAC (combined therapy group) in our center, and 65 participants of the AF simple ablation group who were matched based on sex, age, CHA2DS2-VASc score and HAS-BLED score using propensity score matching. During the 1-year follow-up period, two-dimensional echocardiography and speckle tracking echocardiography were performed to assess LA reservoir, conduit, and contractile function. Results: The combined therapy was associated with a significant improvement in the LA reservoir function with increased expansion index and strain indices, including strain and strain rate (SR) during ventricular systole. Conduit function with SR during early ventricular diastole was also improved, as was contractile function with active atrial emptying fraction and SR during atrial systole. Similarly, LA reservoir and contractile function indices all improved continuously during follow-up after catheter ablation alone. At 3 months follow-up LA reservoir and conduit function with strain indices had a tendency to improve only in the simple procedure group. At 1-year follow-up there was no significant difference in either LA volumes or strain indices between the two groups. Conclusion: Both the combined therapy group and the simple ablation group demonstrated significant improvement in LA function. Based upon the fact that LA function was improved in both groups it might be concluded that most of the effects appeared to result from ablation, not LAAC; furthermore the additional LAAC procedure did not affect the improvement of LA function after CA.

/pdf/effect-of-left-atrial-appendage-closure-in-combination-with-3cpl61kazn.pdf

Effect of Left Atrial Appendage Closure in Combination With Catheter Ablation on Left Atrial Function for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

Abstract Radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA) is widely used to treat atrial fibrillation (AF), but its effect on left atrial (LA) remodeling in patients with AF is not completely clarified. Few studies have reported the changes in structure and function of the left atrium in patients with different types of AF after RFCA. To analyze the effect of RFCA on the LA structure and function in patients with nonvalvular paroxysmal AF, persistent AF and long-standing persistent AF (LSPAF). RFCA was performed in 180 patients with paroxysmal AF, persistent AF and LSPAF. The changes of LA structure and function in echocardiogram and speckle-tracking echocardiography findings were compared before the procedure, and at 1, 2, 3, 4 weeks, and 2, 3, 6, and 9–12 months after the procedure. There were 60 patients in the paroxysmal AF group, 60 in the persistent AF group and 60 patients in LSPAF group. The pre-procedure LA diameter and volume were smaller in the paroxysmal AF group than persistent AF and LSPAF group. There was no significant change of in the LA structure and function in the paroxysmal AF group within 1 year. In the persistent AF and LSPAF groups, LA structure (anteroposterior diameter, LA volume) significantly decreased, but remained larger than that in paroxysmal AF group. In persistent and LSPAF, function (LA ejection fraction, strain, strain rate) increased significantly within 1 week, then gradually increased. RFCA improved the LA structure and function and resulted in heart reverse remodeling, especially for persistent AF and LSPAF. 

/pdf/effect-of-radiofrequency-catheter-ablation-on-left-atrial-5x850qkp.pdf

Effect of radiofrequency catheter ablation on left atrial structure and function in patients with different types of atrial fibrillation

Abstract Aims To investigate whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) can reduce the risk of new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) compared with right ventricular pacing (RVP). Methods and results Patients with indications for dual-chamber pacemaker implant and no history of AF were prospectively enrolled if they underwent successful LBBAP or RVP. The primary endpoint was time to the first occurrence of AF detected by pacemaker programming or surface electrocardiogram. Follow-up at clinic visit was performed and multivariate Cox regression models were applied to evaluate the effect of LBBAP on new-onset AF. The final analysis included 527 patients (mean age 65.3 ± 12.6, male 47.3%), with 257 in the LBBAP and 270 in the RVP groups. During a mean follow-up of 11.1 months, LBBAP resulted in significantly lower incidence of new-onset AF (7.4 vs. 17.0%, P < 0.001) and AF burden (3.7 ± 1.9 vs. 9.3 ± 2.2%, P < 0.001) than RVP. After adjusting for confounding factors, LBBAP demonstrated a lower hazard ratio for new-onset AF compared with RVP {hazard ratio (HR) [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 0.278 (0.156, 0.496), P < 0.001}. A significant interaction existed between pacing modalities and the percentage of ventricular pacing (VP%) (P for interaction = 0.020). In patients with VP ≥ 20%, LBBAP was associated with decreased risk of new-onset AF compared with RVP [HR (95% CI): 0.199 (0.105, 0.378), P < 0.001]. The effect of pacing modalities was not pronounced in patients with VP < 20% [HR (95% CI): 0.751 (0.309, 1.823), P = 0.316]. Conclusion Left bundle branch area pacing demonstrated a reduced risk of new-onset AF compared with RVP. Patients with a high ventricular pacing burden might benefit from LBBAP.

New-onset atrial fibrillation following left bundle branch area pacing vs. right ventricular pacing: a two-centre prospective cohort study

PURPOSE This study aims to assess whether left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) can result in favorable clinical and echocardiographic outcomes among patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF). METHODS We prospectively enrolled consecutive patients with PeAF if they required ventricular pacing and had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) > 35%. During the same period, two experienced operators performed LBBAP and right ventricular pacing (RVP). All-cause death and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) were routinely followed after procedure. The primary outcome was the composite endpoints of all-cause death or HFH. RESULTS LBBAP was successful in 49 of 52 patients (94.2%), whereas 44 patients received RVP. During a mean follow-up of 13.9 ± 7.0 months, LBBAP group presented with higher ventricular pacing percentage (80% vs. 50.9%, p = .04) and narrower paced QRS duration (117.2 ± 18.8 ms vs. 151.8 ± 13.7 ms, p < .001) than RVP group. The primary endpoint was slightly reduced in LBBAP group than RVP without reaching statistical significance (7.7% vs. 11.4%, p = .48). Compared with baseline, we observed significant changes in LVEF (+0.7% vs. -2.2%, p = .007) and left atrial diameter (-1.63 mm vs. +1.23 mm, p = .011) between LBBAP and RVP. CONCLUSION Our results indicate possible effect of LBBAP on reverse remodeling of left atrium and a trend towards favorable clinical outcomes in patients with PeAF requiring high burden of ventricular pacing when compared with RVP.

Left bundle branch area pacing versus right ventricular pacing in patients with persistent atrial fibrillation requiring ventricular pacing.

Comparison of cardiac function between left bundle branch pacing and right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing in the short-term: A registered controlled clinical trial.

Miao Pei

Papers

Comparison of cardiac function between left bundle branch pacing and right ventricular outflow tract septal pacing in the short-term: A registered controlled clinical trial.