Cardiac resynchronization therapy in patients undergoing atrioventricular junction ablation for permanent atrial fibrillation: a randomized trial

Optimized implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a call for action for referral and optimization of care: A joint position statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA), and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) of the European Society of Cardiology

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is one of the most effective therapies for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction and leads to improved quality of life, reductions in heart failure hospitalization rates and all-cause mortality. Nevertheless, up to two-thirds of eligible patients are not referred for CRT. Furthermore, post-implantation follow-up is often fragmented and suboptimal, hampering the potential maximal treatment effect. This joint position statement from three European Society of Cardiology Associations, Heart Failure Association (HFA), European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI), focuses on optimized implementation of CRT. We offer theoretical and practical strategies to achieve more comprehensive CRT referral and post-procedural care by focusing on four actionable domains: (i) overcoming CRT under-utilization, (ii) better understanding of pre-implant characteristics, (iii) abandoning the term 'non-response' and replacing this by the concept of disease modification, and (iv) implementing a dedicated post-implant CRT care pathway.

Long-term outcomes after radiofrequency catheter ablation of the atrioventricular node: The experience of a Portuguese tertiary center

INTRODUCTION

In patients with supraventricular arrhythmias and high ventricular rate, unresponsive to rate and rhythm control therapy or catheter ablation, atrioventricular (AV) node ablation may be performed.

OBJECTIVES

To assess long-term outcomes after AV node ablation and to analyze predictors of adverse events.

METHODS

We performed a detailed retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent AV node ablation between February 1997 and February 2019, in a single Portuguese tertiary center.

RESULTS

A total of 123 patients, mean age 69±9 years and 52% male, underwent AV node ablation. Most of them presented atrial fibrillation at baseline (65%). During a median follow-up of 8.5 years (interquartile range 3.8-11.8), patients improved heart failure (HF) functional class (NYHA class III-IV 46% versus 13%, p=0.001), and there were reductions in hospitalizations due to HF (0.98±1.3 versus 0.28±0.8, p=0.001) and emergency department (ED) visits (1.1±1 versus 0.17±0.7, p=0.0001). There were no device-related complications. Despite permanent pacemaker stimulation, left ventricular ejection fraction did not worsen (47±13% vs. 47%±12, p=0.63). Twenty-eight patients died (23%). The number of ED visits due to HF before AV node ablation was an independent predictor of the composite adverse outcome (OR 1.8, 95% CI 1.24-2.61, p=0.002).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite pacemaker dependency, the clinical benefit of AV node ablation persisted at long-term follow-up. The number of ED visits due to HF before AV node ablation was an independent predictor of the composite adverse outcome. AV node ablation should probably be considered earlier in the treatment of patients with supraventricular arrhythmias and HF, especially in cases that are unsuitable for selective ablation of the specific arrhythmia.

Nonpharmacological Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: What Is the Role of Device Therapy?

Atrial fibrillation is the most common arrhythmia in the adult population, and its incidence and prevalence are still rising. Cardiac devices are widely used in clinical practice in the management of various rhythm disturbances and heart failure treatment. Many patients who receive a pacemaker, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, or cardiac resynchronization therapy also experience atrial fibrillation in the course of their life. Therefore, this review aims to describe the role of these devices in the treatment and prevention of atrial fibrillation in the device recipients. In addition, all these implantable devices also serve as permanent ECG (electrocardiogram) monitors, thus providing important information about the presence and characteristics of atrial fibrillation that may or may not be detected by the patient but can modify our therapeutical approach with regard to the stroke prevention.

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing and atrioventricular node ablation

His-Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) in the form of His bundle pacing and left bundle branch pacing allows normal ventricular activation, thereby preventing the adverse consequences of right ventricular pacing. One potential area where HPCSP could be used is in the field of atrioventricular (AV) node ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation refractory to medical therapy and/or catheter ablation. His bundle pacing has been established for several years, with centres from North America, Europe and China publishing their experience. The differing patterns of His bundle capture are clearly described with established guidance as to how to implant such systems. Left bundle branch pacing has only recently been reported, but there are several advantages with better pacing parameters and lower risk of threshold change after AV node ablation. Six studies have been identified in the literature which describe the experience of His bundle pacing in patients requiring AV node ablation. Overall the results are positive and favour this new technique; however, they are limited by low numbers of patients and non-randomised study design. An observational study was recently published demonstrating better outcomes with left bundle branch pacing in a small number of patients with left ventricular dysfunction and atrial fibrillation that underwent AV node ablation. HPCSP has the potential to be the primary pacing modality in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring AV node ablation. However, it is essential that this is confirmed in large randomised clinical trials.

Future research prioritization in cardiac resynchronization therapy

BACKGROUND

Although cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is effective for some patients with heart failure and a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (HFrEF), evidence gaps remain for key clinical and policy areas. The objective of the study was to review the data on the effects of CRT for patients with HFrEF receiving pharmacological therapy alone or pharmacological therapy and an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) and then, informed by a diverse group of stakeholders, to identify evidence gaps, prioritize them, and develop a research plan.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified using PubMed and EMBASE and ongoing trials using clinicaltrials.gov. Forced-ranking prioritization method was applied by stakeholders to reach a consensus on the most important questions. Twenty-six stakeholders contributed to the expanded list of evidence gaps, including key investigators from existing randomized controlled trials and others representing different perspectives, including patients, the public, device manufacturers, and policymakers.

RESULTS

Of the 18 top-tier evidence gaps, 8 were related to specific populations or subgroups of interest. Seven were related to the comparative effectiveness and safety of CRT interventions or comparators, and 3 were related to the association of CRT treatment with specific outcomes. The association of comorbidities with CRT effectiveness ranked highest, followed by questions about the effectiveness of CRT among patients with atrial fibrillation and the relationship between gender, QRS morphology and duration, and outcomes for patients either with CRT plus ICD or with ICD.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence gaps presented in this article highlight numerous, important clinical and policy questions for which there is inconclusive evidence on the role of CRT and provide a framework for future collaborative research.

Feasibility and Efficacy of His Bundle Pacing or Left Bundle Pacing Combined With Atrioventricular Node Ablation in Patients With Persistent Atrial Fibrillation and Implantable Cardioverter-Defibrillator Therapy

Background

Persistent atrial fibrillation may lead to a higher probability of inappropriate shocks in heart failure patients with an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD). The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact of His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing combined with atrioventricular node ablation in improving heart function and preventing inappropriate shock therapy in these patients.

Methods and Results

A total of 86 consecutive patients with persistent atrial fibrillation and heart failure who had indications for ICD implantation were enrolled from January 2010 to March 2018. His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing with ICD and atrioventricular node ablation was attempted in 55 patients, and the remaining patients underwent ICD implantation only. Left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction, LV end‐systolic volume, New York Heart Association (NYHA) classification, shock therapies, and drug therapy were assessed during follow‐up. Overall, 31 patients received ICD implantation with optimal drug therapy (group 1). atrioventricular node ablation combined with His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing was successfully achieved in 52 patients (group 2). During follow‐up, patients in group 2 had lower incidence of inappropriate shock (15.6% versus 0%, P<0.01) and adverse events (P=0.011). Meanwhile, improvement in LV ejection fraction and reduction in LV end‐systolic volume were significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (15% versus 3%, P<0.001; and 40 versus 2 mL, P<0.01, respectively). NYHA functional class improved in both groups from a baseline 2.57±0.68 to 1.73±0.74 in group 1 and 2.73±0.59 to 1.42±0.53 in group 2 (P<0.01).

Conclusions

His‐Purkinje conduction system pacing combined with atrioventricular node ablation is feasible and safe with a high success rate in persistent atrial fibrillation patients with heart failure and ICD indication. It can significantly reduce the incidence of inappropriate shocks and improve LV function.

Long-term experience of atrioventricular node ablation in patients with refractory atrial arrhythmias

Atrial fibrillation and other atrial tachyarrhythmias are increasing with age and concomitant morbidity. First options in symptomatic patients are drug treatment and catheter ablation. Nevertheless, a considerable number of patients suffer from refractory atrial tachyarrhythmias despite treatment. Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) may be helpful in many of these patients. Therefore, we investigated AVNA patients with a long-term follow-up. We enrolled 82 patients with a follow-up longer than 1 year receiving AVNA for drug- and ablation-resistant atrial tachyarrhythmias (AA) in a retrospective manner. Mean follow-up duration was 48 ± 24 months. 50% of the patients initially received AVNA to optimize biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy, the other 50% because of refractory symptomatic tachyarrhythmias. Persistent AV block was achieved in every patient. Symptom relief and patient satisfaction were high during follow-up. Due to system upgrades there were 63% of patients with a biventricular system during follow-up. In these patients, left-ventricular ejection fraction (LV-EF) increased by 7% (42-49%) after ablation. AVNA is effective in increasing biventricular pacing as well as for symptom relief in patients with refractory atrial tachyarrhythmias. AVNA should be considered as a valuable option in patients with refractory atrial tachyarrhythmias lacking other treatment options.

Saudi Heart Association (SHA) guidelines for the management of heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is the leading cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and negatively impacts quality of life, healthcare costs, and longevity. Although data on HF in the Arab population are scarce, recently developed regional registries are a step forward to evaluating the quality of current patient care and providing an overview of the clinical picture. Despite the burden of HF in Saudi Arabia, there are currently no standardized protocols or guidelines for the management of patients with acute or chronic heart failure. Therefore, the Heart Failure Expert Committee, comprising 13 local specialists representing both public and private sectors, has developed guidelines to address the needs and challenges for the diagnosis and treatment of HF in Saudi Arabia. The ultimate aim of these guidelines is to assist healthcare professionals in delivering optimal care and standardized clinical practice across Saudi Arabia.

Change in indication for cardiac resynchronization therapy?

Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has rapidly evolved as a standard therapy for heart failure (HF) patients with ventricular conduction delay. Although in early trials, only patients with sinus rhythm and advanced stages of HF have been candidates for CRT, more recent data have expanded the indications to patients with mild-to-moderate HF and atrial fibrillation and patients in need of antibradycardia pacing with reduced left ventricular function. On the other hand, it is now well recognized that patients with a wide QRS (>150 ms) and left bundle branch block morphology benefit most from CRT, whereas in patients with a more narrow QRS complex (<130 ms) CRT may actually be harmful despite the evidence of ventricular dyssynchrony by echocardiography. There is no prospective randomized study showing mortality benefit from a combined CRT defibrillating device over a CRT pacer alone. This is especially important because recent data indicate that older patients with non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy may not benefit from the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator as much as previously thought. Thus, the decision for a CRT pacer versus CRT defibrillating should be tailored to the therapeutic goal (improvement in prognosis versus symptomatic relief), patient age, underlying cardiac disease and comorbidities. This article gives an overview over the current indications for CRT according to published literature and the European guidelines for pacing and HF.

Beyond pharmacological treatment: an insight into therapies that target specific aspects of heart failure pathophysiology

Heart failure is a common syndrome associated with substantial morbidity and mortality. The management of symptoms and the strategies for improving prognosis have largely been based on pharmacological treatments. The pathophysiology of heart failure is complex because of the multiple causes responsible for this syndrome. This Series paper presents some examples of advances in heart failure management, in which the treatment specifically targets the underlying pathophysiological mechanisms responsible for the symptoms. These treatments include treatment of electromechanical dyssynchrony and dysrhythmia by cardiac resynchronisation and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators; neurohumoral modification by baroreflex and vagal stimulation; prevention of adverse cardiac remodelling by interatrial shunts; and finally targeting the myocardium directly by cell therapy in an attempt to regenerate new myocardial cells.

Contemporary Treatment of Heart Failure

Heart failure (HF) affects 2.4% of the adult population in the United States and is associated with high health care costs. Medical and device therapy delay disease progression and improve survival in HF with reduced ejection fraction. Stage D HF is characterized by significant functional limitation, frequent HF hospitalization for decompensation, intolerance of medical therapy, use of inotropes, and high diuretic requirement. Advanced therapies with left ventricular assist devices and cardiac transplantation reduce mortality and improve quality of life, and early referral to specialized centers is imperative for patient selection and success with these therapies.

Should His Bundle Pacing Be Preferred over Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Following Atrioventricular Junction Ablation?

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) are associated with high morbidity and mortality, which is particularly detrimental when patients develop rapid ventricular rates (RVR). Atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation with pacemaker implantation has been used as a method of achieving rate control in patients with incessant AF with RVR. Right ventricular only pacing is known to be harmful in the setting of HF. His bundle pacing (HBP) and biventricular (BiV) pacing both offer durable pacing solutions that offer more physiologic activation. This review describes the benefits and drawbacks of HBP and BiV pacing in HF patients after AVJ ablation.

Focused Update of 2016 Korean Society of Heart Failure Guidelines for the Management of Chronic Heart Failure

The incidence of heart failure (HF) is increasing in South Korea and devising the optimal care plan is crucial to promote appropriate and effective treatment of HF. To this end, the first Korean guideline for management of chronic HF was published in 2016 by the HF research group under the Korean Society of Cardiology (KSC). After this publication, considerable data have been accumulated and a new guideline for the management of HF was published in Europe, and an update regarding pharmacological therapy was published in the United States, which made it warrant to update the Korean guideline. Under this premise, The Clinical Practice Guidelines Committee under the Korean Society of Heart Failure (KSHF) founded in 2018 decided to publish a focused update management guideline for chronic HF and selected 15 topics that need an update regarding the diagnosis, definition, diagnostic algorithm, monitoring, novel biomarkers, drug therapy related to non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants and angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitors, and with respect to comorbidities changes in the guidelines of relevant institutions, such as new guidelines for the management of hypertension, a procedure used to treat severe aortic stenosis, information on sodium glucose co-transporter-2 inhibitor, and that about sleep apnea. Among nonpharmacological therapies, changes to the recommendations for implantable cardioverter defibrillator, cardiac resynchronization therapy, and cardiac rehabilitation were updated. Subsequent and continuous updates based on additional clinical research findings, with continual supervision by the KSHF will be needed.

The stricter criteria for Class I CRT indication suggested by the 2016 ESC Guidelines reliably exclude patients with a worse prognosis in comparison with the 2013 ESC indication criteria

BACKGROUND

The European Society of Cardiology (ESC) Guidelines published in 2016 modified indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in comparison with the 2013 ESC Guidelines. The aim of this analysis was to evaluate the impact of the stricter criteria suggested by the 2016 ESC Guidelines on patient outcome in a real-world population.

METHODS

We collected data on 930 consecutive patients with complete outcome information who had undergone CRT implantation from 2011 to 2013 from the CRT-MORE registry. Patients were classified according to 2013 (Reference) and 2016 (Current) ESC Guidelines. The primary end-point of the study was death from any cause and heart failure hospitalization.

RESULTS

According to the Reference Guidelines, 650 (69.9%) patients met Class I indications, 190 (20.4%) Class IIa, 39 (4.2%) Class IIb and 51 (5.5%) Class III. According to the Current Guidelines, 563 (60.5%) patients met Class I indications, 145 (15.6%) Class IIa, 108 (11.6%) Class IIb and 114 (12.3%) Class III. On comparing the Reference and Current Guidelines, the 538 patients who confirmed their Class I indication had a better outcome in terms of freedom from the combined end-point of heart failure (HF) hospitalization or death from any cause (hazard ratio (HR) of 0.64; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.99; p = 0.0436) when compared to the 112 patients who lost their class I indication (84 moved to class IIb and 28 moved to class III).

CONCLUSIONS

The stricter criteria for Class I CRT indication suggested by the 2016 ESC Guidelines excluded about 20% of patients with a worse prognosis.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRT MORE: Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Modular Registry URL: http://clinicaltrials.gov/Identifier:NCT01573091.

Impact of Physiologic Pacing Versus Right Ventricular Pacing Among Patients With Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Greater Than 35%: A Systematic Review for the 2018 ACC/AHA/HRS Guideline on the Evaluation and Management of Patients With Bradycardia and Cardiac Conduction Delay: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Heart Rhythm Society

BACKGROUND

It is unclear whether physiologic pacing by either cardiac biventricular pacing (BiVP) or His bundle pacing (HisBP) may prevent adverse structural and functional consequences known to occur among some patients who receive right ventricular pacing (RVP).

AIM

Our analysis sought to review existing literature to determine if BiVP and/or HisBP might prevent adverse remodeling and be associated with structural, functional, and clinical advantages compared with RVP among patients without severe left ventricular dysfunction (>35%) who required permanent pacing because of heart block.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE (through PubMed) and Embase to identify randomized trials and observational studies comparing the effects of BiVP or HisBP versus RVP on measurements of left ventricular dimensions, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure functional classification, quality of life, 6-minute walk, hospitalizations, and mortality. Data from studies that met the appropriate population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes of interest were abstracted for meta-analysis. Studies that reported pooled outcomes among patients with LVEF both above and below 35% could not be included in the meta-analysis because of strict relationships with industry procedures that preclude retrieval of industry-retained unpublished data on the subset of patients with preserved left ventricular function.

RESULTS

Evidence from 8 studies, including a total of 679 patients meeting the prespecified criteria for inclusion, was identified. Results were compared for BiVP versus RVP, HisBP versus RVP, and BiVP+HisBP versus RVP. Among patients who received physiologic pacing with either BiVP or HisBP, the LV end-diastolic and end-systolic volumes were significantly lower (mean duration of follow-up: 1.64 years; -2.77 mL [95% CI -4.37 to -1.1 mL]; P=0.001; and -7.09 mL [95% CI -11.27 to -2.91; P=0.0009) and LVEF remained preserved or increased (mean duration of follow-up: 1.57 years; 5.328% [95% CI: 2.86%-7.8%; P<0.0001). Data on clinical impact such as functional status and quality of life were not definitive. Data on hospitalizations were unavailable. There was no effect on mortality. Several studies stratified results by LVEF and found that patients with LVEF >35% but ≤52% were more likely to receive benefit from physiologic pacing. Patients with chronic atrial fibrillation who underwent atrioventricular node ablation and pacemaker implant demonstrated clear improvement in LVEF with BiVP or HisBP versus RVP.

CONCLUSION

Among patients with LVEF >35%, the LVEF remained preserved or increased with either BiVP or HisBP compared with RVP. However, patient-centered clinical outcome improvement appears to be limited primarily to patients who have chronic atrial fibrillation with rapid ventricular response rates and have undergone atrioventricular node ablation.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy: a comprehensive review

Despite improved understanding of heart failure (HF) and advances in medical treatments, its prevalence continues to rise, and the role of implantable devices continues to evolve. While cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is an accepted form of treatment for many suffering from HF, there is an ever-evolving body of evidence examining novel indications, optimization of lead placement and device programming, with several competing technologies now also on the horizon. This review aims to take a clinical perspective on the major trials, current indications, controversies and emerging aspects of CRT in the treatment of HF.

Pacing Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation Patients with Heart Failure: His Bundle Pacing Combined with Atrioventricular Node Ablation

As an alternative to antiarrhythmic drugs and catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) for rate and rhythm control, pacing combined with atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation is suitable for many AF patients with heart failure (HF) who suffer from symptoms despite optimal medical therapy or have failed AF ablation. Studies have demonstrated His bundle pacing in conjunction with AVN ablation to treat refractory AF patients with HF provide long-term clinical benefits. Here we introduce the clinical application and procedures of His bundle pacing and AVN ablation.

Atrioventricular node ablation and His bundle pacing

Aims

Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) and right ventricular pacing (RVP) are effective therapies for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and rapid ventricular rates. His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiologic alternative to RVP. The aim of our study is to assess the feasibility and safety of HBP in patients undergoing AVNA and its effect on left ventricular (LV) function.

Methods and results

Permanent HBP is the preferred form of ventricular pacing at our institute. Atrioventricular node ablation and HBP were performed in patients with AF and difficulty in rate control. His bundle pacing implant characteristics and thresholds were recorded. Fluoroscopic relationship of AVNA site to HBP lead electrodes was documented. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class at baseline and during follow-up were assessed. Forty-two patients underwent HBP and AVNA: age 74 ± 11 years; men 45%; HTN 64%; DM 19%; CAD 36%; permanent AF 40%; cardiomyopathy 55%. His bundle pacing was successful in 40 of 42 patients (95%). Successful AVNA site was at or below the ring electrode in 22 (no acute change in HBP threshold); above the ring electrode in 13 and left side in 2 pts (acute increase in HBP threshold in 7 of 15 pts). Final HBP threshold at implant was 1 ± 0.8 V@1 ms and increased to 1.6 ± 1.2 V@1 ms during a mean follow-up of 19 ± 14 months. Left ventricular ejection fraction increased from 43 ± 13% to 50 ± 11% (P = 0.01). New York Heart Association functional status improved from 2.5 ± 0.5 to 1.9 ± 0.5 (P = 0.04).

Conclusion

Atrioventricular node ablation and HBP were successful in 95% of patients. His bundle pacing lead characteristics remained relatively stable. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved significantly during follow-up. His bundle pacing is feasible, safe and effective in pts undergoing AVNA.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves left ventricular remodeling and function compared with right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular block

Right ventricular pacing (RVP) exerts a detrimental effect on left ventricular (LV) remodeling. In patients with atrioventricular block (AVB) that require ventricular pacing, the effect of biventricular pacing (BiVP) versus RVP on LV remodeling and function has not been comprehensively assessed in a meta-analysis. Electric databases MEDLINE and Cochrane Library were retrieved for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing RVP and BiVP in patients with AVB. Data on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and LV volumes were analyzed, stratified by different time points. Eleven RCTs were included in the final analysis. There was a significant reduction of LV end-systolic volume in BiVP compared with RVP, at 3, 6, 12, and 24 months follow-up (P < 0.05 for all). BiVP was associated with a decreased LV end-diastolic volume in comparison to RVP at 3, 6, and 12 months. Compared with RVP, BiVP had a higher LVEF at all follow-up visits, with mean difference of 5.91, 3.29, 3.9, 6.66, and 8.69% at 3, 6, 12, 24, and beyond 24 months follow-up, respectively. The results were not significantly changed in sensitivity analysis after removal of studies with mean baseline LVEF < 50% or excluding studies with ablation-induced AVB. In patients with AVB and bradycardia that require ventricular pacing, BiVP is superior to RVP in improving LV remodeling and function.

Clinical outcomes with biventricular versus right ventricular pacing in patients with atrioventricular conduction defects

There have been increasing concerns about the unexpected effects of right ventricular (RV) pacing. We aimed to systematically evaluate the effect of biventricular (BiV) versus RV pacing on clinical events in patients with impaired AV conduction. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library for studies comparing BiV pacing with RV pacing in patients with AV block, through April 2017. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on mortality, hospitalization for heart failure (HF), and/or 6-min walk distance (6MWD). A total of 12 RCTs were finally included. Pooled analysis suggested that BiV pacing was associated with a significantly reduced all-cause mortality in contrast to RV pacing (risk ratio (RR) = 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.62 to 0.95, I² = 9.6%). BiV pacing, compared with RV pacing, significantly reduced the rate of HF hospitalization (RR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.93, I² = 10.1%). Sensitivity analyses by excluding studies with AV nodal ablation showed that BiV pacing still had a lower mortality and non-significant reduced HF hospitalization. Patients in BiV and RV pacing mode had a similar 6WMD at follow-up (mean difference = 4.99 m, 95% CI - 11.34 to 21.33 m, I² = 0%). Meta-regression analysis showed that the effect size of all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization was not significantly associated with mean LVEF value at baseline. In patients with impaired AV conduction that need frequent ventricular pacing, BiV pacing was associated with reduced mortality and hospitalization for HF, compared with traditional RV pacing mode.

Chronic Right Ventricular Pacing in the Heart Failure Population

Purpose of Review

We review the trials that have demonstrated potentially harmful effects from right ventricular (RV) apical pacing as well as reviewing the evidence of alternative RV pacing sites and cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) for patients who have heart failure and atrioventricular (AV) block.

Recent Findings

The role of CRT in patients with AV block and impaired left ventricular function remains an important consideration. The BLOCK HF trial demonstrated better outcomes with CRT pacing over RV pacing in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) and AV block who were expected to have a high RV pacing burden, but failed to demonstrate a mortality benefit.

Summary

CRT seems to have a beneficial effect on left ventricular reverse remodeling, systolic function, and clinical outcomes in patients with New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class I–III heart failure, moderate to severe LVSD, and AV block compared to RV pacing. However, it is less clear whether there is a similar benefit from CRT in patients with a high percentage of RV pacing who have normal or mild LVSD in the treatment of AV block.

Clinical Outcomes After Ablation of the AV Junction in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation: Impact of Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy

Background

Patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) often undergo AV junction ablation (AVJA) and pacemaker implantation. Right ventricular (RV) pacing contributes to increased risk of heart failure (HF), which may be mitigated by biventricular pacing. We sought to determine the impact of AVJA concurrent with RV versus biventricular pacemaker implantation on AF and HF hospitalizations.

Methods and Results

The MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental claims database was used to select 18‐ to 100‐year‐old patients with AF with pacemaker implantation. Patients were divided into those with an RV and a biventricular pacemaker and further into those who did (AVJA⁺) or did not undergo concurrent ablation. Separately, the AVJA⁺ group was divided into those receiving RV versus biventricular pacemakers. AF and HF hospitalization rates were compared between groups after matching on demographics, comorbidities, and baseline hospitalization rates. The study included 24 361 patients, with RV (n=23 377) or biventricular (n=984) pacemakers; 1611 patients underwent AVJA. AVJA⁺ was associated with reduced AF hospitalization risk (RV hazard ratio [HR], 0.31; P<0.001; biventricular HR, 0.20; P=0.003) compared with no AVJA. However, HF hospitalization risk was increased for RV (HR, 1.63; P=0.001), but not biventricular (HR, 0.98; P=0.942), pacemakers. In AVJA⁺ patients, biventricular pacing was associated with reduced risk of HF hospitalization versus RV pacing (HR, 0.62; P=0.017).

Conclusions

In a large cohort of patients with AF, AVJA⁺ significantly reduced AF hospitalizations, irrespective of whether an RV or a biventricular pacemaker was implanted. However, AVJA was associated with a marked HF hospitalization increase in patients with an RV pacemaker, which was ameliorated with biventricular pacing.

Korean Guidelines for Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Heart Failure

The prevalence of heart failure (HF) is skyrocketing worldwide, and is closely associated with serious morbidity and mortality. In particular, HF is one of the main causes for the hospitalization and mortality in elderly individuals. Korea also has these epidemiological problems, and HF is responsible for huge socioeconomic burden. However, there has been no clinical guideline for HF management in Korea. 
The present guideline provides the first set of practical guidelines for the management of HF in Korea and was developed using the guideline adaptation process while including as many data from Korean studies as possible. The scope of the present guideline includes the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of chronic HF with reduced/preserved ejection fraction of various etiologies.

Treatment of Heart Failure with Abnormal Left Ventricular Systolic Function in Older Adults

Heart failure (HF) with abnormal left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction should be identified and treated. Treat hypertension with diuretics, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, and β-blockers. Treat myocardial ischemia with nitrates and β-blockers. Treat volume overload and HF with diuretics. Treat HF with ACE inhibitors and β-blockers. Sacubitril/valsartan may be used instead of an ACE inhibitor or ARB in chronic symptomatic HF and abnormal LV ejection fraction. Add isosorbide dinitrate/hydralazine in African Americans with class II to IV HF treated with diuretics, ACE inhibitors, and β-blockers. Exercise training is recommended. Indications for implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and cardiac resynchronization therapy are discussed.

Management of Patients with Atrial Fibrillation: Focus on Treatment Options

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is leading cardiac arrhythmia with important clinical implications. Its diagnosis is usually made on the basis on 12-lead ECG or 24-hour Holter monitoring. More and more clinical evidence supports diagnostic use of cardiac event recorders and cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED). Treatment options in patients with atrial fibrillation are extensive and are based on chosen rhythm and/or rate control strategy. The use and selected contraindications to AF related pharmacotherapy, including anticoagulants are shown. Nonpharmacological treatments, comorbidities and risk factors control remain mainstay in the treatment of patients with AF. Electrical cardioversion consists important choice in rhythm control strategy. Much progress has been made in the field of catheter ablation and cardiac surgery methods. Left atrial appendage occlusion/closure may be beneficial in patients with AF. CIED are used with clinical benefits in both, rhythm and rate control. Pacemakers, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and cardiac resynchronization therapy devices with different pacing modes have guaranteed place in the treatment of patients with AF. On the other hand, the concepts of permanent leadless cardiac pacing, atrial dyssynchrony syndrome treatment and His-bundle or para-Hisian pacing have been proposed. This review summarizes and discusses current and novel treatment options in patients with atrial fibrillation.