Comparative assessment of right, left, and biventricular pacing in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

2023 HRS/APHRS/LAHRS guideline on cardiac physiologic pacing for the avoidance and mitigation of heart failure

Cardiac physiologic pacing (CPP), encompassing cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) and conduction system pacing (CSP), has emerged as a pacing therapy strategy that may mitigate or prevent the development of heart failure (HF) in patients with ventricular dyssynchrony or pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. This clinical practice guideline is intended to provide guidance on indications for CRT for HF therapy and CPP in patients with pacemaker indications or HF, patient selection, pre-procedure evaluation and preparation, implant procedure management, follow-up evaluation and optimization of CPP response, and use in pediatric populations. Gaps in knowledge, pointing to new directions for future research, are also identified.

Conduction system pacing improves the outcomes on patients with high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with mildly reduced ejection fraction

Aims

This study aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of CSP in patients with a high percentage of ventricular pacing and heart failure with HFmrEF.

Methods

Patients who underwent CSP for HFmrEF and ventricular pacing >40% were consecutively enrolled from January 2018 to May 2021. All participants were followed up at least 12 months. Clinical data including cardiac performance and lead outcomes were compared before and after the procedure. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was measured using the biplane Simpson's method. HFmrEF was defined as heart failure with the LVEF ranging from 41%-49%.

Results

CSP was successfully performed in 64 cases (96.97%), which included 16 cases of left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) and 48 cases of His bundle pacing (HBP). After a mean of 23.12 ± 8.17 months follow-up, NYHA classification (P < 0.001), LVEF (42.45 ± 1.84% vs. 49.97 ± 3.57%, P < 0.001) and left ventricular end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) (55.59 ± 6.17 mm vs. 51.66 ± 3.48 mm, P < 0.001) improved significantly. During follow-up, more than half (39/64,60.9%) of patients returned to normal LVEF and LVEDD with complete reverse remodeling. The pacing threshold in LBBP was lower (0.90 ± 0.27 V@0.4 ms vs. 1.61 ± 0.71 V@0.4 ms, P < 0.001) than that in HBP. No perforation, electrode dislodging, thrombosis or infection was observed during follow-up.

Conclusions

CSP could improve the clinical outcomes in patients with HFmrEF and a high percentage of ventricular pacing. LBBP might be a better choice because of its feasibility and safety, especially in patients with infranodal atrioventricular block.

Adverse effects of right ventricular pacing on cardiac function: prevalence, prevention and treatment with physiologic pacing

Right ventricular (RV) pacing is the main treatment modality for patients with advanced atrioventricular (AV) block. Chronic RV pacing can cause cardiac systolic dysfunction and heart failure (HF). In this review, we discuss studies that have shown deleterious effects of chronic RV pacing on systolic cardiac function causing pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PiCM), heart failure (HF), HF hospitalization, atrial fibrillation (AF) and cardiac mortality. RV apical pacing is the most widely used and studied. Adverse effects of RV pacing appear to be directly related to pacing burden and are worse in patients with pre-existing left ventricular (LV) dysfunction. Chronic RV pacing is also associated with heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). Mechanisms, risk factors, clinical and echocardiographic features, and strategies to minimize RV pacing-induced cardiac dysfunction are discussed in light of the latest data. Studies on biventricular (Bi-V) pacing upgrade in patients who develop RV PiCM, use of alternate RV pacing sites, de novo Bi-V pacing, and physiologic pacing using HIS bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle area (LBBA) pacing in patients with an anticipated high RV pacing burden are discussed.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy in the presence of total atrioventricular block reduces long‐lasting atrial fibrillation episodes

Background

There is an ongoing debate on how cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in the presence of total AV block affects atrial fibrillation (AF) episodes and symptoms in patients with AF.

Methods

Seventy‐five patients with symptomatic, drug and ablation refractory AF received, irrespective of their left ventricular ejection fraction (EF), either a CRT device and underwent subsequent atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation or already had a total AV block and underwent CRT upgrade. Long‐lasting AF episodes (>48 h), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter (LVEDD), left atrial diameter (LAD), NTproBNP levels, EHRA score, and NYHA class had been monitored on the follow‐up.

Results

The number of patients experiencing long‐lasting AF episodes (>48 h) and symptoms decreased significantly within 24 months after CRT implantation in the presence of total AV block (p < .001) from 57 (76%) to 25 (33.3%). Mean LAD decreased from 52 mm (IQR 48.0–56.0) to 48 mm (IQR 42.0–52.0, p < .001) and LVEDD from 54 mm (IQR 49.0–58.0) to 51 mm (IQR 46.5–54.0, p < .001).

Conclusion

A combination of total AVN block and biventricular pacing markedly reduces long‐lasting AF episodes, symptoms, left atrial diameter, and left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter.

Impact of atrioventricular junction ablation and CRT-D on long-term mortality in patients with left ventricular dysfunction, permanent, refractory atrial fibrillation and narrow QRS: results of a propensity matched analysis

INTRODUCTION

In patients with symptomatic permanent atrial fibrillation (PEAF) and narrow QRS, atrio-ventricular junction ablation (AVJA) plus cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is superior to medical therapy in reducing heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality. To compare the mortality of a population of patients with HF, reduced EF (rEF) and PEAF treated with AVJA plus CRT with that of a contemporary cohort of patients in sinus rhythm (SR) with similar baseline characteristics.

METHODS AND RESULTS

In this prospective, multicentre, observational study, all-cause mortality in a group of consecutive patients undergoing AVJA and implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) combined with CRT implantation for HFrEF, narrow QRS, and PEAF with uncontrolled ventricular rate was compared with that of a contemporary cohort of patients in SR undergoing ICD implantation (not combined with CRT) for HFrEF and narrow QRS. Individual 1:1 propensity matching of baseline characteristics was performed. A total of 824 patients were enrolled. Propensity matching yielded 107 matched pairs. After a median follow-up of 52 months, all-cause mortality was similar in patients treated with AVJA plus CRT and in the control group (p=0.434). In AVJA plus CRT patients, mortality was significantly lower than in control group patients with a history of paroxysmal/persistent AF (n=45, p=0.020), and similar to that of patients without a history of AF (n=62, p=0.459).

CONCLUSIONS

After adjustment for patient characteristics, the long-term prognosis of patients with HFrEF, narrow QRS and PEAF who underwent AVJA plus CRT was similar to that of a population of patients in SR with similar characteristics. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Biventricular versus His bundle pacing after atrioventricular node ablation in heart failure patients with narrow QRS

Background: His bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological alternative to biventricular (BiV) pacing. We compared short-term results of both pacing approaches in symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with moderately reduced left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (EF ≥35% and <50%) and narrow QRS (≤120 ms) who underwent atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA).Methods: Thirty consecutive AF patients who received BiV pacing or HBP in conjunction with AVNA between May 2015 and January 2020 were retrospectively assessed. Electrocardiographic, echocardiographic, and clinical data at baseline and 6 months after the procedure were assessed.Results: Twenty-four patients (age 68.8 ± 6.5 years, 50% female, EF 39.6 ± 4%, QRS 95 ± 10 ms) met the inclusion criteria, 12 received BiV pacing and 12 HBP. Both groups had similar acute procedure-related success and complication rates. HBP was superior to BiV pacing in terms of post-implant QRS duration, implantation fluoroscopy times, reduction of indexed LV volumes (EDVi 63.8 (49.6-81) mL/m² vs. 79.9 (66-100) mL/m², p = 0.055; ESVi 32.7 (25.6-42.6) mL/m² vs. 46.4 (42.9-68.1) mL/m², p = 0.009) and increase in LVEF (46 (41-55) % vs. 38 (35-42) %, p = 0.005). However, the improvement of the NYHA class was similar in both groups.Conclusions: In symptomatic AF patients with moderately reduced EF and narrow QRS undergoing AVNA, HBP could be a conceivable alternative to BiV pacing. Further prospective studies are warranted to address the outcomes between both 'ablate and pace' strategies.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021. Structure: Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure

AIM

The "2022 AHA/ACC/HFSA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" replaces the "2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure" and the "2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA Focused Update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA Guideline for the Management of Heart Failure." The 2022 guideline is intended to provide patient-centric recommendations for clinicians to prevent, diagnose, and manage patients with heart failure.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2020 to December 2020, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant clinical trials and research studies, published through September 2021, were also considered. This guideline was harmonized with other American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology guidelines published through December 2021.

STRUCTURE

Heart failure remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. The 2022 heart failure guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with heart failure, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests. Many recommendations from the earlier heart failure guidelines have been updated with new evidence, and new recommendations have been created when supported by published data. Value statements are provided for certain treatments with high-quality published economic analyses.

Impact of QRS morphology on response to conduction system pacing after atrioventricular junction ablation

Aims

His–Purkinje conduction system pacing (HPCSP) utilizing His (HBP) or left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and wide QRS duration has not been well studied. We assessed the benefit of left bundle branch block (LBBB) correction during HPCSP in AF patients undergoing atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation with LBBB, compared with those with narrow QRS duration.

Methods and results

This is an observational study in consecutive patients with typical LBBB or narrow QRS duration in whom we attempted HPCSP after AVJ ablation for refractory AF with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 50%. Echocardiographic responses and clinical outcomes were assessed at baseline and during 1 year of follow‐up. A total of 178 patients were enrolled, of which 170 achieved AVJ ablation + permanent HPCSP (age 69.3 ± 10.1 years; LVEF 34.3 ± 7.7%), 133 (78.2%) patients had a narrow QRS duration, and 37 (21.2%) had an LBBB. The QRS duration changed from a baseline of 159.7 ± 16.6 ms to a paced QRS duration of 110.4 ± 12.7 ms in the LBBB cohort and from 95.6 ± 10.4 to 100.8 ± 14.5 ms (both P < 0.001) in the narrow QRS cohort after AVJ ablation and pacing. Compared with the narrow QRS cohort, the LBBB cohort showed a greater absolute increase in LVEF (+22.3% vs. +14.2%, P < 0.001), higher super responder rate (71.4% vs. 49.2%, P = 0.011), and greater New York Heart Association (NYHA) class improvement (−1.9 vs. −1.4, P < 0.001) at 1 year.

Conclusion

Patients with LBBB have greater improvement in LVEF and NYHA class function than patients with narrow QRS from HPCSP after AVJ ablation.

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.

Network meta-analysis of His bundle, biventricular, or right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for advanced atrioventricular conduction disease with normal or mildly reduced ejection fraction

INTRODUCTION

Although right ventricular pacing (RVP) may impair ventricular function, it is commonly used for advanced atrioventricular block (AVB) and normal or mildly reduced ejection fraction (EF). We aimed to compare His bundle pacing (HBP), biventricular pacing (BiVP), and RVP for advanced AVB in patients with normal or mildly reduced EF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched. Outcomes were all-cause death, heart failure hospitalizations (HFH), EF, left ventricular volumes, 6-minute walk test, and QRS duration. HBP or BiVP was compared with RVP. Subsequently, network meta-analysis compared the three pacing options. Our protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42018094132). Six studies compared BiVP and RVP (704 vs 614 patients) and four compared HBP and RVP (463 vs 568 patients). Follow-up was 6 months to 5 years. There was significantly lower mortality and HFH with HBP or BiVP as compared with RVP (odds ratio [OR], 0.66, [0.51-0.85], P = .002; OR, 0.61 [0.45-0.82], P < .001, respectively]. HBP or BiVP also showed significant increase in EF and decrease in QRS duration (mean difference [MD], 5.27 [3.86-6.69], P < .001; MD -42.2 [-51.2 to -33.3], P < .001, respectively). In network meta-analysis, HBP and BiVP were associated with significantly improved survival compared to RVP, with surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) probability of 79.4%, 69.4%, and 1.2% for HBP, BiVP, and RVP, respectively. For HFH, SUCRA probability was 91.5%, 57.2%, and 1.3%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

HBP or BiVP were the superior strategies to reduce all-cause death and HFH for advanced AVB with normal or mildly reduced EF, with no significant difference between BiVP and HBP.

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.

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.

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.

CRT Survey II: a European Society of Cardiology survey of cardiac resynchronisation therapy in 11 088 patients-who is doing what to whom and how?

BACKGROUND

Cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) reduces morbidity and mortality in appropriately selected patients with heart failure and is strongly recommended for such patients by guidelines. A European Society of Cardiology (ESC) CRT survey conducted in 2008-2009 showed considerable variation in guideline adherence and large individual, national and regional differences in patient selection, implantation practice and follow-up. Accordingly, two ESC associations, the European Heart Rhythm Association and the Heart Failure Association, designed a second prospective survey to describe contemporary clinical practice regarding CRT.

METHODS AND RESULTS

A survey of the clinical practice of CRT-P and CRT-D implantation was conducted from October 2015 to December 2016 in 42 ESC member countries. Implanting centres provided information about their hospital and CRT service and were asked to complete a web-based case report form collecting information on patient characteristics, investigations, implantation procedures and complications during the index hospitalisation. The 11 088 patients enrolled represented 11% of the total number of expected implantations in participating countries during the survey period; 32% of patients were aged ≥75 years, 28% of procedures were upgrades from a permanent pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator and 30% were CRT-P rather than CRT-D. Most patients (88%) had a QRS duration ≥130 ms, 73% had left bundle branch block and 26% were in atrial fibrillation at the time of implantation. Large geographical variations in clinical practice were observed.

CONCLUSION

CRT Survey II provides a valuable source of information on contemporary clinical practice with respect to CRT implantation in a large sample of ESC member states. The survey permits assessment of guideline adherence and demonstrates variations in patient selection, management, implantation procedure and follow-up strategy.

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.

Quality of life assessment in heart failure interventions: a 10-year (1996–2005) review

The increasing prevalence and poor prognosis associated with heart failure have prompted research to focus on improving quality of life (QoL) for heart failure patients. Research from 1996–2005 was systematically reviewed to identify randomized controlled trials that assessed QoL in heart failure. In 120 studies, 44 were medication trials; 19 surgical/procedural interventions; and 57 patient care/service delivery interventions. Studies were summarized in terms of aim, population, QoL measures used and QoL findings. Studies used 47 different measures of QoL-generic, health-related, condition-specific, domain-specific and utility measures. Most used a single QoL measure. In 87%, a condition specific QoL measure was used, with the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire being the favoured assessment tool. The range of QoL measures in use poses challenges for development of cumulative knowledge. Although comparability across studies is important, this must be informed by the responsiveness of the instrument selected. As carried out in other cardiac groups, comparative evaluations of instrument responsiveness are needed in heart failure. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil 14:589-607 © 2007 The European Society of Cardiology

Mortality After Atrioventricular Nodal Radiofrequency Catheter Ablation With Permanent Ventricular Pacing in Atrial Fibrillation

Background—

Atrioventricular nodal radiofrequency ablation (AVNA) with permanent ventricular pacing can be used to control rate in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). However, long-term outcomes after AVNA are uncertain, especially in light of irreversible pacemaker dependence.

Methods and Results—

We examined 9122 consecutive patients with AF. The outcomes in 453 patients with AVNA (26% of whom underwent an implantable cardiac defibrillator implant and 37% underwent cardiac resynchronization therapy implant) were compared with AF patients without AVNA after propensity score 1:1 matching. During follow-up in the propensity-matched cohort (2.41±3.23 years, median 1.23, quartiles 0.33–3.12), 100 patients died (yearly rate of death 6.6%). Mode of death was available in 86% of patients, which was cardiovascular in 67% of the patients (related to heart failure in 38%, sudden death in 5%, and other cardiovascular reason in 24%) and noncardiovascular in 33%. AVNA in patients with AF was associated with a lower risk of mortality (odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval, 0.29–0.77; P =0.003), a lower risk of cardiovascular mortality (odds ratio =0.41, 95% confidence interval 0.23–0.73; P =0.003), and nonsignificant lower risk of stroke and thromboembolic events (odds ratio =0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.36–1.06; P =0.08).

Conclusions—

In sick AF patients with multiple comorbidities, AVNA with permanent ventricular pacing for rate control seems safe during follow-up and may be associated with lower mortality.

Atrioventricular Junction Ablation In Atrial Fibrillation: Choosing The Right Patient And Pacing Device

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia and despite advancements in rhythm control through direct catheter ablation, maintaining sinus rhythm is not possible in a large proportion of AF patients, who therefore are subject to a rate control strategy only. Nonetheless, in some of these patients pharmacological rate control may be ineffective, often leaving the patient highly symptomatic and at risk of developing tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy and heart failure (HF). Catheter ablation of the atrioventricular junction (AVJ) with subsequent permanent pacemaker implantation provides definite rate control and represents an attractive therapeutic option when pharmacological rate control is not achieved. In patients with reduced ventricular function, cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) should be considered over right ventricular apical (RVA) pacing in order to avoid the deleterious effects associated with a high amount of chronic RVA pacing. Another group of patients that may also benefit from AVJ ablation are HF patients with concomitant AF receiving CRT. In this patient cohort AVJ ablation ensures near 100% biventricular pacing, thus allowing optimization of the therapeutic effects of CRT.

Cardiac resynchronization therapy is appropriate for all patients requiring chronic right ventricular pacing: the con perspective

There has been compelling evidence for the use of biventricular (BiV) pacing to reduce mortality and heart failure (HF) hospitalization in patients with HF symptoms, depressed ejection fraction (EF), and a broad QRS. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) provides benefit for patients with depressed EF and minimal HF symptoms. Although data from CRT trials are compelling, clinical evidence to recommend BiV pacing to all patients who require a high degree of right ventricular (RV) pacing are lacking. This article summarizes the relevant studies demonstrating that BiV pacing is not appropriate therapy for all patients who require chronic RV pacing.

Chronic right ventricular apical pacing: adverse effects and current therapeutic strategies to minimize them

The permanent cardiac pacemaker is the only effective therapy for patients with symptomatic bradycardia and hundreds of millions are implanted worldwide every year. Despite its undisputed clinical benefits, the last two decades have drawn much attention to the negative effects associated with long-term pacing of the right ventricle (RV). Experimental and clinical studies have shown that RV pacing produces ventricular dyssynchrony, similar to that of left bundle branch block, with consequent detrimental effects on cardiac structure and function, with adverse clinical outcomes such as atrial fibrillation, heart failure and death. Although clinical evidence largely comes from subanalyses of pacemaker and implantable cardiac defibrillator studies, there is strong evidence that patients with reduced left ventricular function are at high risk of suffering from the detrimental effects of long-term RV pacing. Biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy devices can prevent ventricular dyssynchrony and has emerged as an attractive option in this patient group with promising results and more clinical studies underway. Moreover, there is evidence that specific pacemaker algorithms that minimize RV pacing can reduce the negative effects of RV stimulation on cardiac function and may also prevent clinical deterioration. The extent of the long-term clinical effects of RV pacing in patients with normal ventricular function and how to prevent this are less clear and subject to future investigation.

The importance of avoiding unnecessary right ventricular pacing in clinical practice

Symptomatic bradycardia is effectively treated with the implantation of a cardiac pacemaker. Although a highly successful therapy, during recent years there has been a focus on the negative effects associated with long-term pacing of the apex of the right ventricle (RV). It has been shown in both experimental and clinical studies that RV pacing leads to ventricular dyssynchrony, similar to that of left bundle branch block, with subsequent detrimental effects on cardiac structure and function, and in some cases adverse clinical outcomes such as atrial fibrillation, heart failure and death. There is substantial evidence that patients with reduced left ventricular function (LVEF) are at particular high risk of suffering the detrimental clinical effects of long-term RV pacing. The evidence is, however, incomplete, coming largely from subanalyses of pacemaker and implantable cardiac defibrillator studies. In this group of patients with reduced LVEF and an expected high amount of RV pacing, biventricular pacing (cardiac resynchronization therapy) devices can prevent the negative effects of RV pacing and reduce ventricular dyssynchrony. Therefore, cardiac resynchronization therapy has emerged as an attractive option with promising results and more clinical studies are underway. Furthermore, specific pacemaker algorithms, which minimize RV pacing, can also reduce the negative effects of RV stimulation on cardiac function and may prevent clinical deterioration.