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

Chinese guidelines for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and increasing the risk of death, stroke, heart failure, and dementia. Over the past two decades, there have been significant breakthroughs in AF risk prediction and screening, stroke prevention, rhythm control, catheter ablation, and integrated management. During this period, the scale, quality, and experience of AF management in China have greatly improved, providing a solid foundation for the development of the guidelines for the diagnosis and management of AF. To further promote standardized AF management, and apply new technologies and concepts to clinical practice timely and fully, the Chinese Society of Cardiology of Chinese Medical Association and the Heart Rhythm Committee of Chinese Society of Biomedical Engineering jointly developed the Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation. The guidelines comprehensively elaborated on various aspects of AF management and proposed the CHA2DS2‑VASc‑60 stroke risk score based on the characteristics of the Asian AF population. The guidelines also reevaluated the clinical application of AF screening, emphasized the significance of early rhythm control, and highlighted the central role of catheter ablation in rhythm control.

"Ablate and Pace" with Conduction System Pacing: Concomitant versus Delayed Atrioventricular Junction Ablation

Objectives: Conduction system pacing (CSP) and atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) improve the outcomes in patients with symptomatic, refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). In this setting, AVJA can be performed simultaneously with implantation or in a second procedure a few weeks after implantation. Comparison data on these two alternative strategies are lacking. Methods: A prospective, multicentre, observational study enrolled consecutive patients with symptomatic, refractory AF undergoing CSP and AVJA performed in a single procedure or in two separate procedures. Data on the long-term outcomes and healthcare resource utilization were prospectively collected. Results: A total of 147 patients were enrolled: for 105 patients, CSP implantation and AVJA were performed simultaneously (concomitant AVJA); in 42, AVJA was performed in a second procedure, with a mean of 28.8 ± 19.3 days from implantation (delayed AVJA). After a mean follow-up of 12 months, the rate of procedure-related complications was similar in both groups (3.8% vs. 2.4%; p = 0.666). Concomitant AVJA was associated with a lower number of procedure-related hospitalizations per patient (1.0 ± 0.1 vs. 2.0 ± 0.3; p < 0.001) and with a lower number of hospital treatment days per patient (4.7 ± 1.8 vs. 7.4 ± 1.9; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Concomitant AVJA resulted as being as safe as delayed AVJA and was associated with a lower utilization of healthcare resources.

Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is the most common sustained cardiac arrhythmia, significantly impacting patients' quality of life and increasing the risk of death, stroke, heart failure, and dementia. Over the past two decades, there have been significant breakthroughs in AF risk prediction and screening, stroke prevention, rhythm control, catheter ablation, and integrated management. During this period, the scale, quality, and experience of AF management in China have greatly improved, providing a solid foundation for the development of guidelines for the diagnosis and management of AF. To further promote standardized AF management, and apply new technologies and concepts to clinical practice in a timely and comprehensive manner, the Chinese Society of Cardiology of the Chinese Medical Association and the Heart Rhythm Committee of the Chinese Society of Biomedical Engineering have jointly developed the Chinese Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Atrial Fibrillation. The guidelines have comprehensively elaborated on various aspects of AF management and proposed the CHA2DS2-VASc-60 stroke risk score based on the characteristics of AF in the Asian population. The guidelines have also reevaluated the clinical application of AF screening, emphasized the significance of early rhythm control, and highlighted the central role of catheter ablation in rhythm control.

[History of cardiac resynchronization therapy : 30 years of electrotherapeutic management for heart failure]

The first permanent biventricular pacing system was implanted more than 30 years ago. In this article, the historical development of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), starting with the pathophysiological concept, followed by the initial "proof of concept" studies and finally the large prospective-randomized studies that led to the implementation of CRT in heart failure guidelines, is outlined. Since the establishment of CRT, both an expansion of indications, e.g., for patients with mild heart failure and atrial fibrillation, but also the return to patients with broad QRS complex and left bundle branch block who benefit most of CRT has evolved. New techniques such as conduction system pacing will have major influence on pacemaker therapy in heart failure, both as an alternative or adjunct to CRT.

Integration of implantable device therapy in patients with heart failure. A clinical consensus statement from the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)

Implantable devices form an integral part of the management of patients with heart failure (HF) and provide adjunctive therapies in addition to cornerstone drug treatment. Although the number of these devices is growing, only few are supported by robust evidence. Current devices aim to improve haemodynamics, improve reverse remodelling, or provide electrical therapy. A number of these devices have guideline recommendations and some have been shown to improve outcomes such as cardiac resynchronization therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillators and long-term mechanical support. For others, more evidence is still needed before large-scale implementation can be strongly advised. Of note, devices and drugs can work synergistically in HF as improved disease control with devices can allow for further optimization of drug therapy. Therefore, some devices might already be considered early in the disease trajectory of HF patients, while others might only be reserved for advanced HF. As such, device therapy should be integrated into HF care programmes. Unfortunately, implementation of devices, including those with the greatest evidence, in clinical care pathways is still suboptimal. This clinical consensus document of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) and European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) describes the physiological rationale behind device-provided therapy and also device-guided management, offers an overview of current implantable device options recommended by the guidelines and proposes a new integrated model of device therapy as a part of HF care.

Conventional biventricular pacing is still preferred to conduction system pacing for atrioventricular block in patients with reduced ejection fraction and narrow QRS

It is well established that right ventricular pacing is detrimental in patients with reduced cardiac function who require ventricular pacing (VP), and alternatives nowadays are comprised of biventricular pacing (BiVP) and conduction system pacing (CSP). The latter modality is of particular interest in patients with a narrow baseline QRS as it completely avoids, or minimizes, ventricular desynchronization associated with VP. In this article, experts debate whether BiVP or CSP should be used to treat these patients.

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.

Korean Society of Heart Failure Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure: Management of the Underlying Etiologies and Comorbidities of Heart Failure

Most patients with heart failure (HF) have multiple comorbidities, which impact their quality of life, aggravate HF, and increase mortality. Cardiovascular comorbidities include systemic and pulmonary hypertension, ischemic and valvular heart diseases, and atrial fibrillation. Non-cardiovascular comorbidities include diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney and pulmonary diseases, iron deficiency and anemia, and sleep apnea. In patients with HF with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors combined with calcium channel blockers and/or diuretics is an effective treatment regimen. Measurement of pulmonary vascular resistance via right heart catheterization is recommended for patients with HF considered suitable for implantation of mechanical circulatory support devices or as heart transplantation candidates. Coronary angiography remains the gold standard for the diagnosis and reperfusion in patients with HF and angina pectoris refractory to antianginal medications. In patients with HF and atrial fibrillation, long-term anticoagulants are recommended according to the CHA2DS2-VASc scores. Valvular heart diseases should be treated medically and/or surgically. In patients with HF and DM, metformin is relatively safer; thiazolidinediones cause fluid retention and should be avoided in patients with HF and dyspnea. In renal insufficiency, both volume status and cardiac performance are important for therapy guidance. In patients with HF and pulmonary disease, beta-blockers are underused, which may be related to increased mortality. In patients with HF and anemia, iron supplementation can help improve symptoms. In obstructive sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure therapy helps avoid severe nocturnal hypoxia. Appropriate management of comorbidities is important for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HF.

Korean Society of Heart Failure Guidelines for the Management of Heart Failure: Management of the Underlying Etiologies and Comorbidities of Heart Failure

Most patients with heart failure (HF) have multiple comorbidities, which impact their quality of life, aggravate HF, and increase mortality. Cardiovascular comorbidities include systemic and pulmonary hypertension, ischemic and valvular heart diseases, and atrial fibrillation. Non-cardiovascular comorbidities include diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney and pulmonary diseases, iron deficiency and anemia, and sleep apnea. In patients with HF with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy, renin-angiotensin system inhibitors combined with calcium channel blockers and/or diuretics is an effective treatment regimen. Measurement of pulmonary vascular resistance via right heart catheterization is recommended for patients with HF considered suitable for implantation of mechanical circulatory support devices or as heart transplantation candidates. Coronary angiography remains the gold standard for the diagnosis and reperfusion in patients with HF and angina pectoris refractory to antianginal medications. In patients with HF and atrial fibrillation, long-term anticoagulants are recommended according to the CHA2DS2-VASc scores. Valvular heart diseases should be treated medically and/or surgically. In patients with HF and DM, metformin is relatively safer; thiazolidinediones cause fluid retention and should be avoided in patients with HF and dyspnea. In renal insufficiency, both volume status and cardiac performance are important for therapy guidance. In patients with HF and pulmonary disease, beta-blockers are underused, which may be related to increased mortality. In patients with HF and anemia, iron supplementation can help improve symptoms. In obstructive sleep apnea, continuous positive airway pressure therapy helps avoid severe nocturnal hypoxia. Appropriate management of comorbidities is important for improving clinical outcomes in patients with HF.

Drug management of atrial fibrillation in light of guidelines and current evidence: an Italian Survey on behalf of Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing

AIM

Atrial fibrillation is a multifaceted disease requiring personalized treatment, in accordance with current ESC guidelines. Despite a wide range of literature, we still have various aspects dividing the opinion of the experts in rate control, rhythm control and thromboembolic prophylaxis. The aim of this survey was to provide a country-wide picture of current practice regarding atrial fibrillation pharmacological management according to a patient's characteristics.

METHODS

Data were collected using an in-person survey that was administered to members of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing.

RESULTS

We collected data from 106 physicians, working in 72 Italian hospitals from 15 of 21 regions. Our work evidenced a high inhomogeneity in atrial fibrillation management regarding rhythm control, rate control and thromboembolic prophylaxis in both acute and chronic patients. This element was more pronounced in settings in which literature shows a lack of evidence and, consequently, the indications provided by the guidelines are weak or absent.

CONCLUSION

This National survey evidenced a high inhomogeneity in current approaches adopted for atrial fibrillation management by a sample of Italian cardiologist experts in arrhythmia management. Further studies are needed to explore if these divergences are associated with different long-term outcomes.

A conversion CRT strategy combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative for heart failure patients with persistent atrial fibrillation

Heart failure (HF) combined with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist and may promote the pathological conditions of cardiac dysfunction, leading to poor prognosis. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) combined with atrioventricular junction ablation (AVJA) is a highly effective treatment for HF patients with underlying AF who either have failed or are not suitable for catheter ablation. The CRT-AVJA combination therapy can improve clinical outcomes in HF patients. Currently, clinical CRT methods are categorized into biventricular pacing (BVP) - based and conduction system pacing (CSP) - based methods. These procedures have inherent advantages and disadvantages, in addition to their considerable differences in clinical applications. This article aims to review the clinical progress of AVJA combined with different CRT strategies for treating HF patients with persistent AF and propose that conversion CRT strategy (BVP/CSP-CRT) combined with AVJA may be a perspective alternative. Meanwhile, we generalize that 7 categories of HF patients with persistent AF may need to consider the CRT-AVJA combination therapy.

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.

His-bundle pacing and atrioventricular nodal ablation for noncontrolled atrial arrhythmia: A technical challenge with major clinical benefits

BACKGROUND

His-bundle pacing (HBP) is an appealing alternative to right ventricular pacing in patients referred for permanent ventricular pacing and atrioventricular nodal ablation (AVNA) because it preserves physiological ventricular activation. Only limited data regarding HBP combined with AVNA are available in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to provide further evidence on the feasibility and efficacy of this therapeutic approach in patients with uncontrolled atrial arrhythmia.

METHODS

We prospectively included all patients who had undergone AVNA after HBP in 3 different hospitals between 2017 and 2022.

RESULTS

AVNA following HBP lead implantation was performed in 75 patients. Complete atrioventricular (AV) block was obtained in 58 patients (77%), and significant modulation of AV nodal conduction (heart rate <60 bpm) was obtained in 12 patients (16%). AVNA failure was observed in 5 patients (7%). Recording of an atrial signal by the HBP lead was more frequently observed in patients with AVNA modulation/failure than in patients with complete AV block (11/17 vs 5/58; P <.001). No lead dislodgment occurred during the AVNA procedures. Acute His-bundle (HB) capture threshold increase >1 V occurred in 11 patients (15%), with return to baseline value on day 1 in 9 patients. New York Heart Association functional class and left ventricular ejection fraction significantly improved from baseline to last follow-up (3.0 ± 0.7 vs 1.6 ± 0.5; P <.001; and 47% ± 14% vs 60% ± 9%; P <.0001, respectively).

CONCLUSION

AVNA combined with HBP for noncontrolled atrial arrhythmia was feasible and clinically efficient. Implanting the HB lead on the ventricular aspect of the tricuspid annulus avoiding atrial signal recording can facilitate AVNA.

Cardiomyopathy Associated with Right Ventricular Apical Pacing-Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIMS

Bradyarrhythmias are potentially life-threatening medical conditions. The most widespread treatment for slow rhythms is artificial ventricular pacing. From the inception of the idea of artificial pacing, ventricular leads were located in the apex of the right ventricle. Right ventricular apical pacing (RVAP) was thought to have a deteriorating effect on left ventricular systolic function. The aim of this study was to systematically assess results of randomized controlled trials to determine the effects of right ventricular apical pacing on left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF).

METHODS

we systematically searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, and EMBASE databases for studies evaluating the influence of RVAP on LVEF. Pooled mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) was estimated using a random effect model.

RESULTS

14 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comprising 885 patients were included. In our meta-analysis, RVAP was associated with statistically significant left ventricular systolic function impairment as measured by LVEF. The mean difference between LVEF at baseline and after intervention amounted to 3.35% (95% CI: 1.80-4.91).

CONCLUSION

our meta-analysis confirms that right ventricular apical pacing is associated with progressive deterioration of left ventricular systolic function.

An aggressive solution for patients with heart failure and atrial fibrillation: nodal ablation and cardiac resynchronization therapy

Heart failure and atrial fibrillation are two diseases that often coexist and contribute to worsening the prognosis and quality of life of patients. Managing this situation is still a challenge today. The ablation of the atrioventricular node associated with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) fits into this context as a definitive but effective solution. Indeed, long-term positive results have been demonstrated in patients with atrial fibrillation ineligible for ablation and refractory to medical therapy in terms of symptom reduction and, more recently, also mortality. Furthermore, the role of this strategy in obtaining adequate biventricular pacing in patients who may benefit from CRT but are ineligible due to the presence of atrial fibrillation is being highlighted.

Left Bundle Branch Pacing Postatrioventricular Junction Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation: Propensity Score Matching With His Bundle Pacing

BACKGROUND

Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as a promising pacing modality to preserve physiological left ventricular activation; however, prospective data evaluating its long-term safety and efficacy in pacemaker-dependent patients following atrioventricular junction (AVJ) ablation are lacking. This study aimed to examine the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of LBBP in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure (HF) after AVJ ablation and compare LBBP with His bundle pacing (HBP) through a propensity score (PS) matching analysis.

METHODS

We prospectively enrolled patients with atrial fibrillation and HF referred for AVJ ablation and LBBP between July 2017 and December 2019. The control group was patients selected from HBP implants performed from 2012 to 2019 using PS matching with a 1:1 ratio.

RESULTS

A total of 99 patients were enrolled in the study. The LBBP implant success rate was 100%. Left ventricular ejection fraction improved from baseline 30.3±4.9 to 1-year 47.3±14.5 in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction and from baseline 56.3±12.1 to 1-year 62.3±9.1 in HF patients with preserved ejection fraction (both P<0.001), and left ventricular ejection fraction in both groups remained stable for up to 3 years of follow-up. A threshold increase >2 V at 0.5 ms occurred in only one patient. Of 176 (81.9%) of 215 patients who received permanent HBP post-AVJ ablation, 86 were matched to the LBBP group by 1:1 PS (propensity score matched His bundle pacing, N=86; propensity score matched left bundle branch pacing, N=86). No significant differences in echocardiographic or clinical outcomes were observed between the 2 groups (P>0.05), whereas lower thresholds, greater sensed R-wave amplitudes, and fewer complications were observed in the propensity score matched left bundle branch pacing group (P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

LBBP is feasible, safe, and effective in patients with atrial fibrillation and HF post-AVJ ablation and has similar clinical benefits, a higher implant success rate, better pacing parameters, and fewer complications compared with HBP.

Biventricular versus Conduction System Pacing after Atrioventricular Node Ablation in Heart Failure Patients with Atrial Fibrillation

Conduction system pacing (CSP) modalities, including His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP), are increasingly used as alternatives to biventricular (BiV) pacing in heart failure (HF) patients scheduled for pace and ablate strategy. The aim of the study was to compare clinical outcomes of HF patients with refractory AF who received either BiV pacing or CSP in conjunction with atrio-ventricular node ablation (AVNA). Fifty consecutive patients (male 48%, age 70 years (IQR 9), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 39% (IQR 12)) were retrospectively analysed. Thirteen patients (26%) received BiV pacing, 27 patients (54%) HBP and 10 patients (20%) LBBP. All groups had similar baseline characteristics and acute success rate. While New York Heart. Association (NYHA) class improved in both HBP (p < 0.001) and LBBP (p = 0.008), it did not improve in BiV group (p = 0.096). At follow-up, LVEF increased in HBP (form 39% (IQR 15) to 49% (IQR 16), p < 0.001) and LBBP (from 28% (IQR 13) to 40% (IQR 13), p = 0.041), but did not change in BiV group (p = 0.916). Conduction system pacing modalities showed superior symptomatic and echocardiographic improvement compared to BiV pacing after AVNA. With more stable pacing parameters, LBBP could present a more feasible pacing option compared to HBP.

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.

Conduction System Pacing versus Conventional Pacing in Patients Undergoing Atrioventricular Node Ablation: Non-randomized, On-Treatment Comparison

Background

Atrioventricular node ablation (AVNA) with right ventricular or biventricular pacing (conventional pacing; CP) is an effective therapy for patients with refractory atrial fibrillation (AF). Conduction system pacing (CSP) using His bundle pacing or left bundle branch area pacing preserves ventricular synchrony.

Objective

The aim of our study is to compare the clinical outcomes between CP and CSP in patients undergoing AVNA.

Methods

Patients undergoing AVNA at Geisinger Health System between January 2015 and October 2020 were included in this retrospective observational study. CP or CSP was performed at the operators’ discretion. Procedural, pacing parameters, and echocardiographic data were assessed. Primary outcome was the combined endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH) and was analyzed using Cox proportional hazards. Secondary outcomes were individual outcomes of time to death and HFH.

Results

AVNA was performed in 223 patients (CSP, 110; CP, 113). Age was 75 ± 10 years, male 52%, hypertension 67%, diabetes 25%, coronary disease 40%, and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 43% ± 15%. QRS duration increased from 103 ± 30 ms to 124 ± 20 ms (P < .01) in CSP and 119 ± 32 ms to 162 ± 24 ms in CP (P < .001). During a mean follow-up of 27 ± 19 months, LVEF significantly increased from 46.5% ± 14.2% to 51.9% ± 11.2% (P = .02) in CSP and 36.4% ± 16.1% to 39.5% ± 16% (P = .04) in CP. The primary combined endpoint of time to death or HFH was significantly reduced in CSP compared to CP (48% vs 62%; hazard ratio 0.61, 95% confidence interval 0.42–0.89, P < .01). There was no reduction in the individual secondary outcomes of time to death and HFH in the CSP group compared to CP.

Conclusion

CSP is a safe and effective option for pacing in patients with AF undergoing AVNA in high-volume centers.

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.

2021 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: Developed by the Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). With the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC

Document Reviewers: Rudolf A. de Boer (CPG Review Coordinator) (Netherlands), P. Christian Schulze (CPG Review Coordinator) (Germany), Magdy Abdelhamid (Egypt), Victor Aboyans (France), Stamatis Adamopoulos (Greece), Stefan D. Anker (Germany), Elena Arbelo (Spain), Riccardo Asteggiano (Italy), Johann Bauersachs (Germany), Antoni Bayes-Genis (Spain), Michael A. Borger (Germany), Werner Budts (Belgium), Maja Cikes (Croatia), Kevin Damman (Netherlands), Victoria Delgado (Netherlands), Paul Dendale (Belgium), Polychronis Dilaveris (Greece), Heinz Drexel (Austria), Justin Ezekowitz (Canada), Volkmar Falk (Germany), Laurent Fauchier (France), Gerasimos Filippatos (Greece), Alan Fraser (United Kingdom), Norbert Frey (Germany), Chris P. Gale (United Kingdom), Finn Gustafsson (Denmark), Julie Harris (United Kingdom), Bernard Iung (France), Stefan Janssens (Belgium), Mariell Jessup (United States of America), Aleksandra Konradi (Russia), Dipak Kotecha (United Kingdom), Ekaterini Lambrinou (Cyprus), Patrizio Lancellotti (Belgium), Ulf Landmesser (Germany), Christophe Leclercq (France), Basil S. Lewis (Israel), Francisco Leyva (United Kingdom), AleVs Linhart (Czech Republic), Maja-Lisa Løchen (Norway), Lars H. Lund (Sweden), Donna Mancini (United States of America), Josep Masip (Spain), Davor Milicic (Croatia), Christian Mueller (Switzerland), Holger Nef (Germany), Jens-Cosedis Nielsen (Denmark), Lis Neubeck (United Kingdom), Michel Noutsias (Germany), Steffen E. Petersen (United Kingdom), Anna Sonia Petronio (Italy), Piotr Ponikowski (Poland), Eva Prescott (Denmark), Amina Rakisheva (Kazakhstan), Dimitrios J. Richter (Greece), Evgeny Schlyakhto (Russia), Petar Seferovic (Serbia), Michele Senni (Italy), Marta Sitges (Spain), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Carlo G. Tocchetti (Italy), Rhian M. Touyz (United Kingdom), Carsten Tschoepe (Germany), Johannes Waltenberger (Germany/Switzerland) All experts involved in the development of these guidelines have submitted declarations of interest. These have been compiled in a report and published in a supplementary document simultaneously to the guidelines. The report is also available on the ESC website www.escardio.org/guidelines For the Supplementary Data which include background information and detailed discussion of the data that have provided the basis for the guidelines see European Heart Journal online.

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure: A contemporary review of current management approaches

Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) frequently coexist and complicate the course of treatment of each other. AF with rapid ventricular conduction can lead to tachycardia-mediated cardiomyopathy, which is a reversible cause of cardiomyopathy. However, in most cases, AF is the manifestation of various underlying cardiomyopathies. Guideline-directed pharmacological and device therapy for HF is essential. The management options for AF and HF include pharmacological rhythm control, pharmacological rate control, and interventional approaches, which include catheter ablation for AF via pulmonary vein isolation and atrioventricular node ablation. This is a contemporary review to discuss the available evidence regarding the various management approaches in this specific patient group.

AV junction ablation and cardiac resynchronization for patients with permanent atrial fibrillation and narrow QRS: the APAF-CRT mortality trial

AIMS 

In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF), strict and regular rate control with atrioventricular junction ablation and biventricular pacemaker (Ablation + CRT) has been shown to be superior to pharmacological rate control in reducing HF hospitalizations. However, whether it also improves survival is unknown.

METHODS AND RESULTS 

In this international, open-label, blinded outcome trial, we randomly assigned patients with severely symptomatic permanent AF >6 months, narrow QRS (≤110 ms) and at least one HF hospitalization in the previous year to Ablation + CRT or to pharmacological rate control. We hypothesized that Ablation + CRT is superior in reducing the primary endpoint of all-cause mortality. A total of 133 patients were randomized. The mean age was 73 ± 10 years, and 62 (47%) were females. The trial was stopped for efficacy at interim analysis after a median of 29 months of follow-up per patient. The primary endpoint occurred in 7 patients (11%) in the Ablation + CRT arm and in 20 patients (29%) in the Drug arm [hazard ratio (HR) 0.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10-0.65; P = 0.004]. The estimated death rates at 2 years were 5% and 21%, respectively; at 4 years, 14% and 41%. The benefit of Ablation + CRT of all-cause mortality was similar in patients with ejection fraction (EF) ≤35% and in those with >35%. The secondary endpoint combining all-cause mortality or HF hospitalization was significantly lower in the Ablation + CRT arm [18 (29%) vs. 36 (51%); HR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22-0.73; P = 0.002].

CONCLUSIONS 

Ablation + CRT was superior to pharmacological therapy in reducing mortality in patients with permanent AF and narrow QRS who were hospitalized for HF, irrespective of their baseline EF.

STUDY REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02137187.

Optimized implementation of cardiac resynchronization therapy: a call for action for referral and optimization of care

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.

Current concept in the diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation of patients with congestive heart failure

Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem with a prevalence of 1%-2% in developed countries. The underlying pathophysiology of HF is complex and as a clinical syndrome is characterized by various symptoms and signs. HF is classified according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and falls into three groups: LVEF ≥ 50% - HF with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), LVEF < 40% - HF with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), LVEF 40%-49% - HF with mid-range ejection fraction. Diagnosing HF is primarily a clinical approach and it is based on anamnesis, physical examination, echocardiogram, radiological findings of the heart and lungs and laboratory tests, including a specific markers of HF - brain natriuretic peptide or N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide as well as other diagnostic tests in order to elucidate possible etiologies. Updated diagnostic algorithms for HFpEF have been recommended (H2FPEF, HFA-PEFF). New therapeutic options improve clinical outcomes as well as functional status in patients with HFrEF (e.g., sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 - SGLT2 inhibitors) and such progress in treatment of HFrEF patients resulted in new working definition of the term “HF with recovered left ventricular ejection fraction”. In line with rapid development of HF treatment, cardiac rehabilitation becomes an increasingly important part of overall approach to patients with chronic HF for it has been proven that exercise training can relieve symptoms, improve exercise capacity and quality of life as well as reduce disability and hospitalization rates. We gave an overview of latest insights in HF diagnosis and treatment with special emphasize on the important role of cardiac rehabilitation in such patients.

Long-term performance and risk factors analysis after permanent His-bundle pacing and atrioventricular node ablation in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure

AIMS

His-bundle pacing (HBP) combined with atrioventricular node (AVN) ablation has been demonstrated to be effective in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) during medium-term follow-up and there are limited data on the risk analysis of adverse prognosis in this population. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the long-term performance of HBP following AVN ablation in AF and HF.

METHODS AND RESULTS

From August 2012 to December 2017, consecutive AF patients with HF and narrow QRS who underwent AVN ablation and HBP were enrolled. The clinical and echocardiographic data, pacing parameters, all-cause mortality, and heart failure hospitalization (HFH) were tracked. A total of 94 patients were enrolled (age 70.1 ± 10.5 years; male 57.4%). Acute HBP were achieved in 89 (94.7%) patients with successful permanent HBP combined with AVN ablation in 81 (86.2%) patients. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved from 44.9 ± 14.9% at baseline to 57.6 ± 12.5% during a median follow-up of 3.0 (IQR: 2.0-4.4) years (P < 0.001). Heart failure hospitalization or all-cause mortality occurred in 21 (25.9%) patients. The LVEF ≤ 40%, pulmonary artery systolic pressure (PASP) ≥40 mmHg, or serum creatinine (Scr) ≥97 μmol/L at baseline was significantly associated with higher composite endpoint of HFH or death (P < 0.05). The His capture threshold was 1.0 ± 0.7 V/0.5 ms at implant and remained stable during follow-up.

CONCLUSION

His-bundle pacing combined with AVN ablation was effective in patients with AF and drug-refectory HF. High PASP, high Scr, or low LVEF at baseline was independent predictors of composite endpoint of all-cause mortality or HFH.