Jaïs, Pierre

Abstract Aims Conduction system pacing (CSP) has emerged as a physiologic alternative to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BiVP) in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), yet its comparative effects remain uncertain. This meta-analysis sought to compare outcomes of CSP vs. BiVP in patients with HFrEF undergoing CRT. Methods and results MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database were searched through 4 May 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were synthesized using random-effects meta-analysis. Thirteen RCTs including 1320 participants were analysed (657 CSP, 663 BiVP). Conduction system pacing was associated with a lower risk of the composite of hospitalization for heart failure (HHF) or all-cause mortality compared with BiVP (46 vs. 83 events; odds ratio [OR] 0.51, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.28–0.93). No significant differences were observed for HHF alone (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.36–1.27) or all-cause mortality (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.36–1.58). Conduction system pacing was associated with greater improvement in the 6-min walk distance (mean difference [MD] 21.53 m, 95% CI 4.33–38.73) and New York Heart Association functional class (standardized mean difference [SMD] −0.27, 95% CI −0.47 to −0.07), but not quality of life. Conduction system pacing also reduced QRS duration compared with BiVP (MD −10.94 ms, 95% CI −17.55 to −4.34), with no significant differences in left ventricular ejection fraction, left ventricular end-systolic volume, overall pacing threshold, total procedure time, fluoroscopy time, any complication, or reintervention. Conclusion In patients with HFrEF undergoing CRT, CSP is associated with lower composite risk of HHF or all-cause mortality compared with BiVP. Conduction system pacing is also associated with improved functional capacity, without significant differences in safety or procedural outcomes.

Abstract Aims Mitral valve prolapse (MVP) is a common valvular disorder associated with ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) in a subgroup of patients, known as arrhythmic MVP (AMVP). Arrhythmic MVP patients with malignant VAs typically receive an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) for secondary prevention. However, data regarding the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy and the type of arrhythmia recurrence in this population remain scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the incidence of appropriate ICD therapies and type of arrhythmia recurrence in AMVP patients with an ICD implanted for secondary prevention. Methods and results A systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE databases until January 2025. Studies reporting the incidence of appropriate ICD therapy in AMVP patients were included. A total of 9 studies met the inclusion criteria, resulting in 166 AMVP patients with ICDs for secondary prevention. The mean age was 41.8 years, with 55.8% of patients being female. Over a weighted mean follow-up of 4.9 ± 3.1 years, 34.9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 28.1–42.5] of the patients experienced recurrence of VA. The pooled incidence of appropriate ICD therapies during follow-up was 8.1 per 100 person-years (95% CI: 5.6–10.5, I2: 11.7%). Regarding the type of arrhythmic recurrence, the majority of arrhythmias (53.8%, 95% CI: 44.3–63.0%) were in the form of ventricular fibrillation or polymorphic ventricular tachycardia (VT), while the remaining arrhythmias were reported as monomorphic VT. Among 67 ventricular arrhythmic episodes reported in 7 studies with available data, 65 required shock therapy, corresponding to a shock proportion of 97.0% (95% CI: 89.6–99.6%). Conclusion Arrhythmic MVP patients with ICDs for secondary prevention exhibit a high risk of recurrent arrhythmias, with recurrences in the form of polymorphic VA occurring in more than half of the cases. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42024588610

Abstract Aims Intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) is increasingly incorporated into atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation workflows, enabling real-time anatomic guidance and procedural precision. Nevertheless, ICE utilization shows substantial geographic variability, and its clinical benefit remains incompletely understood. This meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy, safety, and procedural performance of ICE-guided vs. non-ICE-guided AF ablation. Methods and results MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, and Scopus were systematically searched through 3 August 2025. Three reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. Random-effects models were used to pool data from 44 AF ablation studies comprising 482 043 patients. ICE guidance was associated with lower odds of any complication (OR 0.69; 95% CI 0.53–0.89), including significant reductions in cardiac tamponade (OR 0.58; 95% CI 0.53–0.62) and mortality (OR 0.21; 95% CI 0.16–0.27). ICE-guided ablation was also associated with shorter total procedure and fluoroscopy times, reduced radiation exposure, and lower contrast agent utilization. Atrial tachyarrhythmia (AT) recurrence did not differ between groups (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.79–1.06). However, ICE use was associated with higher odds of first-pass pulmonary vein isolation (OR 1.62; 95% CI 1.09–2.41) and successful isolation of all pulmonary veins at the end of the procedure (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.37–3.27), and lower odds of repeat ablation (OR 0.65; 95% CI 0.59–0.72). Conclusion ICE-guided AF ablation is associated with superior procedural safety and efficiency and a similar risk of AT recurrence compared to non-ICE-guided approaches.