Citations

AbstractBackgroundHis bundle pacing (HBP) is a physiological pacing strategy to preserve the electrical synchrony of ventricular conduction and left ventricular (LV) function. Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged as an alternative physiological pacing technique.ObjectiveTo evaluate cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony comparing LBBP and HBP in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation (AF).MethodsConsecutive patients with symptomatic bradycardia and AF were enrolled from January to June of 2019. The cardiac electrical and mechanical synchrony in different pacing mode were evaluated at baseline and after implantation.ResultsBoth HBP and LBBP were performed in 20 patients. LBBP significantly widened the QRS duration compared with the intrinsic conduction (113.2 ± 14.5 vs. 96.5 ± 16.2 ms; p = .01), while HBP did not (104.5 ± 22.3 vs. 96.5 ± 16.2 ms; p = .12). Both LBBP and HBP patients had similar LV myocardial strain measurements for the mechanical synchrony evaluation without significant change compared with baseline. There was no significant difference in right ventricular synchrony measurement between LBBP and HBP. Compared to HBP, LBBP had less interventricular synchrony (IMVD, 14.7 ± 9.2 vs. 3.1 ± 12.7 ms, p < .01; Ts‐LV‐RV, 37.9 ± 10.7 vs. 18.5 ± 10.8 ms, p < .001).ConclusionsAlthough LBBP's a physiological pacing mode can achieve a similar cardiac electrical and mechanical synchronization when compared to HBP, LBBP results in modest delay in RV activation, and the clinical implication remains to be studied.

AbstractIntroductionThe efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has been widely studied in the medical literature; however, about 30% of candidates fail to respond to this treatment strategy. Smart computational approaches based on clinical data can help expose hidden patterns useful for identifying CRT responders.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed the electronic health records of 1664 patients who underwent CRT procedures from January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2017. An ensemble of ensemble (EoE) machine learning (ML) system composed of a supervised and an unsupervised ML layers was developed to generate a prediction model for CRT response.ResultsWe compared the performance of EoE against traditional ML methods and the state‐of‐the‐art convolutional neural network (CNN) model trained on raw electrocardiographic (ECG) waveforms. We observed that the models exhibited improvement in performance as more features were incrementally used for training. Using the most comprehensive set of predictors, the performance of the EoE model in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and F1‐score were 0.76 and 0.73, respectively. Direct application of the CNN model on the raw ECG waveforms did not generate promising results.ConclusionThe proposed CRT risk calculator effectively discriminates which heart failure (HF) patient is likely to respond to CRT significantly better than using clinical guidelines and traditional ML methods, thus suggesting that the tool can enhanced care management of HF patients by helping to identify high‐risk patients.

AbstractIntroductionThe best management strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) with heart failure (HF) and preserved left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is unknown.Methods and ResultsThis cohort study was conducted in Olmsted County, Minnesota, with resources of the Rochester Epidemiology Project. Patients with incident AF occurring between 2000 and 2014 with a prior or concurrent HF were included. Patients with LVEF ≥ 50% were designated as HF and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) and those with LVEF < 50% were designated as HF and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Rhythm control in the first year after AF diagnosis was defined as prescriptions for an antiarrhythmic drug, catheter ablation, or maze procedure. The primary endpoint was all‐cause mortality. The secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, cardiovascular hospitalization, and stroke or transient ischemic attack. Of 859 patients (age, 77.2 ± 12.1 years; 49.2%, female), 447 had HFpEF‐AF, and 412 had HFrEF‐AF. There was no difference in all‐cause mortality (10‐year mortality, 83% vs 79%; p = .54) or secondary endpoints between the HFpEF‐AF and HFrEF‐AF, respectively. Compared with the rate control strategy, rhythm control in HFpEF‐AF patients (n = 40, 15.9%) offered no survival benefits (adjusted HR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.42–1.16; p = .16), whereas rhythm control in HFrEF‐AF patients (n = 52, 22.5%) decrease cardiovascular mortality (HR, 0.38; 95% CI, 0.17–0.86; p = .02).ConclusionsPatients with HFpEF‐AF and HFrEF‐AF had similar poor prognoses. Rhythm control strategy was seldom adopted in community care in patients with HF and AF. A rhythm control strategy may provide survival benefit for patients with HFrEF‐AF and the benefit of rhythm control in patients with HFpEF‐AF warrants further study.

Background: Mechanical injury in the conduction system requiring permanent pacemaker (PPM) associated with transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) procedure is a common complication. The objective of this study was to use ambulatory monitor BodyGuardian to assess late occurrence of atrioventricular block (AVB) after TAVR. Methods: This prospective study evaluated 365 patients who underwent TAVR at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota between June 2016 and August 2017. Patients who received PPM for bradycardia after TAVR before discharge were considered as the PPM group. Those not requiring PPM received a BodyGuardian system (BodyGuardian group) for 30 days of continuous monitoring. Primary end point was Mobitz II or third-degree atrioventricular block (II/III AVB) at 30-day follow-up. Results: Of 365 patients, 74 who had a PPM or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator before TAVR and 94 who were enrolled in other studies were excluded. Of 197 patients enrolled in the study, 70 (35.5%) received PPM and 127 had BodyGuardian before the hospital dismissal. Eleven of 127 (8.6%) BodyGuardian group required PPM within 30 days after TAVR for late occurrence of symptomatic bradycardia. In total, 33 of 197 (16.7%) patients developed II/III AVB (24 before and 9 after discharge). Thirty-four patients had preexisting right bundle branch block. Of them, 16 (47%) developed II/III AVB. Of 53 patients who developed new left bundle branch block after TAVR, 14% progressed to II/III AVB within 30 days. Conclusions: In patients without a standard post-TAVR pacing indication, yet a potential risk to develop AVB, a strategy of 30-day monitoring identifies additional patients who require permanent pacing.

AbstractIntroductionAutonomic modulation has been used as a therapy to control recurrent ventricular arrhythmia (VA). This study was to explore stellate ganglion block (SGB) effect on cardiac electrophysiologic properties and evaluate the long‐term outcome of cardiac sympathetic denervation (CSD) for patients with recurrent VA and structural heart disease (SHD).Materials and MethodsPatients who had recurrent VA due to SHD were enrolled prospectively. Electrophysiologic study and ventricular tachycardia (VT) induction were performed before and after left and right SGB. VA burden and long‐term outcomes were assessed for a separate patient group who underwent left or bilateral CSD for drug‐refractory VA due to SHD.ResultsElectrophysiologic study of nine patients showed that baseline mean (SD) corrected sinus node recovery time (cSNRT) increased from 320.4 (73.3) ms to 402.9 (114.2) ms after left and 482.4 (95.7) ms after bilateral SGB (P = .03). SGB did not significantly change P‐R, QRS, and Q‐T intervals and ventricular effective refractory period, nor did the inducibility of VA. Nineteen patients underwent left (n = 14) or bilateral (n = 5) CSD. CSD reduced VA burden and appropriate ICD therapies from a median (interquartile range) of 2.5 (0.4‐11.6) episodes weekly to 0.1 (0.0‐2.4) episodes weekly at 6‐month follow‐up (P = .002). Three‐year freedom from orthotopic heart transplant (OHT) and death was 52.6%. New York Heart Association functional class III/IV and VT rate less than 160 beats per minute were predictors of recurrent VA, OHT, and death.ConclusionSGB increased cSNRT without changing heart rate. CSD was more beneficial for patients with mild‐to‐moderate heart failure and faster VA.