A single-centre experience of His bundle pacing without electrophysiological mapping system: implant success rate, safety, pacing characteristics and one-year follow up.

Introduction: Despite the challenges related to His bundle pacing (HBP), recent data suggest an improved success rate with experience. As a non-university, non-electrophysiology specialised centre in Singapore, we report our experiences in HBP using pacing system analyser alone. Methods: Data of 28 consecutive patients who underwent HBP from August 2018 to February 2019 was retrospectively obtained. The clinical and technical outcomes of these patients were compared between two timeframes of three months each. Patients were followed up for 12 months. Results: Immediate technical success was achieved in 21 (75.0%) patients (mean age 73.3 ± 10.7 years, 47.6% female). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.9% ± 12.1%. The indications for HBP were atrioventricular block (n = 13, 61.9%), sinus node dysfunction (n = 7, 33.3%) and upgrade from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to His-cardiac resynchronisation therapy (n = 1, 4.8%). No significant difference was observed in baseline characteristics between Timeframe 1 and Timeframe 2. Improvements pertaining to mean fluoroscopy time were achieved between the two timeframes. There was one HBP-related complication of lead displacement during Timeframe 1. All patients with successful HBP achieved non-selective His bundle (NSHB) capture, whereas only eight patients had selective His bundle (SHB) capture. NSHB and SHB capture thresholds remained stable at the 12-month follow-up. Conclusion: Permanent HBP is feasible and safe, even without the use of an electrophysiology recording system. This was successfully achieved in 75% of patients, with no adverse clinical outcomes during the follow-up period.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in a low-volume center using contemporary technology.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation is increasingly being performed worldwide for atrial fibrillation (AF). However, there are concerns of lower success rates and higher complications of AF ablations performed in low-volume centers. Thus, we sought to evaluate the safety and efficacy of AF catheter ablation in a low-volume center using contemporary technologies. METHODS AND RESULTS: 71 consecutive patients (50 paroxysmal AF [pAF] vs 21 persistent AF) who underwent first catheter ablation were studied. Primary outcome was AF recurrence rate. Secondary outcomes included periprocedural complications, hospitalization for symptomatic tachy-arrhythmias post-ablation and number of repeat ablations. Mean age of our cohort was 59.1 ± 9.7 years, of which 56 (78.9%) were males. 1-year AF recurrence was 19.5% in pAF and 23.8% in persistent AF (p = 0.694). Ablation in persistent AF group required longer procedural (197.76 ± 48.60 min [pAF] vs 238.67 ± 70.50 min [persistent AF], p = 0.006) and ablation duration (35.08 ± 15.84 min [pAF] vs 52.65 ± 28.46 min [persistent AF], p = 0.001). There were no significant differences in secondary outcomes. Major periprocedural complication rate was 2.8%.Subset analysis on (i) cryoablation vs radiofrequency, (ii) Ensite vs CARTO navigational system and (iii) circular vs high density mapping catheter did not yield significant differences in primary or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The AF ablation complication and recurrence free rates in both paroxysmal and persistent AF at one year were comparable to high-volume centers. Long-term follow up is needed. In addition, first AF catheter ablation in a low-volume center is realistic with comparable efficacy and safety outcomes to high-volume centers using contemporary ablation technologies.