His Bundle Pacing: Predicting Mortality and Major Complications in Mid-Term Follow-Up.

Introduction: His bundle pacing (HBP) is suitable for 80% of patients with any indication for permanent pacemaker implantation, with a clinical benefit compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Although complications and mortality related to RVP are widely reported in the literature, data on HBP are limited. This study aimed to analyze HBP complications and outcomes in the short-term (up to 30 days) and long-term (up to the following 24 months) follow-up (F/U). Materials and Methods: The study includes 373 patients aged ≥ 18, enrolled from October 2015 to May 2019 in a single-center HBP prospective registry conducted in the Department of Electrocardiology, Upper Silesian Medical Centre of the Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland. Mortality and HBP complications were used as end-points: during hospitalization and up to 30 days (short-term F/U), and for each F/U point-six months, 12 months, and 24 months after the procedure (long-term F/U). Results: Successful HBP was achieved in 252 patients (68%), with an increasing success rate during consecutive years: 57% in 2015-2016 and 73% in 2017-2019. Complications were found in 8.4% of patients (21/252) in short-term F/U and 5.8% (13/224), 5.5% (11/201), and 6.9% (12/174) at six months, 12 months, and 24 months, respectively. There were no deaths during the first 30 days. However, 26 patients (10.3%) died within 24 months. A left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 34% was the only independent predictor of all-cause mortality or any major complication in the 24-month F/U. Conclusions: This single-center study reported a low risk of mortality and complications associated with HBP at the short-term F/U. However, during the long-term F/U, we observed a higher but acceptable risk of major complications, with a lower LVEF being an independent predictor of the composite end-point of all-cause mortality or any major complication.

Stereotactic management of arrhythmia - radiosurgery in treatment of ventricular tachycardia (SMART-VT). Results of a prospective safety trial.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: Despite its increasing popularity, there are limited prospective data on stereotactic arrhythmia radioablation (STAR). In this trial, we assessed the safety and efficacy of STAR in patients with ventricular tachycardia (VT), focusing on early treatment-related grade ≥ 3 adverse events (AE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This prospective trial was designed for adults with VT recurrence following catheter ablation (CA) despite adequate pharmacotherapy, or contraindications to CA. A single dose of 25 Gy was delivered to the arrhythmia substrate defined on electro-anatomic mapping and cardiac-gated CT. The primary endpoint was safety, defined as two or fewer treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AEs during the first three months in 11 patients. Additional endpoints included treatment efficacy, clinical and biological markers of cardiac injury, and quality of life. RESULTS: Eleven patients with a median age of 67 years, structural heart disease, and a clinically significant recurrence of VT despite adequate pharmacotherapy and 1-4 previous CAs were enrolled between 2020/09 and 2022/10. Following the treatment, one patient developed a possibly treatment-related grade ≥ 3 AE, a grade 4 heart failure exacerbation at 87 days, which resolved after conservative treatment. There was a total 84.3% reduction in VT burden in 10 evaluable patients; however, VT recurrence was eventually observed in eight, and three patients required additional CAs. Three deaths due to unrelated causes were recorded. CONCLUSIONS: STAR appears to be safe and efficient. It is a promising treatment for selected patients; however, long-term outcomes remain to be evaluated, and controlled trials comparing STAR with standards of care are missing.

The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy.

Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is among the most common right ventricular pacing complications. Upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the recommended treatment option. Conduction system pacing with His bundle pacing (HBP) has the potential to restore synchronous ventricular activation and can be an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). Patients with PICM scheduled for a system upgrade to CRT were included in the prospective cohort study. Either HBP or BVP was used for CRT. Electrocardiographic, clinical, and echocardiographic measurements were recorded at baseline and six-month follow-up. HBP was successful in 44 of 53 patients (83%). Thirty-nine patients with HBP and 22 with BVP completed a 6-month follow-up. HBP led to a higher reduction in QRS duration than BVP, 118.3 ± 14.20 ms vs. 150.5 ± 18.64 ms, p < 0.0001. The improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class by one or two was more common in patients with HBP than those with BiV (p = 0.04). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in BVP patients from 32.9 ± 7.93% to 43.9 ± 8.07%, p < 0.0001, and in HBP patients from 34.9 ± 6.45% to 48.6 ± 7.73%, p < 0.0001. The improvement in LVEF was more considerable in HBP patients than in BVP patients, p = 0.019. The improvement in clinical outcomes and left ventricle reverse remodeling was more significant with HBP than BVP. HBP can be a valid alternative to BVP for upgrade procedures in PICM patients.

The usefulness of His bundle pacing in a heterogeneous population of patients with impaired left ventricular systolic function.

BACKGROUND: His bundle pacing (HBP) maintains a physiological activation pattern of ventricular activation, and in patients with intraventricular conduction delay (IVCD) it can normalize wide QRS duration. METHODS: A total of 181 patients from the HBP registry were enrolled into a the study, which was conducted at the Department of Electrocardiology in Katowice, Poland. The patients had left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50% and were implanted between November 2015 and April 2019. The HBP indications were as follows: 1) bradycardia and atrioventricular conduction disturbances with expected high pacing burden, 2) IVCD, LVEF ≤ 35%, with an indication for resynchronization therapy, 3) the need to upgrade to resynchronization therapy due to pacing-induced cardiomyopathy. Pacing parameters and echocardiographic and clinical data were assessed for up to 2 years of follow-up (FU). RESULTS: His bundle pacing was successful in 154 (85.1%) patients. Eighty-two patients completed a 6-month FU. The mean age was 70.6 ± 9.23 years, and 79% were males. At 6 months FU LVEF improved from 35.3 ± 8.22% to 43.1 ± 10.14% (p < 0.0001), and indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESVi) decreased from 63.1 ± 25.21 mL/m² to 51.9 ± 22.79 mL/m² (p < 0.0001). In 53.1%, the LVESVi reduction was greater than 15%. The improvement in LVEF and LVESVi was also observed after 24 months of FU. CONCLUSIONS: His bundle pacing in permanently paced patients when LVEF is reduced below 50% is associated with improvement in LVEF and reverse left ventricle remodeling.