Antithrombotic management in patients undergoing cardiac implantable electronic device implantation

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are an established treatment option for arrhythmias, sudden cardiac death prevention, and heart failure. Approximately 1000 devices are implanted per million inhabitants in European countries each year. However, the main concern in patients with an indication for CIED implantation is frequently associated with comorbidities requiring antithrombotic medications. The invasive device implantation procedure represents a bleeding risk ranging from pocket hematoma to cardiac tamponade. On the other hand, temporary interruption of antithrombotic therapy increases the risk for thromboembolic events. Implanting CIEDs in patients on antithrombotic medications incites several clinical dilemmas of balancing thromboembolic risk against bleeding risk, as complications are associated with higher mortality rates in both aspects. The most common bleeding complication is pocket haematoma formation, which is associated with a prolonged hospital stay, higher cost, higher risk of pocket infection, and thus higher morbidity and mortality. Studies have shown that the heparin bridging strategy in patients on oral anticoagulants imposes a greater risk for pocket haematoma formation and no benefit in reducing thromboembolic events. Most procedures of CIED implantation can be performed safely with uninterrupted oral anticoagulants. Dual antiplatelet therapy increases the risk of pocket haematoma and should be avoided whenever possible

Multicentric Atrial Strain COmparison between Two Different Modalities: MASCOT HIT Study

Two methods are currently available for left atrial (LA) strain measurement by speckle tracking echocardiography, with two different reference timings for starting the analysis: QRS (QRS-LASr) and P wave (P-LASr). The aim of MASCOT HIT study was to define which of the two was more reproducible, more feasible, and less time consuming. In 26 expert centers, LA strain was analyzed by two different echocardiographers (young vs senior) in a blinded fashion. The study population included: healthy subjects, patients with arterial hypertension or aortic stenosis (LA pressure overload, group 2) and patients with mitral regurgitation or heart failure (LA volume–pressure overload, group 3). Difference between the inter-correlation coefficient (ICC) by the two echocardiographers using the two techniques, feasibility and analysis time of both methods were analyzed. A total of 938 subjects were included: 309 controls, 333 patients in group 2, and 296 patients in group 3. The ICC was comparable between QRS-LASr (0.93) and P-LASr (0.90). The young echocardiographers calculated QRS-LASr in 90% of cases, the expert ones in 95%. The feasibility of P-LASr was 85% by young echocardiographers and 88% by senior ones. QRS-LASr young median time was 110 s (interquartile range, IR, 78-149) vs senior 110 s (IR 78-155); for P-LASr, 120 s (IR 80-165) and 120 s (IR 90-161), respectively. LA strain was feasible in the majority of patients with similar reproducibility for both methods. QRS complex guaranteed a slightly higher feasibility and a lower time wasting compared to the use of P wave as the reference

Atrioventricular dromotropathy: an important substrate for complete resynchronization therapy

International audienceNo abstract availabl

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/m$^2$ vs. 79.9 (66–100) mL/m$^2$, p = 0.055ESVi 32.7 (25.6–42.6) mL/m$^2$ vs. 46.4 (42.9–68.1) mL/m$^2$, 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

Sequencing and titrating approach of therapy in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction following the 2021 European Society of Cardiology guidelines: an international cardiology survey

AIMS: In symptomatic patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF), recent international guidelines recommend initiating four major therapeutic classes rather than sequential initiation. It remains unclear how this change in guidelines is perceived by practicing cardiologists versus heart failure (HF) specialists. METHODS AND RESULTS: An independent academic web-based survey was designed by a group of HF specialists and posted by email and through various social networks to a broad community of cardiologists worldwide 1 year after the publication of the latest European HF guidelines. Overall, 615 cardiologists (38 [32-47] years old, 63% male) completed the survey, of which 58% were working in a university hospital and 26% were HF specialists. The threshold to define HFrEF was ≤40% for 61% of the physicians. Preferred drug prescription for the sequential approach was angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitors first (74%), beta-blockers second (55%), mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists third (52%), and sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors (53%) fourth. Eighty-four percent of participants felt that starting all four classes was feasible within the initial hospitalization, and 58% felt that titration is less important than introducing a new class. Age, status in training, and specialization in HF field were the principal characteristics that significantly impacted the answers. CONCLUSION: In a broad international cardiology community, the 'historical approach' to HFrEF therapies remains the preferred sequencing approach. However, accelerated introduction and uptitration are also major treatment goals. Strategy trials in treatment guidance are needed to further change practices

Sequencing and Titrating Approach of Therapy in Heart Failure with Reduced Ejection Fraction Following the 2021 ESC guidelines: an International Cardiology Survey

International audienceThe latest European guidelines for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) patients recommend initiating four major therapeutic classes rather than the sequential initiation from the previous guidelines. Without any evidence from randomized controlled trials, the perception and the practical approach to these guidelines by practicing cardiologists remain unclear. We found that left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤40% remains the most frequent threshold to define HFrEF and the ‘historical’ approach to HFrEF drug titration remains the most popular sequencing approach. However, most participants felt that starting all four classes was feasible within the initial hospitalization and that titration is less important than introducing a new class. This is the first and largest survey providing real-world data on HFrEF drug introduction and titration after the latest European heart failure guidelines. Even if the ‘historical’ sequencing approach remains dominant, starting all four classes in a short-time period was perceived as feasible. Strategy trials in treatment guidance are now needed to demonstrate the safety and define the best treatment implementation approac