Outcomes of conduction system pacing compared to right ventricular pacing as a primary strategy for treating bradyarrhythmia: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Right ventricular pacing (RVP) may cause electrical and mechanical desynchrony leading to impaired left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). We investigated the outcomes of RVP with His bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) for patients requiring a de novo permanent pacemaker (PPM) for bradyarrhythmia. Methods and results Systematic review of randomized clinical trials and observational studies comparing HBP or LBP with RVP for de novo PPM implantation between 01 January 2013 and 17 November 2020 was performed. Random and fixed effects meta-analyses of the effect of pacing technology on outcomes were performed. Study outcomes included all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization (HFH), LVEF, QRS duration, lead revision, atrial fibrillation, procedure parameters, and pacing metrics. Overall, 9 studies were included (6 observational, 3 randomised). HBP compared with RVP was associated with decreased HFH (risk ratio [RR] 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.49–0.94), preservation of LVEF (mean difference [MD] 0.81, 95% CI − 1.23 to 2.85 vs. − 5.72, 95% CI − 7.64 to -3.79), increased procedure duration (MD 15.17 min, 95% CI 11.30–19.04), and increased lead revisions (RR 5.83, 95% CI 2.17–15.70, p = 0.0005). LBBP compared with RVP was associated with shorter paced QRS durations (MD 5.6 ms, 95% CI − 6.4 to 17.6) vs. (51.0 ms, 95% CI 39.2–62.9) and increased procedure duration (MD 37.78 min, 95% CI 20.04–55.51). Conclusion Of the limited studies published, this meta-analysis found that HBP and LBBP were superior to RVP in maintaining physiological ventricular activation as an initial pacing strategy

Use of the wearable cardioverter-defibrillator - the Swiss experience

INTRODUCTION Sudden cardiac death caused by malignant arrhythmia can be prevented by the use of defibrillators. Although the wearable cardioverter defibrillator (WCD) can prevent such an event, its role in clinical practice is ill defined. We investigated the use of the WCD in Switzerland with emphasis on prescription rate, therapy adherence and treatment rate. MATERIALS AND METHODS The Swiss WCD Registry is a retrospective observational registry including patients using a WCD. Patients were included from the first WCD use in Switzerland until February 2018. Baseline characteristics and data on WCD usage were examined for the total study population, and separately for each hospital. RESULTS From 1 December 2011 to 18 February 2018, a total of 456 patients (67.1% of all WCDs prescribed in Switzerland and 81.1% of all prescribed in the participating hospitals) were included in the registry. Up to 2017 there was a yearly increase in the number of prescribed WCDs to a maximum of 271 prescriptions per year. The mean age of patients was 57 years (± 14), 81 (17.8%) were female and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) was 32% (± 13). The most common indications for WCD use were new-onset ischaemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) with EF ≤35% (206 patients, 45.2%), new-onset nonischaemic cardiomyopathy (NICM) with EF ≤35% (115 patients, 25.2%), unknown arrhythmic risk (83 patients, 18.2%), bridging to implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation or heart transplant (37 patients, 8.1%) and congenital/inherited heart disease (15 patients, 3.3%). Median wear duration was 58 days (interquartile range [IQR] 31–94) with a median average daily wear time of 22.6 hours (IQR 20–23.2). Seventeen appropriate therapies from the WCD were delivered in the whole population (treatment rate: 3.7%) to a total of 12 patients (2.6% of all patients). The most common underlying heart disease in patients with a treatment was ICM (13/17, 76.5%). There were no inappropriate treatments. CONCLUSION The use of WCDs has increased in Switzerland over the years for a variety of indications. There is high therapy adherence to the WCD, and a treatment rate comparable to previously published registry data. &nbsp

The future of continuing medical education: the roles of medical professional societies and the health care industry: Position paper prepared with contributions from the European Society of Cardiology Committees for Advocacy, Education and Industry Relations, Endorsed by the Board of the European Society of Cardiology

In recent years, wide ranging biomedical innovation has provided powerful new approaches for prevention, diagnosis and management of diseases. In order to translate such innovation into effective practice, physicians must frequently update their knowledge base and skills through continuing medical education and training. Medical Professional Societies, run as not-for-profit organizations led by peers, are uniquely placed to deliver balanced, disease oriented and patient centred education. The medical industry has a major role in the development of new, improved technology, devices and medication. In fact, the best innovations have been achieved through collaboration with scientists, clinical academics and practicing physicians. Industry has for many years been committed to ensure the optimal and safe application of its products by providing unrestricted support of medical education developed and delivered by international and national learned societies. Recently adopted Codes of Practice for the Pharmaceutical and Device industry were intended to enhance public trust in the relationship between biomedical industry and physicians. Unexpectedly, changes resulting from adoption of the Codes have limited the opportunity for unconditional industry support of balanced medical education in favour of a more direct involvement of industry in informing physicians about their products. We describe the need for continuing medical education in Cardiovascular Medicine in Europe, interaction between the medical profession and medical industry, and propose measures to safeguard the provision of high quality, balanced medical education