Associations between neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio and monocyte to high-density lipoprotein ratio with left atrial spontaneous echo contrast or thrombus in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Abstract Background The importance of inflammation in thrombosis is increasingly appreciated. Neutrophil-lymphocyte ratio (NLR) and monocyte to high-density lipoprotein ratio (MHR) are important indicators of systemic inflammation. This study aimed to investigate the associations between NLR and MHR with left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) and spontaneous echo contrast (SEC) in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Methods This retrospective, cross-sectional study enrolled 569 consecutive patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was used to investigate independent risk factors of LAAT/SEC. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to evaluate the specificity and sensitivity of NLR and MHR in predicting LAAT/SEC. Subgroup and Pearson correlation analyses were used to assess the correlations between NLR and MHR with the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Results Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that NLR (OR: 1.49; 95%CI: 1.173–1.892) and MHR (OR: 2.951; 95%CI: 1.045–8.336) were independent risk factors for LAAT/SEC. The area under the ROC curve of NLR (0.639) and MHR (0.626) was similar to that of the CHADS2 score (0.660) and CHA2DS2-VASc score (0.637). Subgroup and Pearson correlation analyses showed significant but very weak associations between NLR (r = 0.139, P < 0.05) and MHR (r = 0.095, P < 0.05) with the CHA2DS2-VASc score. Conclusion Generally, NLR and MHR are independent risk factors for predicting LAAT/SEC in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation

Worldwide survey on implantation of and outcomes for conduction system pacing with His bundle and left bundle branch area pacing leads.

BACKGROUND Adoption and outcomes for conduction system pacing (CSP), which includes His bundle pacing (HBP) or left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP), in real-world settings are incompletely understood. We sought to describe real-world adoption of CSP lead implantation and subsequent outcomes. METHODS We performed an online cross-sectional survey on the implantation and outcomes associated with CSP, between November 15, 2020, and February 15, 2021. We described survey responses and reported HBP and LBBAP outcomes for bradycardia pacing and cardiac resynchronization CRT indications, separately. RESULTS The analysis cohort included 140 institutions, located on 5 continents, who contributed data to the worldwide survey on CSP. Of these, 127 institutions (90.7%) reported experience implanting CSP leads. CSP and overall device implantation volumes were reported by 84 institutions. In 2019, the median proportion of device implants with CSP, HBP, and/or LBBAP leads attempted were 4.4% (interquartile range [IQR], 1.9-12.5%; range, 0.4-100%), 3.3% (IQR, 1.3-7.1%; range, 0.2-87.0%), and 2.5% (IQR, 0.5-24.0%; range, 0.1-55.6%), respectively. For bradycardia pacing indications, HBP leads, as compared to LBBAP leads, had higher reported implant threshold (median [IQR]: 1.5 V [1.3-2.0 V] vs 0.8 V [0.6-1.0 V], p = 0.0008) and lower ventricular sensing (median [IQR]: 4.0 mV [3.0-5.0 mV] vs. 10.0 mV [7.0-12.0 mV], p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION In conclusion, CSP lead implantation has been broadly adopted but has yet to become the default approach at most surveyed institutions. As the indications and data for CSP continue to evolve, strategies to educate and promote CSP lead implantation at institutions without CSP lead implantation experience would be necessary