Clinical, procedural and lead outcomes associated with different pacing techniques. a network meta-analysis

Background: His- Purkinje system pacing (HPSP) techniques have been proposed as alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP) and right ventricular pacing (RVP). Objective: To compare data regarding clinical, procedural and lead outcomes associated with different pacing techniques. Methods: An accurate search of online scientific libraries (from inception to May, 12,022) was performed. Thirty-three studies were included in the meta-analysis involving 4386 patients, of whom 1324 receiving RVP, 1032 patients receiving BVP, 1069 patients receiving his-bundle pacing (HBP) and 968 patients receiving left bundle branch pacing (LBBP). Results: LBBP provided a statistically significant increase in LVEF relative to HBP (0.4473 [0.0584; 0.8361] p = 0.0242) and BVP (0.6733 [0.4734; 0.8732] p < 0.0001) in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy indication. LBBP and HBP significantly decreased QRS duration as compared to BVP, with largest QRS narrowing obtained by LBBP (-0.4951 [-0.9077; -0.0824] p = 0.0187). As compared to LBBP, HBP was associated with a significant increase of pacing threshold (p = 0.0369) and significant reduction of R-wave amplitude over time (p = 0.027). LBBP was associated with significant reduction in RR of hospitalization for HF (HFH) as compared to both BVP (p = 0.0343) and HBP (p = 0.0476), whereas, as compared to RVP, the risk of lead issues was significantly higher with BVP (p = 0.0424) and HBP (p = 0.0298), but not for LBBP (p = 0.425). Conclusions: As compared to other pacing techniques, LBBP significantly improved LVEF, narrowed QRS duration and reduced HFHs, with steadily lower capture thresholds and higher R-wave amplitude, and without increasing lead issues

Flecainide how and when. a practical guide in supraventricular arrhythmias

Transcatheter ablation was increasingly and successfully used to treat symptomatic drug refractory patients affected by supraventricular arrhythmias. Antiarrhythmic drug treatment still plays a major role in patient management, alone or combined with non-pharmacological therapies. Flecainide is an IC antiarrhythmic drug approved in 1984 from the Food and Drug Administration for the suppression of sustained ventricular tachycardia and later for acute cardioversion of atrial fibrillation and for sinus rhythm maintenance. Currently, flecainide is mostly used for sinus rhythm maintenance in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients without structural cardiomyopathy although recent studies enrolling different patient populations have demonstrated a good effectiveness and safety profile. How should we interpret the results of the CAST after the latest evidence? Is it possible to expand the indications of flecainide, and therefore, its use? This review aims to highlight the main characteristics of flecainide, as well as its optimal clinical use, delineating drug indications and contraindications and appropriate monitoring, based on the most recent evidence

Position paper of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC): Recommendations on driving by patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices

In patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) (implantable cardioverter-defibrillators [ICDs] and pacemakers [PMs]), the potential risk of suddenly being unable to drive, and hence of causing road accidents, is higher than in the general population. In ICD patients, this risk stems from the possibility that an arrhythmic event leading to loss of consciousness may occur while driving. In PM patients, it may be the result of a device malfunction in a PM-dependent patient. To determine a CIED patient's ability to drive, two variables must be taken into account: (i) the risk of events, which depends on the type of underlying heart disease (ICD patients have a higher risk than PM patients); (ii) the time spent driving and the type of vehicle driven (professional drivers are at higher risk than private drivers). This position paper reports the recommendations of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC) regarding driving by patients with CIEDs, on the basis of the available literature and the European reference recommendations

Is Less Always More? A Prospective Two-Centre Study Addressing Clinical Outcomes in Leadless versus Transvenous Single-Chamber Pacemaker Recipients

(1) Background: Leadless (LL) stimulation is perceived to lower surgical, vascular, and lead-related complications compared to transvenous (TV) pacemakers, yet controlled studies are lacking and real-life experience is non-conclusive. (2) Aim: To prospectively analyse survival and complication rates in leadless versus transvenous VVIR pacemakers. (3) Methods: Prospective analysis of mortality and complications in 344 consecutive VVIR TV and LL pacemaker recipients between June 2015 and May 2021. Indications for VVIR pacing were “slow” AF, atrio-ventricular block in AF or in sinus rhythm in bedridden cognitively impaired patients. LL indication was based on individualised clinical judgement. (4) Results: 72 patients received LL and 272 TV VVIR pacemakers. LL pacemaker indications included ongoing/expected chronic haemodialysis, superior venous access issues, active lifestyle with low pacing percentage expected, frailty causing high bleeding/infectious risk, previous valvular endocarditis, or device infection requiring extraction. No significant difference in the overall acute and long-term complication rate was observed between LL and TV cohorts, with greater mortality occurring in TV due to selection of older patients. (5) Conclusions: Given the low complication rate and life expectancy in this contemporary VVIR cohort, extending LL indications to all VVIR candidates is unlikely to provide clear-cut benefits. Considering the higher costs of LL technology, careful patient selection is mandatory for LL PMs to become advantageous, i.e., in the presence of vascular access issues, high bleeding/infectious risk, and long life expectancy, rendering lead-related issues and repeated surgery relevant in the long-term perspective

Five Years of Direct Oral Anticoagulants Use in Italy: Adverse Drug Reactions from the Italian National Pharmacovigilance Network

Background: Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) are the preferred anticoagulant drugs for the prevention of atrial fibrillation (AF)-related thromboembolic complications and for the treatment and the prevention of recurrences of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The evaluation of self-reported adverse drug reactions (ADRs) available from databases of drug-regulatory agencies such as the Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) pharmacovigilance database represents a novel aid to guide decision making. Objective: To assess the safety profile of DOACs by analyzing ADR rates in the real-world Italian scenario. Methods: Post-marketing surveillance data recorded by the National Pharmacovigilance Network were retrieved for the time period 2017-2021 from the AIFA online site. The following data were collected for each DOAC: total ADR number, serious ADR number, gastrointestinal (GI) ADR, intracranial hemorrhage events (ICH ADR), and more frequently reported ADR for the study year. The safety profile was expressed by the risk index (RI). Results: Rivaroxaban use was associated with consistent and stable low rates of serious ADR, GI ADR, and ICH ADR across the 5-year study period. Rivaroxaban and apixaban showed the lowest RI for serious ADR and GI ADR, while rivaroxaban use was associated with significantly lower ICH events as compared to apixaban. Dabigatran was related to the highest RIs for every ADR class, in particular GI ADRs. Conclusions: DOACs presented an acceptable safety profile in the current post-market analysis. However, rivaroxaban and apixaban were associated with more favorable safety profiles as compared to dabigatran, while rivaroxaban provoked statistically significantly fewer ICH events as compared to apixaban

The Interplay of PR Interval and AV Pacing Delays Used for Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy in Heart Failure Patients: Association with Clinical Response in a Retrospective Analysis of a Large Observational Study

Background. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is a treatment for heart failure (HF) patients with prolonged QRS and impaired left ventricular (LV) systolic function. We aim to evaluate how the baseline PR interval is associated with outcomes (all-cause death or HF hospitalizations) and LV reverse remodeling (>15% relative reduction in LV end-systolic volume). Methods. Among 2224 patients with CRT defibrillators, 1718 (77.2%) had a device programmed at out-of-the-box settings (sensed AV delay: 100 ms and paced AV delay: 130 ms). Results. In this cohort of 1718 patients (78.7% men, mean age 66 years, 71.6% in NYHA class III/IV, LVEF = 27 +/- 6%), echocardiographic assessment at 6-month follow-up showed that LV reverse remodeling was not constant as a function of the PR interval; in detail, it occurred in 56.4% of all patients but was more frequent (76.6%) in patients with a PR interval of 160 ms. In a median follow-up of 20 months, the endpoint of death or HF hospitalizations occurred in 304/1718 (17.7%) patients; in the multivariable regression analysis it was significantly less frequent when the PR interval was between 150 and 170 ms (hazard ratio = 0.79, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.63-0.99, p = 0.046). The same PR range was associated with higher probability of CRT response (odds ratio = 2.51, 95% CI: 1.41-4.47, p = 0.002). Conclusions. In a large population of CRT patients, with fixed AV pacing delays, specific PR intervals are associated with significant benefits in terms of LV reverse remodeling and lower morbidity. These observational data suggest the importance of optimizing pacing programming as a function of the PR interval to maximize CRT response and patient outcome

Acute Coronary Syndromes and Covid-19: Exploring the Uncertainties

Since an association between myocardial infarction (MI) and respiratory infections has been described for influenza viruses and other respiratory viral agents, understanding possible physiopathological links between severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and acute coronary syndromes (ACS) is of the greatest importance. The initial data suggest an underestimation of ACS cases all over the world, but acute MI still represents a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide and should not be overshadowed during the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) pandemic. No common consensus regarding the most adequate healthcare management policy for ACS is currently available. Indeed, important differences have been reported between the measures employed to treat ACS in China during the first disease outbreak and what currently represents clinical practice across Europe and the USA. This review aims to discuss the pathophysiological links between MI, respiratory infections, and Covid-19; epidemiological data related to ACS at the time of the Covid-19 pandemic; and learnings that have emerged so far from several catheterization labs and coronary care units all over the world, in order to shed some light on the current strategies for optimal management of ACS patients with confirmed or suspected SARS-CoV-2 infection

[2019 Catheter Ablation Registry of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing]

Background: This report describes the findings of the 2019 Italian Catheter Ablation Registry of the Italian Association of Arrhythmology and Cardiac Pacing (AIAC). Methods: Data collection was retrospective. A standardized questionnaire was completed by each of the participating centers. Results: A total of 15 201 ablation procedures were performed by 91 institutions. Most (78%) of the centers has one electrophysiology laboratory, and 17% of them has a hybrid cardiac surgery laboratory. Almost all (98%) centers have a 3D mapping system. The median number of electrophysiologists and nurses involved in the electrophysiology laboratory was 3 and an electrophysiology technician was involved in 30% of all centers. In 88.4% of cases, ablations were performed for supraventricular arrhythmias, and among these the most frequently treated arrhythmia was atrial fibrillation (32.9%), followed by atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (23.9%), and common atrial flutter (11.7%). In 10 256 (67.4%) patients catheter ablation was performed by means of a 3D mapping system, with a "near-zero" fluoroscopic approach in 4626 (30.4%) of all patients. Conclusions: The 2019 Italian Catheter Ablation Registry confirmed that atrial fibrillation is the most commonly treated arrhythmia in the ablation centers with an increasing number of procedures performed with a 3D mapping system and a "near-zero" approach