De novo implanted cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator (CRT-D) reduces the risk of morbidity and mortality in patients with left bundle branch block, heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, among HFrEF patients with right ventricular pacing (RVP), the efficacy of CRT-D upgrade is uncertain. In this multicentre, randomized, controlled trial, 360 symptomatic (New York Heart Association Classes II–IVa) HFrEF patients with a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD), high RVP burden ≥ 20%, and a wide paced QRS complex duration ≥ 150 ms were randomly assigned to receive CRT-D upgrade (n = 215) or ICD (n = 145) in a 3:2 ratio. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or <15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume assessed at 12 months. Secondary outcomes included all-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization. Over a median follow-up of 12.4 months, the primary outcome occurred in 58/179 (32.4%) in the CRT-D arm vs. 101/128 (78.9%) in the ICD arm (odds ratio 0.11; 95% confidence interval 0.06–0.19; P < .001). All-cause mortality or heart failure hospitalization occurred in 22/215 (10%) in the CRT-D arm vs. 46/145 (32%) in the ICD arm (hazard ratio 0.27; 95% confidence interval 0.16–0.47; P < .001). The incidence of procedure- or device-related complications was similar between the two arms [CRT-D group 25/211 (12.3%) vs. ICD group 11/142 (7.8%)]. In pacemaker or ICD patients with significant RVP burden and reduced ejection fraction, upgrade to CRT-D compared with ICD therapy reduced the combined risk of all-cause mortality, heart failure hospitalization, or absence of reverse remodelling. Main inclusion criteria and randomization by arms showing the result of 360 patients (215 CRT-D vs. 145 ICD) analysed by intention to treat. Primary and secondary outcomes showing a substantial treatment effect of CRT-D compared with ICD alone. Among patients with HF and reduced LVEF with intermittent or permanent RV pacing, CRT-D upgrade resulted in a lower incidence of the composite of all-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, or <15% decrease in LVESV as the primary outcome. Secondary outcome of all-cause mortality and HF hospitalization also proved a substantially lower incidence in CRT-D patients compared with ICD. CI, confidence interval; CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator; HF, heart failure; HR, hazard ratio; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume; OR, odds ratio; RV, right ventricular.

Cerebral thrombo-embolism is a dreaded complication of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation; its surrogate, silent cerebral embolism (SCE) can be detected by diffusion-weighted brain magnetic resonance imaging (bMRI). Initial investigations have raised a concern that very high-power, short-duration (vHPSD; 90 W/4 s) temperature-controlled PVI with the QDOT Micro catheter may be associated with a higher incidence of SCE compared with low-power long-duration ablation. We aimed to assess the incidence of procedural complications of vHPSD PVI with an emphasis on cerebral safety. We enrolled 328 consecutive patients undergoing their PVI procedure using vHPSD. A subgroup of 61 consecutive patients underwent diffusion-weighted bMRI within 24 h of the procedure, and incidence and predictors of SCE were studied. The mean procedure time and left atrial dwell time for the overall cohort were 69.6 ± 24.1 and 46.5 ± 21.5 min, respectively. First-pass isolation was achieved in 82%. No stroke or transient ischaemic attack occurred. Silent cerebral embolism was identified in 5 of 61 patients (8.2%). Silent cerebral embolism following procedures was significantly associated with lower baseline generator impedance (105.8 vs. 112.6 Ω, P < 0.0001) and with intermittent loss of catheter–tissue contact during ablation (14.1% vs. 6.1%, P < 0.0001). Very high-power, short-duration PVI is a safe technique with an excellent acute success rate. Silent cerebral embolism incidence in our cohort was below the previously reported range, with no clinically overt cerebral complications. Lower baseline generator impedance and loss of contact during ablation may contribute to a higher risk of SCEs.

BACKGROUND: High-power short-duration ablation has shown impressive efficacy and safety for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI); however, initial efficacy results with very high power short-duration ablation were discouraging. This study compared the long-term durability of PVI performed with a 90- versus 50-W power setting. METHODS: Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo PVI with the QDOT catheter using a power setting of 90 or 50 W. Three months after the index procedure, patients underwent a repeat electrophysiology study to identify pulmonary vein reconnections. Patients were followed for 12 months to detect AF recurrences. RESULTS: We included 46 patients (mean age, 64 years; women, 48%). Procedure (76 versus 84 minutes; P =0.02), left atrial dwell (63 versus 71 minutes; P =0.01), and radiofrequency (303 versus 1040 seconds; P <0.0001) times were shorter with 90- versus 50-W procedures, while the number of radiofrequency applications was higher with 90 versus 50 W (77 versus 67; P =0.01). There was no difference in first-pass isolation (83% versus 82%; P =1.0) or acute reconnection (4% versus 14%; P =0.3) rates between 90 and 50 W. Forty patients underwent a repeat electrophysiology study. Durable PVI on a per PV basis was present in 72/78 (92%) versus 68/77 (88%) PVs in the 90- and 50-W energy setting groups, respectively; effect size: 72/78−68/77=0.040, lower 95% CI=−0.051 (noninferiority limit=−0.1, ie, noninferiority is met). No complications occurred. There was no difference in 12-month atrial fibrillation-free survival between the 90- and 50-W groups ( P =0.2). CONCLUSIONS: Similarly high rates of durable PVI and arrhythmia-free survival were achieved with 90 and 50 W. Procedure, left atrial dwell, and radiofrequency times were shorter with 90 W compared with 50 W. The sample size is too small to conclude the safety and long-term efficacy of the high and very high-power short-duration PVI; further studies are needed to address this topic. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT05459831.

Recommendations on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with atrial fibrillation or flutter (AF) are based on less robust evidence than those in sinus rhythm (SR). We aimed to assess the efficacy of CRT upgrade in the BUDAPEST-CRT Upgrade trial population by their baseline rhythm. Heart failure patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and previously implanted pacemaker (PM) or implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) and ≥20% right ventricular (RV) pacing burden were randomized to CRT with defibrillator (CRT-D) upgrade (n = 215) or ICD (n = 145). Primary [HF hospitalization (HFH), all-cause mortality, or <15% reduction of left ventricular end-systolic volume] and secondary outcomes were investigated. At enrolment, 131 (36%) patients had AF, who had an increased risk for HFH as compared with those with SR [adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) 2.99; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.26–7.13; P = 0.013]. The effect of CRT-D upgrade was similar in patients with AF as in those with SR [AF adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.06; 95% CI 0.02–0.17; P < 0.001; SR aOR 0.13; 95% CI 0.07–0.27; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.29] during the mean follow-up time of 12.4 months. Also, it decreased the risk of HFH or all-cause mortality (aHR 0.33; 95% CI 0.16–0.70; P = 0.003; interaction P = 0.17) and improved the echocardiographic response (left ventricular end-diastolic volume difference −49.21 mL; 95% CI −69.10 to −29.32; P < 0.001; interaction P = 0.21). In HFrEF patients with AF and PM/ICD with high RV pacing burden, CRT-D upgrade decreased the risk of HFH and improved reverse remodelling when compared with ICD, similar to that seen in patients in SR. In AF patients CRT-D upgrade reduced the risk of mortality or HF hospitalization as compared with ICD, additionally echocardiographic parameters, symptoms, and NT-proBNP levels improved. However, the risk of HF hospitalization was higher in AF patients when compared with SR. AF, atrial fibrillation or flutter; aOR, adjusted odds ratio; aHR, adjusted hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; CRT-D, cardiac resynchronization therapy with defibrillator; ICD, implantable cardioverter defibrillator; HF, heart failure; HFrEF, heart failure with reduced ejection fraction; LVESV, left ventricular end-systolic volume; NT-proBNP, N-terminal pro b-type natriuretic peptide; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; PM, pacemaker; RV, right ventricular; SR, sinus rhythm.

Patients with a pacemaker or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator are often considered for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). However, limited comprehensive data are available regarding their long-term outcomes. Our retrospective registry included 2524 patients [1977 (78%) de novo, 547 (22%) upgrade patients] with mild to severe symptoms, left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35%, and QRS ≥ 130ms. The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause mortality, heart transplantation (HTX), or left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation; secondary endpoints were death from any cause and post-procedural complications. In our cohort, upgrade patients were older [71 (65–77) vs. 67 (59–73) years; P < 0.001], were less frequently females (20% vs. 27%; P = 0.002) and had more comorbidities than de novo patients. During the median follow-up time of 3.7 years, 1091 (55%) de novo and 342 (63%) upgrade patients reached the primary endpoint. In univariable analysis, upgrade patients exhibited a higher risk of mortality/HTX/LVAD than the de novo group [hazard ratio (HR): 1.41; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.23–1.61; P < 0.001]. However, this difference disappeared after adjusting for covariates (adjusted HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.86–1.48; P = 0.402), or propensity score matching (propensity score-matched HR: 1.10; 95% CI: 0.95–1.29; P = 0.215). From device-related complications, lead dysfunction (3.1% vs. 1%; P < 0.001) and pocket infections (3.7% vs. 1.8%; P = 0.014) were more frequent in the upgrade group compared to de novo patients. In our retrospective analysis, upgrade patients had a higher risk of all-cause mortality than de novo patients, which might be attributable to their more significant comorbidity burden. The occurrence of lead dysfunction and pocket infections was more frequent in the upgrade group.