Pipin Kojodjojo

Introduction Clinical outcomes of long‐term ventricular septal pacing (VSP) without His‐Purkinje capture remain unknown. This study evaluated the differences in clinical outcomes between conduction system pacing (CSP), VSP, and right ventricular pacing (RVP). Methods Consecutive patients with bradycardia indicated for pacing from 2016 to 2022 were prospectively followed for the clinical endpoints of heart failure (HF)‐hospitalizations and all‐cause mortality at 2 years. VSP was defined as septal pacing due to unsuccessful CSP implant or successful CSP followed by loss of His‐Purkinje capture within 90 days. Results Among 1016 patients (age 73.9 ± 11.2 years, 47% female, 48% atrioventricular block), 612 received RVP, 335 received CSP and 69 received VSP. Paced QRS duration was similar between VSP and RVP, but both significantly longer than CSP ( p < .05). HF‐hospitalizations occurred in 130 (13%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 16% vs. VSP 13%, p = .001), and all‐cause mortality in 143 (14%) patients (CSP 7% vs. RVP 19% vs. VSP 9%, p < .001). The association of pacing modality with clinical events was limited to those with ventricular pacing (Vp) > 20% ( p interaction < .05). Adjusting for clinical risk factors among patients with Vp > 20%, VSP (adjusted hazard ratio [AHR]: 4.74, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.57–14.36) and RVP (AHR: 3.08, 95% CI: 1.44‐6.60) were associated with increased hazard of HF‐hospitalizations, and RVP (2.52, 95% CI: 1.19–5.35) with increased mortality, compared to CSP. Clinical endpoints did not differ between VSP and RVP with Vp > 20%, or amongst groups with Vp < 20%. Conclusion Conduction system capture is associated with improved clinical outcomes. CSP should be preferred over VSP or RVP during pacing for bradycardia.

Introduction Catheter ablation (CA) of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT) is associated with late pacemakers for AV block (AVB). We performed a systematic review and meta‐analysis of the pooled incidence of late pacemakers for AVB after CA of AVNRT. Methods and Results Relevant studies were identified from four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and Cochrane Trial Register) from inception to 2022. A random effects model was used to calculate the odds of late pacemakers in CA of AVNRT compared to atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVRT). Of 533 articles screened, 13 were included in systematic review. CA for AVNRT was performed in 16 471 patients (mean age 54 ± 17 years, 63% females), of which 68 (0.4%) underwent pacemaker implantation for late AVB. Meta‐analysis was performed in 5 of the 13 studies (mean follow‐up duration 7 ± 4 years). Patients who underwent CA of AVNRT were older (58 ± 17 vs. 52 ± 20 years, p < .001), and more likely female (60% vs. 41%, p < .001) than AVRT. Pooled estimates of late pacemakers for AVB were higher in CA of AVNRT than AVRT (0.5% vs. 0.2%, p = .006), with CA in AVNRT associated with almost twofold increased odds of late pacemakers indicated for AVB (odds ratio: 1.94, 95% confidence interval: 1.08–3.47, p = .027) compared to AVRT. Conclusion AVNRT ablation is safe but associated with a low but definitely increased risk of requiring pacing in the later years due to AVB. This association is confirmed by pooling over 16 000 AVNRT patients receiving clinically indicated ablation and is helpful in providing informed consent for prospective patients undergoing ablation for AVNRT.