The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a deep restructuring of cardiovascular care, especially in the setting of cardiac arrhythmia units, which are characterized by a wide variety of clinical and interventional activities. We describe the experience of a large university hospital deeply hit during the COVID-19 health crisis (first outbreak of the pandemic), focusing on the exceptional measures implemented and their impact in terms of outcomes. We performed a retrospective study comparing the human and structural resources and the activity of a cardiac arrhythmia unit in a Spanish tertiary hospital for two consecutive periods: from January 12, 2020, to March 8, 2020 (“pre-COVID stage”), and from March 9, 2020, to May 2, 2020 (“COVID stage”). Data were contextualized within the number of confirmed COVID-19 cases in the region of Madrid. The measures implemented were promotion of non–face-to-face consultations, selection of urgent procedures, design of a “COVID-free” circuit for outpatient interventions, and protocolization for patients with COVID-19. A total of 3,526 consultations and 362 procedures were performed. During the COVID stage, the number of consultations remained stable, and the electrophysiology rooms’ activity decreased by 55.2% with a relative increase in the number of urgent-hospitalized cases attended (11.8% COVID-19-positive patients). The electrophysiology rooms’ activity returned to “normal” in the last week of the COVID stage, with no contagion being detected among patients or professionals. In conclusion, the measures implemented allowed us to respond safely and efficiently to the health care needs of patients with arrhythmias during the COVID-19 crisis and may be useful for other institutions facing similar situations.

Introduction: Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged in recent years as a new pacing modality, providing patients with a narrower paced QRS than conventional pacing and stable pacing parameters. At the same time, there is a growing concern about the use of fluoroscopy in pacemaker implantations, given its harmful effects on both patients and operators. However, there are no prior experiences of zero-fluoroscopy in LBBP procedure. Methods:We conducted an observational prospective study recruiting consecutive patients that underwent zero-fluoroscopy LBBP pacemaker implantation. A 6-month follow-up visit was programmed for every patient. The main goal of our study was to assess the efficacy, feasibility, and safety of the procedure.Results: From January 2021 to February 2022, we included 10 patients, 8 males. The average age was 63 ± 4 years. The procedure was successful in all patients. We observed a significant reduction in paced QRS width compared with basal QRS width (149 ± 31.9 vs. 116 ± 15.6 ms, p = .02). All device parameters remained stable at 6-month follow-up: no significant differences in mean impedance (700.5 ± 136.4 vs.

Introduction Left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) has emerged in recent years as a new pacing modality, providing patients with a narrower paced QRS than conventional pacing and stable pacing parameters. At the same time, there is a growing concern about the use of fluoroscopy in pacemaker implantations, given its harmful effects to both patients and operators. However, there are no prior experiences of zero fluoroscopy in LBBP procedure. Methods We conducted an observational prospective study recruiting consecutive patients that underwent zero fluoroscopy LBBP pacemaker implantation. A 6-month follow-up visit was programmed for every patient. The main goal of our study was to assess the efficacy, feasibility and safety of the procedure. Results From January 2021 to February 2022, we included 10 patients, 8 males. The average age was 63 ± 4 years. The procedure was successful in all patients. We observed a significant reduction in paced QRS width compared with basal QRS width (149 ms vs 116 ms, p= 0.02). All device parameters remained stable at 6-month follow-up: no significant differences in mean impedance (700.5 vs 494 Ohm, p=0.09), capture threshold (0.67 vs 0.83V @ 0.4ms, p=0.27) or R-wave amplitude (10.6 vs 13.92 mV, p= 0.19). No complications were reported in any case. Conclusion Zero fluoroscopy LBBP is feasible and safe, and it may be considered an optimal election in cases where radiation exposure is contraindicated or especially undesirable and as an alternative in all other cases.