No abstract

Background Global simultaneous recording of atrial activation during atrial fibrillation (AF) can elucidate underlying mechanisms contributing to AF maintenance. A better understanding of these mechanisms may allow for an individualized ablation strategy to treat persistent AF. The study aims to characterize left atrial endocardial activation patterns during AF using noncontact charge‐density mapping. Methods Twenty‐five patients with persistent AF were studied. Activation patterns were characterized into three subtypes: (i) focal with centrifugal activation (FCA); (ii) localized rotational activation (LRA); and (iii) localized irregular activation (LIA). Continuous activation patterns were analyzed and distributed in 18 defined regions in the left atrium. Results A total of 144 AF segments with 1068 activation patterns were analyzed. The most common pattern during AF was LIA (63%) which consists of four disparate features of activation: slow conduction (45%), pivoting (30%), collision (16%), and acceleration (7%). LRA was the second‐most common pattern (20%). FCA accounted for 17% of all activations, arising frequently from the pulmonary veins (PVs)/ostia. A majority of patients (24/25; 96%) showed continuous and highly dynamic patterns of activation comprising multiple combinations of FCA, LRA, and LIA, transitioning from one to the other without a discernible order. Preferential conduction areas were typically seen in the mid‐anterior (48%) and lower‐posterior (40%) walls. Conclusion Atrial fibrillation is characterized by heterogeneous activation patterns identified in PV‐ostia and non‐PV regions throughout the LA at varying locations between individuals. Clinical implications of individualized ablation strategies guided by charge‐density mapping need to be determined.

No abstract

Aims Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be effective and safe. Limited data are available on LBBAP in the congenital heart disease (CHD) population. This study aims to describe the feasibility and safety of LBBAP in CHD patients compared with non-CHD patients. Methods and results This is a single-centre, non-randomized observational study recruiting consecutive patients with bradycardia indication. Demographic data, ECGs, imaging, and procedural data including lead parameters were recorded. A total of 39 patients were included: CHD group (n = 13) and non-CHD group (n = 26). Congenital heart disease patients were younger (55 ± 14.5 years vs. 73.2 ± 13.1, P < 0.001). Acute success was achieved in all CHD patients and 96% (25/26) of non-CHD patients. No complications were encountered in either group. The procedural time for CHD patients was comparable (96.4 ± 54 vs. 82.1 ± 37.9 min, P = 0.356). Sheath reshaping was required in 7 of 13 CHD patients but only in 1 of 26 non-CHD patients, reflecting the complex and distorted anatomy of the patients in this group. Lead parameters were similar in both groups; R wave (11 ± 7 mV vs. 11.5 ± 7.5, P = 0.881) and pacing threshold (0.6 ± 0.3 V vs. 0.7 ± 0.3, P = 0.392). Baseline QRS duration was longer in the CHD group (150 ± 28.2 vs. 118.6 ± 26.6 ms, P = 0.002). Despite a numerically greater reduction in QRS and a similar left ventricular activation time (65.9 ± 6.2 vs. 67 ± 16.8 ms, P = 0.840), the QRS remained longer in the CHD group (135.5 ± 22.4 vs. 106.9 ± 24.7 ms, P = 0.005). Conclusion Left bundle branch area pacing is feasible and safe in CHD patients as compared to that in non-CHD patients. Procedural and fluoroscopy times did not differ between both groups. Lead parameters were satisfactory and stable over a short-term follow-up.