Objective To investigate the association between the severity of cardiac dysfunction caused by ventricular pre‐excitation‐led dyssynchrony and cardiac function recovery time after catheter ablation and identify predictors of cardiac function recovery after ablation. Methods and Results A total of 49 children underwent successful ablation (median 2.92 years). This study included 23 patients with mild cardiac dysfunction (left ventricular ejection fraction [LVEF]: 45% ≤ LVEF ≤ 55%), 15 with moderate (30% ≤ LVEF < 45%), and 11 with severe (LVEF <30%). The time for mean LVEF reaching 55% was 0.75, 3, and more than 12 months, respectively. The mean LVEF of children with severe cardiac dysfunction aged ≤6 years normalized within 12 months of follow‐up (63.00% ± 1.41%). Mean LVEF of those aged more than 6 years did not normalize at 12 months of follow‐up (38.67% ± 10.97%). LVEF recovery time was significantly different between these two age groups (median 11 months vs >12 months, χ2 = 4.55; P = .04). Cox regression analysis showed that preablation smaller left ventricular diastolic diameter (LVDd) Z score and higher LVEF were predictors of cardiac dysfunction recovery time (hazard ratio [HR] = 0.91, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.82‐0.99, P = .04; HR = 1.09, 95% CI = 1.03‐1.15, P = .01). Conclusion Patients with higher LVDd Z scores and lower LVEF tend to have slower improvement in cardiac function after ablation. Patients with LVEF less than 30% and aged more than 6 years need more than 12 months to fully recover, and some might not even completely recover. Early catheter ablation is suggested once ventricular pre‐excitation‐led cardiac dysfunction is suspected.

Background: To investigate the clinical features of preexcitation-induced dilated cardiomyopathy in infants and evaluate safety and efficacy of radiofrequency ablation (RFCA) in these patients. Methods: This study included 10 infants (4 males and 6 females) with mean age of 6.78±3.14 months, mean weight of 8.11±1.71 kg, and mean left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) was 32.6±10.34%. Tachycardiomyopathy has been excluded and all patients were refractory to the drugs. All of these 10 patients underwent RFCA. All 10 patients underwent RFCA. Results: All the accessory pathways in these patients were located on right free wall and the acute success rate was 100%. No complication associated with the procedure occurred. In one case preexcitation recurred and was ablated successfully during the second attempt. There were 3 patients with mild cardiac dysfunction (LVEF, 40≤LVEF<50%), 3 with moderate (30≤LVEF<40%), and 4 with severe cardiac dysfunction (LVEF<30%, the ages were 3, 6, 7, and 10 months, respectively). The time for LVEF normalization was 1 week, 1 to 3 months, and ≥3 months, respectively. In 3 of the 4 severe cardiac dysfunction patients, the LVEF normalized at 3, 6, and 12 months after ablation, the LVEF of the remaining case did not recover at 3 months and is still being followed. Conclusions: Ventricular preexcitation could lead to severe cardiac dysfunction during infancy. RFCA may be a safe and effective treatment option in right free wall accessory pathways, even in infants with cardiac dysfunction. Cases of more severe cardiac dysfunction might require a longer time for LVEF recovery after RFCA.

Objective: This study aimed to determine the ideal pacing site in children by comparing the postoperative ventricular synchrony in children with left bundle branch area pacing and those with right ventricular septal pacing. Methods: This retrospective study included children with complete atrioventricular block who underwent permanent pacemaker implantation from March 2019 to August 2021. Patients were grouped according to their ventricular pacing site, the left bundle branch area pacing group and the right ventricular septal pacing group. Two-dimensional speckle tracking echocardiography was used to evaluate the ventricular synchrony. Results: Forty-eight children (median age, 2.7 years; interquartile range, 1.7–4.6 years) were included. The paced QRS duration in the left bundle branch area pacing group was significantly narrower than that in the right ventricular septal pacing group (100.2 ± 9.3 versus 115.4 ± 15.1 ms, p = 0.001). The median follow-up duration was 1.5 years (interquartile range, 1–2 years). At the last follow-up, the average capture threshold of the ventricular electrode in the left bundle branch area pacing group was lower than that in the right ventricular septal pacing group (0.79 ± 0.18 versus 1.20 ± 0.56 V, p = 0.008). The left ventricular intraventricular synchrony parameters in the left bundle branch area pacing group were better than those in the right ventricular septal pacing group (e.g. standard deviation of the time to peak longitudinal strain, 37.4 ± 4.3 versus 46.6 ± 8.2 ms, p = 0.000). The average interventricular mechanical delay time in the left bundle branch area pacing group was significantly shorter than that in the right ventricular septal pacing group (36.4 ± 14.2 versus 52.5 ± 22.7 ms, p = 0.016). Conclusion: Compared with right ventricular septal pacing, left bundle branch area pacing in children produces a narrower QRS duration and better pacing and ventricular synchrony parameters postoperatively.

Objective: To investigate the correlation between ventricular pre-excitation-related dyssynchrony, on cardiac dysfunction, and recovery. Methods and Results: This study included 76 children (39 boys and 37 girls) with a median age of 5.25 (2.67–10.75) years. The patients with pre-excitation-related cardiac dysfunction (cardiac dysfunction group, n = 34) had a longer standard deviation of the time-to-peak systolic strain of the left ventricle and larger difference between the maximum and minimum times-to-peak systolic strain than those with a normal cardiac function (normal function group, n = 42) (51.77 ± 24.70 ms versus 33.29 ± 9.48 ms, p < 0.05; 185.82 ± 92.51 ms versus 111.93 ± 34.27 ms, p < 0.05, respectively). The cardiac dysfunction group had a maximum time-to-peak systolic strain at the basal segments of the anterior and posterior septa and the normal function group at the basal segments of anterolateral and posterolateral walls. The prevalence of ventricular septal dyssynchrony in the cardiac dysfunction group was significantly higher than that in the normal function group (94.1% (32/34) versus 7.7% (3/42), p < 0.05). The patients with ventricular septal dyssynchrony (n = 35) had a significantly higher prevalence of intra-left ventricular systolic dyssynchrony than those with ventricular septal synchrony (n = 41) (57.1% (20/35) versus 14.6% (6/41), p < 0.05). During follow-up after pathway ablation, the patients who recovered from intra-left ventricular dyssynchrony (n = 29) had a shorter left ventricular ejection fraction recovery time than those who did not (n = 5) (χ2 = 5.94, p < 0.05). Among the patients who recovered, 93.1% (27/29) had a normalised standard deviation of the time-to-peak systolic strain and difference between the maximum and minimum times-to-peak systolic strain within 1 month after ablation. Conclusion: Ventricular pre-excitation may cause ventricular septal dyssynchrony; thus, attention must be paid to intra-left ventricular dyssynchrony and cardiac dysfunction. Whether intra-left ventricular systolic dyssynchrony can resolve within 1 month may be a new early predictor of patient prognosis.