The latest medical research on Clinical Cardiac Electrophysiology

Numerous P-wave indices have been explored as biomarkers to assess atrial fibrillation (AF) risk and the impact of therapy with variable success.

We investigated the utility of P-wave alternans (PWA) to track the effects of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and to predict atrial arrhythmia recurrence.

This medical records study included patients who underwent PVI for AF ablation at our institution, along with 20 control subjects without AF or overt cardiovascular disease. PWA was assessed using novel artificial intelligence-enabled modified moving average (AI-MMA) algorithms. PWA was monitored from the 12-lead ECG at ~1 h before and ~16 h after PVI (n = 45) and at the 4- to 17-week clinically indicated follow-up visit (n = 30). The arrhythmia follow-up period was 955 ± 112 days.

PVI acutely reduced PWA by 48%-63% (p < .05) to control ranges in leads II, III, aVF, the leads with the greatest sensitivity in monitoring PWA. Pre-ablation PWA was ~6 µV and decreased to ~3 µV following ablation. Patients who exhibited a rebound in PWA to pre-ablation levels at 4- to 17-week follow-up (p < .01) experienced recurrent atrial arrhythmias, whereas patients whose PWA remained reduced (p = .85) did not, resulting in a significant difference (p < .001) at follow-up. The AUC for PWA's prediction of first recurrence of atrial arrhythmia was 0.81 (p < .01) with 88% sensitivity and 82% specificity. Kaplan-Meier analysis estimated atrial arrhythmia-free survival (p < .01) with an adjusted hazard ratio of 3.4 (95% CI: 1.47-5.24, p < .02).

A rebound in PWA to pre-ablation levels detected by AI-MMA in the 12-lead ECG at standard clinical follow-up predicts atrial arrhythmia recurrence.

Despite advancements in antibiotic therapy and resuscitation protocols, sepsis and septic shock remain major contributors to morbidity and mortality in children. We aimed to investigate the utility of soluble urokinase plasminogen activator receptor (suPAR) for the early detection of septic shock and to evaluate its accuracy in predicting mortality.

A prospective study was conducted in a tertiary pediatric emergency department (ED), enrolling patients diagnosed with the sepsis, severe sepsis, or septic shock. In addition to assessing infection biomarkers such as C-reactive protein and procalcitonin, suPAR levels were quantified upon admission using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. The primary outcome measure was 30-day mortality.

Overall 72 patients and 80 healthy children included. Plasma suPAR levels demonstrated a statistically significant elevation in the sepsis, severe sepsis, and septic shock groups compared with the control group (p < 0.001 for all). The septic shock group exhibited the highest suPAR levels upon admission, surpassing both the sepsis and severe sepsis groups (p = 0.009 and 0.042). ROC analysis underscored the promising potential of suPAR with an AUC of 0.832 for septic shock. Analysis of mortality prediction revealed significantly higher suPAR levels in nonsurvivors than survivors (9.7 ng/mL vs. 4.2 ng/mL; p < 0.001). Employing plasma suPAR levels to discriminate between mortality and survival, a threshold of ≥7.0 ng/mL demonstrated a sensitivity of 90.9% and specificity of 71.0%.

Plasma suPAR levels have the potential as a biomarker for predicting mortality in children with septic shock. In pediatric septic shock, the presence of plasma suPAR ≥7 ng/mL along with an underlying disease significantly increases the risk of mortality.

Although left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has been shown to be a feasible option for delivering physiological pacing, data are largely limited to single-center reports. The aim of this analysis was to systematically assess the safety and efficacy of LBBAP with the Model 3830 lead among primarily bradycardia patients.

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched for full-text articles on LBBAP using the SelectSecure Model 3830 lumenless lead. Rates and means were estimated using random- and mixed-effects models. Of 3395 articles, 53 met inclusion criteria, representing 6061 patients undergoing an implant attempt. Average patient age was 68.1 years (95% CI: 66.6, 69.6) and 53.1% were male (95% CI: 50.5%, 55.7%). The average implant success rate among bradycardia-indicated patients was 92.7% (95% CI: 89.5%, 94.9%). The overall estimated procedural adverse event rate was 2.5% (95% CI: 1.1%, 5.4%). The estimated septal perforation rate at implant was 1.6% (95% CI: 1.0%, 2.6%) with no adverse clinical sequelae reported. Pacing thresholds were low at implant (0.67 V [95% CI: 0.64, 0.70]) and remained stable through 12 months (0.76 V [95% CI: 0.72, 0.80]). Among bradycardia-indicated patients, LVEF remained stable from baseline to post-implant (59.5% [95% CI: 57.9%, 61.1%] vs. 60.1% [95% CI: 58.5%, 61.7%]).

This meta-analysis including 6061 patients implanted with a Model 3830 lead for LBBAP found an average implant success rate of 92.7% and a procedural adverse event rate of 2.5% with stable electrical parameters and LVEF post-implant.

Pacemaker (PM) patients may require a subsequent upgrade to an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD). Limited data exists on this patient population. We sought to characterize this population, to assess predictors for ICD upgrade, and to report the outcome.

From our prospective PM and ICD implantation registry, all patients who underwent PM and/or ICD implantations at our center were analyzed. Patient characteristics and outcomes of PM patients with subsequent ICD upgrade were compared to age- and sex-matched patients with de novo ICD implantation, and to PM patients without subsequent upgrade.

Of 1'301 ICD implantations, 60 (5%) were upgraded from PMs. Median time from PM implantation to ICD upgrade was 2.6 years (IQR 1.3-5.4). Of 2'195 PM patients, 28 patients underwent subsequent ICD upgrades, corresponding to an estimated annual incidence of an ICD upgrade of at least 0.33%. Lower LVEF (p = .05) and male sex (p = .038) were independent predictors for ICD upgrade. Survival without death, transplant and LVAD implantation were worse both for upgraded ICD patients compared to matched patients with de novo ICD implantation (p = .05), as well as for PM patients with subsequent upgrade compared to matched PM patients not requiring an upgrade (p = .036).

One of 20 ICD implantations are upgrade of patients with a PM. At least one of 30 PM patients will require an ICD upgrade in the following 10 years. Predictors for ICD upgrade are male sex and lower LVEF at PM implantation. Upgraded patients have worse outcomes.