Cardioneuroablation in patients with a prior pacemaker implant. (19th May 2022)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Jansova, H; Stiavnicky, P; Peichl, P; Stojadinovic, P; Haskova, J; Cihak, R; Kautzner, J; Wichterle, D
• Is Part Of: Europace. Volume 24:Supplement 1(2022)
• Publication Date: 2022-05-19
• Subjects: Arrhythmia -- Treatment -- Periodicals; Cardiac pacing -- Periodicals; Catheter ablation -- Periodicals; Heart -- Physiology -- Periodicals; Electrophysiology -- Periodicals; 617.4120645
• DOI: 10.1093/europace/euac053.327
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1099-5129

Abstract

Abstract: Funding Acknowledgements: Type of funding sources: None. Background: Cardioneuroablation (CNA) is an alternative therapeutic method for patients with functional bradyarrhythmias, who are otherwise candidates for permanent pacing. In a specific clinical scenario, CNA can also be a treatment option for patients with already implanted pacemakers. Purpose: We investigated whether CNA could substitute permanent pacing in selected patients in whom pacemaker is associated with complications, technical failures, or decreased quality of life. Methods: Among 160 patients who underwent CNA by radiofrequency energy between 2014 and 2022, there were 13 patients (8%) with a pacemaker in whom CNA was indicated as a "substitute" treatment. The reasons were as follows: lead failure (n = 6), recurrent decubitus of the device pocket (n = 1), infective endocarditis (n = 1), recurrent syncope even after pacemaker implantation (n = 1) and discomfort associated with the implanted device (n = 4). In 4 patients, the pacemaker was explanted shortly before CNA because of serious complications. Biatrial CNA was guided anatomically with the use of a 3D mapping system and intracardiac echocardiography. Empirical sites of ganglionated plexi were targeted. The procedural endpoint was unresponsiveness of sinus and AV nodes to extracardiac vagal nerve stimulation. Results: Patients (n = 13, 77% male, age: 41 ± 12 years) had a pacemaker implanted 11 ± 7 years ago. They responded to atropine (2 mg IV) administration by accelerating the sinus rhythm by 55 ± 33%. CNA was technically successful and uncomplicated in all of them. During the follow-up of 29 ± 16 months (range 6 - 56 months), 2 patients (15%) had a recurrence of syncope. In both, the syncope was reproduced by tilt testing and classified as a pure vasodepressor event. In the remaining patients, the follow-up was uneventful. Elective explantation of the pacing system has so far been performed in 3 of 9 patients, while this is planned in others after reaching a sufficient length of post-procedural follow-up. Conclusions: CNA is an effective and safe method, which is not only an alternative to the pacemaker implant but can also be used in patients with functional bradyarrhythmias, and previously implanted pacemakers who experience significant adverse events associated with the pacing system.