Atrial fibrillation burden, symptoms and medication use after left bundle branch area pacing combined with AV-node ablation in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation
Authors: Rijks J , Lankveld T , Manusama R , Broers B , Van Stipdonk A M W , Chaldoupi S M , Ter Belle R M A , Schotten U , Linz D , Luermans J G L M , Vernooy K 
Published: May 2024

Abstract

Background
AV node ablation combined with permanent pacing is an established therapy for rate control in patients with symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) refractory or intolerant to pharmacological rate or rhythm control and not eligible for rhythm control by left atrial catheter ablation. The threshold for performing this so-called "pace-and-ablate" strategy has decreased since the introduction of conduction system pacing, and especially left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP).

Purpose
To investigate the AF burden, AF related symptoms and anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD) use after AV-node ablation combined with LBBAP.

Methods
Consecutive patients with symptomatic AF, intolerant or refractory to pharmacological rate and symptom control and deemed not eligible for left atrial catheter ablation, were included. At baseline, AF related symptoms classified according to the EHRA classification and AAD use were scored. After DDD-pacemaker implantation with an LBBAP lead and subsequent AV-node ablation device detected AF burden was assessed six weeks, six months and twelve months later. AF burden at six weeks after AV-node ablation was considered the baseline measurement for AF burden. AF related symptoms and AAD use were collected at twelve months follow-up.

Results
Twenty-four patients (67% female, mean age 79±4 years) scheduled for pace-and-ablate therapy were prospectively included. Eighteen patients had persistent (75%) and three long-standing persistent (12.5%) AF with enlarged left atria (left-atrial volume index (LAVI) 52 ± 18ml/m2) and EHRA class IIb or higher in twenty (69%) patients. Twenty-three patients (96%) used at least one AAD with fifteen patients (63%) using &gt;1 AAD at baseline, fig. 1. AF burden did not change at six months (-1.3 [-17, 15] %, p=0.87) and twelve months (-2.9 [-40,35] %, p=0.86) follow-up relative to six weeks follow-up, fig 2A. AF symptoms were significantly reduced with most patients in EHRA class I (6, 25%) or class IIa (17, 71%; p&lt;0.001) at twelve months follow-up, fig 2B. There was a significant reduction in AAD use with fourteen patients (58%) using no AAD at twelve months follow-up and no patients using &gt;1 AAD at twelve months follow up (p&lt;0.001), fig 2C.

Conclusion
AV node ablation followed by permanent LBBAP did not reduce AF burden in an AF population with advanced disease. However, a significant reduction in AF symptoms and medication use was demonstrated with this therapy.
Figure 2. AF burden (panel A), symptoms (panel B) and AAD use (panel C) at baseline and twelve months after ‘pace-and-ablate’ therapy. AF = atrial fibrillation; EHRA = EHRA = European Heart Rhythm Association symptom classification for AF; AAD = anti-arrhythmic drug. *relative to AF burden at six weeks follow-up.Baseline characteristicsBaseline and follow-up measurements