No abstract

Background: HJURP is a molecular chaperone essential for the deposition of the centromere marker CENP-A. Results: Mis18␤ binds with and specifies the centromere localization of HJURP. Conclusion: Mis18␤ governs centromere assembly via the Mis18␤-HJURP-CENP-A axis. Significance: Our finding reveals a novel mechanism underlying CENP-A incorporation into the centromere.

Our observations indicated that EPC numbers and functional capacity were impaired in patients with IPAH, which might not only give potential insight into the pathophysiological mechanisms but also might be useful for identifying suitable therapeutic targets in these patients.

LL-VNS can prevent and reverse atrial remodeling induced by RAP as well as suppress AF induced by strong cholinergic stimulation. Inhibition of the intrinsic cardiac autonomic nervous system by LL-VNS may be responsible for these salutary results.

No abstract

Aims The purpose of our study was to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) via left bundle branch pacing (LBBP-CRT) compared with optimized biventricular pacing (BVP) with adaptive algorithm (BVP-aCRT) in heart failure with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% (HFrEF) and left bundle branch block (LBBB). Methods and results One hundred patients with HFrEF and LBBB undergoing CRT were prospectively enrolled in a non-randomized fashion and divided into two groups (LBBP-CRT, n = 49; BVP-aCRT, n = 51) in four centres. Implant characteristics and echocardiographic parameters were accessed at baseline and during 6-month and 1-year follow-up. The success rate for LBBP-CRT and BVP-aCRT was 98.00% and 91.07%. Fused LBBP had the greatest reduced QRS duration compared to BVP-aCRT (126.54 ± 11.67 vs. 102.61 ± 9.66 ms, P < 0.001). Higher absolute left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and △LVEF was also achieved in LBBP-CRT than BVP-aCRT at 6-month (47.58 ± 12.02% vs. 41.24 ± 10.56%, P = 0.008; 18.52 ± 13.19% vs. 12.89 ± 9.73%, P = 0.020) and 1-year follow-up (49.10 ± 10.43% vs. 43.62 ± 11.33%, P = 0.021; 20.90 ± 11.80% vs. 15.20 ± 9.98%, P = 0.015, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference in response rate between two groups while higher super-response rate was observed in LBBP-CRT as compared to BVP-aCRT at 6 months (53.06% vs. 36.59%, P = 0.016) and 12 months (61.22% vs. 39.22%, P = 0.028) during follow-up. The pacing threshold was lower in LBBP-CRT at implant and during 1-year follow-up (both P < 0.001). Procedure-related complications and adverse clinical outcomes including heart failure hospitalization and mortality were not significantly different in two groups. Conclusions The feasibility and efficacy of LBBP-CRT demonstrated better electromechanical resynchronization and higher clinical and echocardiographic response, especially higher super-response than BVP-aCRT in HFrEF with LBBB.

Prolonged electrograms localized to epicardial RVOT with variable low voltage were identified in all patients with BrS. J-point and ST-segment elevation correlated with greater transmural dispersion of late activation and was independent of total low-voltage area. Despite normalization of spontaneous type 1 pattern in all patients after ablation, recurrence was still observed, suggesting the implantable cardioverter-defibrillator as the cornerstone therapy for BrS.

Acute PV reconnection is common, occurring in 64% of patients, as detected by adenosine infusion and waiting time. Each shows a unique quality as compared to one another. The combined use of these 2 methods may reduce the AF recurrence rate after CPVI.