TSTomasz Soral

Tomasz Soral

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Tomasz Soral has a total of 15 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:

  • Kamil Zub

    Department of Electrocardiology, Leszek Giec Upper-Silesian Medical Centre, Silesian Medical University, 40-055 Katowice, Poland

    2 shared publications
  • Piotr Kulesza

    Department of Electrocardiology and Heart Failure, Medical University of Silesia , Katowice

    2 shared publications
  • Rafal Gardas

    Department of Electrocardiology and Heart Failure, Medical University of Silesia , Katowice

    2 shared publications
  • Danuta Łoboda

    Department of Electrocardiology and Heart Failure, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland; Department of Electrocardiology, Leszek Giec Upper-Silesian Medical Center, Silesian Medical University, Katowice, Poland

    1 shared publication
  • Danuta Łoboda

    Department of Electrocardiology and Heart Failure, Medical University of Silesia, 40-635 Katowice, Poland

    1 shared publication
  • Grzegorz Jarosinski

    Department of Electrocardiology, Leszek Giec Upper-Silesian Medical Centre, Silesian Medical University, 40-055 Katowice, Poland

    1 shared publication

Latest Publications

  • Open Access

    His bundle pacing is continually relevant for patients with atrial fibrillation and bradycardia without prior atrioventricular nodal ablation, data from mid-term follow-up

    by Tomasz Soral, Rafał Gardas, Krzysztof S Gołba, Piotr Kulesza, Jolanta Biernat, Danuta Łoboda

    In patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and symptomatic bradycardia, His Bundle pacing (HBP) is used to achieve an appropriate heart rate and physiological depolarization of the left ventricle (LV). We aimed to evaluate the impact of HBP on LV function in two different populations: normal LV ejection fraction (LVEF) and low LVEF (<50%). Patients who received HBP as de novo therapy or as an upgrade were divided into two groups based on initial LVEF, followed by echocardiographic and device monitoring. One hundred and twenty three patients (aged 76.0 [69.2-79.8] years, 74.0% men) with AF and bradycardia received HBP and completed follow-up with a median of 6.2 months (6.0-8.0). LV function remained unchanged in initially normal LV function patients (65 participants, LVEF 59.0% [55.0 - 62.0] vs. 58.0% [55.0-63.0]). In patients with low LVEF (58 participants), there was an increase in LVEF (37.5% [30.0-43.0] vs. 44.0% [35.0-50.0]; p < 0.0001), reduction of indexed LV end-systolic volume (62.4 [20.7] ml vs. 51.5 [21.5] ml; p = 0.001) and indexed LV end-diastolic volume (97.5 [26.2] ml vs. 88.1 [25.1] ml; p = 0.009), and improvement in the New York Heart Association class (2.3 [0.71] to 1.6 [0.9]; p < 0.0001). With permanent HBP, patients with AF and bradycardia and without prior atrioventricular nodal ablation did not experience LV systolic function deterioration. Those with reduced baseline LVEF experienced improvements in LV function and its reverse remodeling at the mid-term follow-up.


  • Open Access

    His Bundle Pacing: Predicting Mortality and Major Complications in Mid-Term Follow-Up

    by Piotr Kulesza, Rafał Gardas, Krzysztof S. Gołba, Tomasz Soral, Rafał Sznajder, Grzegorz Jarosiński, Kamil Zub, Danuta Łoboda

    Introduction: His bundle pacing (HBP) is suitable for 80% of patients with any indication for permanent pacemaker implantation, with a clinical benefit compared to right ventricular pacing (RVP). Although complications and mortality related to RVP are widely reported in the literature, data on HBP are limited. This study aimed to analyze HBP complications and outcomes in the short-term (up to 30 days) and long-term (up to the following 24 months) follow-up (F/U). Materials and Methods: The study includes 373 patients aged ≥ 18, enrolled from October 2015 to May 2019 in a single-center HBP prospective registry conducted in the Department of Electrocardiology, Upper Silesian Medical Centre of the Medical University of Silesia in Katowice, Poland. Mortality and HBP complications were used as end-points: during hospitalization and up to 30 days (short-term F/U), and for each F/U point—six months, 12 months, and 24 months after the procedure (long-term F/U). Results: Successful HBP was achieved in 252 patients (68%), with an increasing success rate during consecutive years: 57% in 2015–2016 and 73% in 2017–2019. Complications were found in 8.4% of patients (21/252) in short-term F/U and 5.8% (13/224), 5.5% (11/201), and 6.9% (12/174) at six months, 12 months, and 24 months, respectively. There were no deaths during the first 30 days. However, 26 patients (10.3%) died within 24 months. A left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 34% was the only independent predictor of all-cause mortality or any major complication in the 24-month F/U. Conclusions: This single-center study reported a low risk of mortality and complications associated with HBP at the short-term F/U. However, during the long-term F/U, we observed a higher but acceptable risk of major complications, with a lower LVEF being an independent predictor of the composite end-point of all-cause mortality or any major complication.


  • Open Access

    The Effects of His Bundle Pacing Compared to Classic Resynchronization Therapy in Patients with Pacing-Induced Cardiomyopathy

    by Rafal Gardas, Krzysztof S. Golba, Tomasz Soral, Jolanta Biernat, Piotr Kulesza, Mateusz Sajdok, Kamil Zub

    Pacing-induced cardiomyopathy (PICM) is among the most common right ventricular pacing complications. Upgrading to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) is the recommended treatment option. Conduction system pacing with His bundle pacing (HBP) has the potential to restore synchronous ventricular activation and can be an alternative to biventricular pacing (BVP). Patients with PICM scheduled for a system upgrade to CRT were included in the prospective cohort study. Either HBP or BVP was used for CRT. Electrocardiographic, clinical, and echocardiographic measurements were recorded at baseline and six-month follow-up. HBP was successful in 44 of 53 patients (83%). Thirty-nine patients with HBP and 22 with BVP completed a 6-month follow-up. HBP led to a higher reduction in QRS duration than BVP, 118.3 ± 14.20 ms vs. 150.5 ± 18.64 ms, p < 0.0001. The improvement in New York Heart Association (NYHA) class by one or two was more common in patients with HBP than those with BiV (p = 0.04). Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) improved in BVP patients from 32.9 ± 7.93% to 43.9 ± 8.07%, p < 0.0001, and in HBP patients from 34.9 ± 6.45% to 48.6 ± 7.73%, p < 0.0001. The improvement in LVEF was more considerable in HBP patients than in BVP patients, p = 0.019. The improvement in clinical outcomes and left ventricle reverse remodeling was more significant with HBP than BVP. HBP can be a valid alternative to BVP for upgrade procedures in PICM patients.