Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology最新文献

Background: A major predictor of eligibility of subcutaneous implantable cardiac defibrillators (S-ICD) is the T:R ratio. The eligibility cut-off of the T:R ratio incorporates a safety margin to accommodate for fluctuations of ECG signal amplitudes. We introduce a deep learning-based tool that accurately measures the degree of T:R ratio fluctuations and explore its role in S-ICD screening.

Methods: Patients were fitted with Holters for 24 h to record their S-ICD vectors. Our tool was used to assess the T:R ratio over the duration of the recordings. Multiple T:R ratio cut-off values were applied, identifying patients at high risk of T-wave oversensing (TWO) at each of the proposed values. The purpose of our study is to identify the ratio that recognises patients at high risk of TWO while not inappropriately excluding true S-ICD candidates.

Results: Thirty-seven patients (age 54.5 + / - 21.3 years, 64.8% male) were recruited. Fourteen patients had heart-failure, 7 hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, 7 had normal hearts, 6 had congenital heart disease, and 3 had prior inappropriate S-ICD shocks due to TWO. 54% of patients passed the screening at a T: R of 1:3. All patients passed the screening at a T: R of 1:1. The only subgroup to wholly pass the screening utilising all the proposed ratios are the participants with normal hearts.

Conclusion: We propose adopting prolonged screening to select patients eligible for S-ICD with low probability of TWO and inappropriate shocks. The appropriate T:R ratio likely lies between 1:3 and 1:1. Further studies are required to identify the optimal screening thresholds.

Background and aims: Catheter ablation is superior to pharmacological therapy in controlling atrial fibrillation (AF). There are few data on the long-term outcome of AF ablation in octogenarian patients. This analysis aims to evaluate the outcome of AF ablation in octogenarians vs. younger patients.

Methods: In this retrospective study in 13 centres in the UK, France, and Switzerland, the long-term outcomes of 473 consecutive octogenarian patients undergoing ablation for AF were compared to 473 matched younger controls (median age 81.3 [80.0, 83.0] vs. 64.4 [56.5, 70.7] years, 54.3% vs. 35.1% females; p-value for both < 0.001). The primary endpoint was the recurrence of atrial arrhythmia after a blanking period of 90 days within 365 days of follow-up.

Results: Acute ablation success as defined as isolation of all pulmonary veins was achieved in 97% of octogenarians. Octogenarians experienced more procedural complications (11.4% vs 7.0%, p = 0.018). The median follow-up time was 281 [106, 365] days vs. 354 [220, 365] days for octogenarians vs. non-octogenarians (p < 0.001). Among octogenarians, 27.7% (131 patients) experienced a recurrence of atrial arrhythmia, in contrast to 23.5% (111 patients) in the younger group (odds ratio 1.49; 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.92; p = 0.002). In a multivariable regression model including gender, previous AF ablation, vascular disease, chronic kidney disease, CHA2DS2-VASc score, left atrial dilatation, and indwelling cardiac implantable electronic device, age above 80 remained an independent predictor of recurrence of arrhythmia.

Conclusion: Ablation for AF is effective in octogenarians, but is associated with slightly higher procedural complication rate and recurrence of atrial arrhythmia than in younger patients.

Atrial arrhythmias, including atrial fibrillation (AF), are a major contributor to cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Early detection and effective management are critical to mitigating adverse outcomes such as stroke, heart failure, and overall mortality. Wearable devices have emerged as promising tools for monitoring, detecting, and managing atrial arrhythmias near-continuously. This comprehensive analysis explores these wearable technologies' current role and capabilities for clinicians' daily practice. Despite challenges related to data accuracy, privacy, patient compliance, and integration with healthcare systems, ongoing advancements hold significant promise for the future. Continued research and development are essential to fully realize the potential of wearables in improving clinical outcomes for patients with atrial arrhythmias.

This retrospective study evaluated two groups: patients receiving RFA for PVI, posterior wall isolation, mitral isthmus, and coronary sinus (CS) ablation with adjunctive VOM ethanol injection (VOM/RFA ALL (N = 53)), and patients receiving PVI with PFA using pentaspline catheter followed by mitral isthmus and CS ablation with RFA (PFA PV + PW/RFA MITRAL (N = 12)). We hypothesized that PFA for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) facilitates mitral block without adjunctive vein of Marshall (VOM) ethanol injection. Mitral block was achieved in 92.5% of VOM/RFA ALL patients and 83.3% of the PFA PV + PW/RFA MITRAL group (p = 0.31). Endocardial ablation time of the mitral isthmus and RF applications required to achieve a complete block were significantly shorter in the VOM/RFA ALL group (208 s vs 356 s, p < 0.01 and 14.5 vs 24.0, p < 0.01, respectively). Adjunctive VOM ethanol injection appears to still have a role for facilitation of mitral isthmus block in the new era of PFA.

Background: The radiofrequency (RF) lesions obtained using very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) are shallower compared to high-power sort-duration (HPSD) or conventional ablation settings. Thus, there is a possibility that vHPSD RF applications may not achieve transmurality at thick parts of the anterior aspects of the pulmonary vein (PV)-left atrial (LA) wall junction. The aim of the study was to compare acute efficacy of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using vHPSD versus HPSD guided by AI ablation at the anterior aspects of PV in patients undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation.

Methods: The A-Q-RATE POWER Trial was a prospective, dual-center, randomized study. Patients were assigned to receive vHPSD versus HPSD ablation delivered at the anterior aspects of PV. In both arms, the posterior parts of PV were ablated with vHPSD. The primary outcome was the need for additional RF applications at the anterior aspect of PVs to achieve complete PVI.

Results: Seventy patients were randomly assigned to vHPSD (n = 35) or HPSD (n = 35). The vHPSD group required more touch-up RF applications at the anterior aspects of PV than the HPSD group (46% vs 19%, p < 0.001), especially at the right PVs (57% vs 20%, p = 0.001) compared to the left PVs (34% vs 17%, p = 0.1). The median duration of the procedure, LA dwell time, and fluoroscopy time were similar in both groups (112 [IQR 90-130] min vs 107 [90-125] min, p = 0.58; 95 [70-106] min vs 90 [71-100] min, p = 0.55; and 28 [IQR 14-69] s vs 46 [IQR 0-89] s, p = 0.97,respectively).

Conclusion: The proposed hybrid strategy is associated with a significantly lower need for additional touch-up RF applications than vHPSD only, without extending procedural and fluoroscopy duration.

Background: Short-duration radiofrequency ablation is designed to enhance efficiency of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). We investigated the performance of a novel stability algorithm (STABILITY +).

Methods: In a prospective, single-center study, consecutive patients undergoing first-time PVI were included. Patients were categorized into four groups: Group 1, Hybrid (anterior, 50 W, 550 AI; posterior, 90 W 4 s) using Viistag; Group 2, Hybrid using STABILITY + ; Group 3, 90 W (anterior and posterior, 90 W 4 s) using Visitag; Group 4, 90 W using STABILITY + . Clinical, procedural and follow-up data were systematically collected.

Results: A total of 268 patients were included. In total, 130 patients had Hybrid ablation while 138 underwent 90-W ablation. Procedure time was comparable in Groups 1, 2, and 3 however was lower in Group 4 (65 min, 65 min, 70 min, 54 min, p < 0.001). RF-time was longer in Group 1 and 2 vs 3 and 4 (11.6 min, 9.7 min, 4.5 min, 5.2 min, p < 0.001). First-pass isolation rates were comparable between all 4 groups (88%, 91%, 83.9%, 90%, p = 0.480). Freedom from arrhythmia at 6 months was also comparable (9%, 9%, 16.6%, 10.4%, p = 0.341). Complications were comparable and low and restricted to vascular access-related complications (2%, 1%, 0%, 2%, p = 0.388).

Conclusions: Irrespective of the mode of ablation, the novel STABILITY + algorithm can be used in PVI ablations without compromising safety and efficiency and has the potential to improve first-pass isolation using 90-W HPSD ablation.

Background: The subcutaneous ICD established its role in the prevention of sudden cardiac death in recent years. The occurrence of premature battery depletion in a large subset of potentially affected devices has been a cause of concern. The incidence of premature battery depletion has not been studied systematically beyond manufacturer-reported data.

Methods: Retrospective data and the most recent follow-up data on S-ICD devices from fourteen centers in Europe, the US, and Canada was studied. The incidence of generator removal or failure was reported to investigate the incidence of premature S-ICD battery depletion, defined as battery failure within 60 months or less.

Results: Data from 1054 devices was analyzed. Premature battery depletion occurred in 3.5% of potentially affected devices over an observation period of 49 months.

Conclusions: The incidence of premature battery depletion of S-ICD potentially affected by a battery advisory was around 3.5% after 4 years in this study. Premature depletion occurred exclusively in devices under advisory. This is in line with the most recently published reports from the manufacturer.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04767516 .

Background: Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is a new modality for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for atrial fibrillation (AF). PFA is performed under general anaesthetic (GA) or deep sedation with propofol, but this requires anaesthetic support in many countries, restricting use. No study has tested the feasibility of PFA under mild conscious sedation (MCS).

Methods: We prospectively recruited patients undergoing PFA PVI, offered the option of MCS delivered by electrophysiologists, and compared these with patients who opted for GA. MCS comprised intravenous midazolam and fentanyl. All procedures were performed under anaesthetic supervision in case of requirement to convert to GA, which formed the primary outcome.

Results: Twenty-three patients were recruited (8 MCS, 15 GA). One patient (1/8 [12.5%]) required conversion from MCS to GA. Total procedural times were similar between groups (MCS 92 ± 12.4 min vs. GA 101 ± 17.3 min; p = 0.199). High mean sedative doses were required in the MCS group (5.12 ± 0.83 mg midazolam and 209 ± 40 mcg fentanyl). Median intraprocedural pain perception by the patient, rated from 0 to 100 was 45 (IQR 22.5-72.5) in the MCS group. Post-procedural groin pain (0 [0-0] vs. 5 [0-35]; p = 0.027) and throat pain (0 [0-0] vs. 10 [5-40]; p = 0.001) were lower in the MCS group.

Conclusion: PFA under MCS is feasible in selected patients but pain and tolerance may be suboptimal, and high sedative doses are required.