Journal of Interventional Cardiac Electrophysiology最新文献

Background: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the cornerstone of catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF); however, the results are suboptimal for persistent AF. The left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) is thought to be a major additional area in initiation and perpetuation of persistent AF. Therefore, adjunctive ablation of the posterior wall may reduce AF recurrence in patients with persistent AF.

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare outcomes of catheter ablation in patients with persistent AF using PVI alone versus a combination of PVI and LAPW isolation.

Methods: Literature search was conducted in PubMed, PubMed Central, Scopus, and Embase since inception to February 2023. Screening of studies was done via Covidence software. Risk of bias assessment was done using appropriate tools. Data extraction and a narrative synthesis were carried out accordingly.

Results: Ten studies were included, of which five were randomized controlled trials. PVI with LAPW ablation group had significantly lower recurrence of overall atrial tachyarrhythmia (OR 0.47, CI 0.32-0.70) and AF (OR 0.39, CI 0.23-0.69). In sensitivity analysis, freedom from atrial arrhythmias was noted to be significantly higher in the PVI with LAPW ablation group (OR 2.22, CI 1.36-3.64). However, there was no significant difference in occurrence of atrial flutter (OR 1.36, CI 0.86-2.14) or with periprocedural adverse events (OR 1.10, CI 0.60-1.99).

Conclusion: LAPW ablation, in addition to PVI, significantly improves the rates of arrhythmia freedom and reduces the recurrence of overall atrial tachyarrhythmia. There was no significant difference in atrial flutter or periprocedural adverse events.

Introduction: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) functions are susceptible to electromagnetic interference (EMI) from electromagnetic fields (EMF). Data on EMI risks from new-generation electronic appliances (EA) are limited.

Objective: We performed a systematic literature review on the mechanisms of EMI, current evidence, and recently published trials evaluating the effect of EMF on CIEDs from electric vehicles (EV), smartphone, and smartwatch technology and summarize its safety data.

Methods: Electronic databases, including PubMed and EMBASE, were searched for in vivo studies evaluating EMF strength and incidence between CIEDs and commercial EVs, new-generation smartphones, and new-generation smartwatches.

Results: A total of ten studies (three on EVs, five on smartphones, one on smartphones, one on smartphones and smartwatches) were included in our systematic review. There was no report of EMI incidence associated with EVs or smartwatches. Magnet-containing smartphones (iPhone 12) can cause EMI when placed directly over CIEDs - thereby triggering the magnet mode; otherwise, no report of EMI was observed with other positions or smartphone models.

Conclusion: Current evidence suggests CIED recipients are safe from general interaction with EVs/HEVs, smartphones, and smartwatches. Strictly, results may only be applied to commercial brands or models tested in the published studies. There is limited data on EMI risk from EVs wireless charging and smartphones with MagSafe technology.

Background: Transvenous lead removal (TLR) is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. This study sought to evaluate the impact of TLR on in-hospital mortality and outcomes in patients with and without CIED infection.

Methods: From January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2020, we utilized the nationally representative, all-payer, Nationwide Readmissions Database to assess patients who underwent TLR. We categorized TLR as indicated for infection, if the patient had a diagnosis of bacteremia, sepsis, or endocarditis during the initial admission. Conversely, if none of these conditions were present, TLR was considered sterile. The impact of infective vs sterile indications of TLR on mortality and major adverse events was studied.

Results: Out of the total 25,144 patients who underwent TLR, 14,030 (55.8%) received TLR based on sterile indications, while 11,114 (44.2%) received TLR due to device infection, with 40.5% having systemic infection and 59.5% having isolated pocket infection. TLR due to infective indications was associated with a significant in-hospital mortality (5.59% vs 1.13%; OR = 5.16; 95% CI 4.33-6.16; p < 0.001). Moreover, when compared with sterile indications, TLR performed due to device infection was associated with a considerable risk of thromboembolic events including pulmonary embolism and stroke (OR = 3.80; 95% CI 3.23-4.47, p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in the conversion to open heart surgery (1.72% vs. 1.47%, p < 0.111), and infection was not an independent predictor of cardiac (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.97-1.29) or vascular complications (OR = 1.12; 95% CI 0.73-1.72) between the two groups.

Conclusion: Higher in-hospital mortality and rates of thromboembolic events associated with TLR resulting from infective indications may warrant further pursuing this diagnosis in patients.

Background: Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a rare venous anomaly, affecting 0.3-0.5% of the general population. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation in patients with PLSVC is challenging due to a complex anatomy. Moreover, data on CRT implantation in this patient population is scarce. Our aim was to report a series of patients with PLSVC and CRT implantation focusing on challenges and pitfalls.

Methods: Electronic medical databases on patients with CRT implantation at the University Heart Centers in Zurich, Switzerland, and Lübeck, Germany, were screened for individuals with a PLSVC. Clinical and demographic characteristics as well as procedural data were reported in all patients.

Results: This study presents six cases with a median age of 66 years. CRT implantation was successful in five patients, leading to a reduced QRS duration and improved left ventricular ejection fraction. Atrial fibrillation, ischemic cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease, and dilated cardiomyopathy were observed in this group as underlying conditions. Specialized tools, such as active fixation left ventricular leads, were utilized. One patient experienced major complications.

Conclusions: This case series shows that although challenging, conventional endovascular CRT implantation is feasible in PLSVC patients. Specialized tools for visualization and fixation may help. Our experiences highlight the importance of preprocedural evaluation of the anatomy and precise intervention planning.

Background: We previously developed an early reconnection/dormant conduction (ERC) prediction model for cryoballoon ablation to avoid a 30-min waiting period with adenosine infusion. We now aimed to validate this model based on time to isolation, number of unsuccessful cryo-applications, and nadir balloon temperature.

Methods: Consecutive atrial fibrillation patients who underwent their first cryoballoon ablation in 2018-2019 at the Leiden University Medical Center were included. Model performance at the previous and at a new optimal cutoff value was determined.

Results: A total of 201 patients were included (85.57% paroxysmal AF, 139 male, median age 61 years (IQR 53-69)). ERC was found in 35 of 201 included patients (17.41%) and in 41 of 774 veins (5.30%). In the present study population, the previous cutoff value of - 6.7 provided a sensitivity of 37.84% (previously 70%) and a specificity of 89.07% (previously 86%). Shifting the cutoff value to - 7.2 in both study populations resulted in a sensitivity of 72.50% and 72.97% and a specificity of 78.22% and 78.63% in data from the previous and present study respectively. Negative predictive values were 96.55% and 98.11%. Applying the model on the 101 patients of the present study with all necessary data for all veins resulted in 43 out of 101 patients (43%) not requiring a 30-min waiting period with adenosine testing. Two patients (2%) with ERC would have been missed when applying the model.

Conclusions: The previously established ERC prediction model performs well, recommending its use for centers routinely using adenosine testing following PVI.

Background: Roughly one in six patients receiving conventional transvenous pacemaker systems experience significant complications within 1 year of implant, mainly due to the transvenous lead and subcutaneous pocket. A new helix-fixation single-chamber ventricular leadless pacemaker (LP) system capable of pre-deployment exploratory electrical mapping is commercially available. Such an LP may mitigate complications while streamlining the implantation. In this study, the initial real-world implant experience of the helix-fixation LP was evaluated following its commercial release.

Methods: In patients indicated for single-chamber right ventricular pacing, helix-fixation Aveir VR LPs (Abbott, Abbott Park, IL) were implanted using the dedicated loading tool, introducer, and delivery catheter. Implant procedural characteristics, electrical parameters, and any 30-day procedure-related adverse events of consecutive implant attempts were retrospectively evaluated.

Results: A total of 167 patients with Class I indication for permanent pacing received implants in four North American centers (57% male, 70 years old). Pre-fixation electrical mapping of potential sites allowed repositioning to be avoided in 95.7% of patients. Median [interquartile range] LP procedure and fluoroscopy durations were 25.5 min [20.0, 35.0] and 5.7 min [4.0, 9.2], respectively. Pacing capture threshold, sensed R-wave amplitude, and impedance were 0.8 V [0.5, 1.3], 9.0 mV [6.0, 12.0], and 705 Ω [550, 910], respectively. Implantation was successful in 98.8% of patients, with 98.2% free from acute adverse events.

Conclusions: The initial, real-world experience of the helix-fixation ventricular leadless pacemaker demonstrated safe and efficient implantation with minimal repositioning, viable electrical metrics, and limited acute complications.

Background: Residual non-pulmonary vein (PV) foci are significantly associated with atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). However, we previously reported among patients with non-PV foci induced only once, none experienced AF recurrence. Thus, we aimed to investigate the correlation between the residual induction number of non-PV foci and ablation outcome in paroxysmal AF patients.

Methods and results: We investigated 55 paroxysmal AF patients with residual non-PV foci after PVI and ablation of non-PV-foci. Study patients were classified into the residual one-time induction of non-PV foci (residual OTI-nPVF) group (n = 23) and residual repeatedly induced non-PV foci (residual RI-nPVF) group (n = 32). Furthermore, the residual RI-nPVF group was divided into the low inducibility group (n = 10) and high inducibility group (n = 22) according to the presence or absence of non-PV foci provoked by two sets of drug induction tests (non-PV foci inducibility). In addition, the latter was divided into the ablation group (n = 14) or observation group (n = 8). The 2-year AF recurrence-free rate in the residual RI-nPVF group was significantly lower compared to the residual OTI-nPVF group (53% vs. 90%, p = 0.018). There was no significant difference of the 2-year AF recurrence-free rates in the inducibility of non-PV foci (p = 0.913) and the presence or absence of ablation (p = 0.812) in the residual RI-nPVF group.

Conclusions: Among paroxysmal AF patients, the presence of residual RI-nPVF was associated with higher AF recurrence compared to residual OTI-nPVF. Furthermore, within residual RI-nPVF subgroup, non-PV foci inducibility or ablation of some residual RI-nPVF did not affect ablation outcome.