Anatomical considerations and clinical interpretation of the 12-lead ECG in the prone position: a prospective multicentre study.

AIMS: The aim of this study is to provide guidance for the clinical interpretation of electrocardiograms (ECGs) in prone position and to establish the electroanatomic explanations for the possible differences to supine position ECGs that may be observed. Additionally, to determine if prone back ECG can be used as an alternative to standard ECG in patients who may benefit from prone position. METHODS AND RESULTS: The ECG in supine (standard ECG), prone back (precordial leads placed on the patient's back), and prone anterior position (precordial leads placed in the standard position with the subjects in prone position) were prospectively examined on 85 subjects. Comparisons of ECG parameters between these positions were performed. Computed tomography (CT) scans were performed in both positions to determine possible electroanatomic aetiologies for prone-associated ECG changes. There were significant differences in QRS amplitude in Leads V1-V5 between supine and prone positions. Q waves were more frequently observed in prone back position vs. supine position (V1: 74.1 vs. 10.6%, P < 0.0001; V2: 23.5 vs. 0%, P < 0.0001, respectively). Flat and inverted T waves were more common in prone back leads (V1: 98 vs. 66%, P < 0.0001; V2: 96 vs. 8%, P < 0.0001; V3: 45 vs. 7%, P < 0.0001). The 3D-CT reconstructions measurements corroborated the significant inverse correlation between QRS amplitude and the distance from the centre of the heart to the estimated lead positions. CONCLUSION: In prone back position ECG, low QRS amplitude should not be misinterpreted as low voltage conditions, neither should Q waves and abnormal T waves are considered anteroseptal myocardial infarction. These changes can be explained by an increased impedance (due to interposing lung tissue) and by the increased distance between the electrodes to the centre of the heart.

Improved survival in patients with atrial fibrillation and heart failure undergoing catheter ablation compared to medical treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: Increasing evidence has suggested improved outcomes in atrial fibrillation (AF) patients with heart failure (HF) undergoing catheter ablation (CA) as compared to medical therapy. We sought to investigate the benefit of CA on outcomes of patients with AF and HF as compared to medical therapy. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials was performed for clinical studies evaluating the benefit of CA for patients with AF and HF. Primary endpoint was all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints included atrial-arrhythmia recurrence and improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Eight randomized controlled trials were included with a total of 2121 patients (mean age: 65 ± 5 years; 72% male). Mean follow-up duration was 32.9 ± 14.5 months. All-cause mortality in patients who underwent CA was significantly lower than in the medical treatment group (8.8% vs. 13.5%, RR 0.65, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51-0.83, p = .0005). A 35% relative risk reduction and 4.7% absolute risk reduction in all-cause mortality was observed with CA. Rates of all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence were significantly lower in the CA group (39.9% vs. 69.6%, RR: 0.55, 95% CI: 0.40-0.76, p = .0003). Improvement in LVEF was significantly higher in patients undergoing CA (+9.4 ± 7.6%) as compared to conventional treatment (+3.3 ± 8%) (mean difference 6.2, 95% CI: 3.6-8.8, p < .00001). CONCLUSION: CA for AF in patients with HF decreases all-cause mortality, improves all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence rate and LVEF when compared to medical management. CA should be considered the treatment of choice to improve survival in this select group of patients. Nonetheless, the benefit of CA in patients with severely reduced ejection fraction and New York Heart Association class IV HF has not been clearly elucidated.

Epicardial access complications during electrophysiology procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Percutaneous epicardial access (EA) was first described more than two decades ago. Since its initial introduction, indications for its utilization in the field of electrophysiology have expanded dramatically. DISCUSSION: Epicardial mapping and ablation in patients with ventricular tachycardia is routinely performed in tertiary electrophysiology centers around the world. Although limited by lack of randomized controlled trials, epicardial ablation for atrial fibrillation has been suggested as a conjunctive strategy in patients who have failed an initial endocardial catheter ablation attempt, and it is necessary for placement of some left atrial appendage occlusion devices as well. An accurate understanding of the cardiac anatomy is crucial to avoid complications such as inadvertent right ventricular puncture, injury to the coronary arteries, abdominal viscera, phrenic nerves, and esophagus during both EA and catheter ablation. CONCLUSION: The aim of this review is to provide a comprehensive overview of the cardiac anatomy, technical aspects to optimize the safety of epicardial puncture, recognize and avoid potential complications.

Current practice in transvenous lead extraction in Latin America: Latin American Heart Rhythm Association survey.

BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is standard of care for the management of patients with cardiac implantable electronic device infection or lead-related complications. Currently, objective data on TLE in Latin America is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To describe the current practice standards in Latin American centers performing TLE. METHODS: An online survey was sent through the mailing list of the Latin American Heart Rhythm Society. Online reminders were sent through the mailing list; duplicate answers were discarded. The survey was available for 1 month, after which no more answers were accepted. RESULTS: A total of 48 answers were received, from 44 different institutions (39.6% from Colombia, 27.1% from Brazil), with most respondents (82%) being electrophysiologists. Twenty-nine institutions (66%) performed <10 lead extractions/year, with 7 (16%) institutions not performing lead extraction. Although most institutions in which lead extraction is performed reported using several tools, mechanical rotating sheaths were cited as the main tool (66%) and only 13% reported the use of laser sheaths. Management of infected leads was performed according to current guidelines. CONCLUSION: This survey is the first attempt to provide information on TLE procedures in Latin America and could provide useful information for future prospective registries. According to our results, the number of centers performing high volume lead extraction in Latin America is smaller than that reported in other continents, with most interventions performed using mechanical tools. Future prospective registries assessing acute and long-term success are needed.

Focal impulse and rotor modulation guided ablation versus pulmonary vein isolation for atrial fibrillation: A meta-analysis of head-to-head comparative studies.

INTRODUCTION: Empirical pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) remains the cornerstone for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Various ablation strategies and modalities are continually tested with the aim of improving ablation outcomes. Although focal impulse and rotor modulation (FIRM)-guided ablation is currently used as an adjunct to PVI, evidence supporting this strategy is conflicting. We sought to examine whether the utilization of FIRM-guided ablation with or without PVI is associated with a decrease in all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence as compared to PVI alone. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was performed for head-to-head study designs comparing outcomes of patients who underwent FIRM-guided ablation with or without PVI to those who underwent PVI alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence. The secondary endpoints were complications rates and procedural characteristics. RESULTS: Overall, six studies comprising 674 patients undergoing either FIRM-guided ablation ± PVI versus PVI were included (mean age 63.4 ± 9.2, male 74%, 9% paroxysmal AF, 91% nonparoxysmal AF). After a mean follow-up of 18.8 months, FIRM-guided ablation with or without PVI was not associated with improvement in all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence rate compared to PVI alone (43.4% vs. 45.9%, risk ratio [RR]: 1.06; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.77-1.47; p = .70). No statistically significant difference was noted in complication rates between the two groups (RR: 1.66; 95% CI: 0.08-34.54; p = .74). CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis of head-to-head comparison studies, FIRM-guided ablation with or without PVI did not provide any benefit in improving all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence at follow-up when compared to PVI alone.

Efficacy and safety of left atrial appendage electrical isolation during catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: an updated meta-analysis.

AIMS: Left atrial appendage electrical isolation (LAAEI) has been shown to improve freedom from all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with non-paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). The aim of this study is to investigate the long-term efficacy and safety outcomes of LAAEI in patients with non-paroxysmal AF undergoing catheter ablation. METHODS AND RESULTS: A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase was performed for clinical studies evaluating the benefit of LAAEI in non-paroxysmal AF. Nine studies with a total of 2336 patients were included (mean age: 65 ± 9 years, 63% male). All studies included patients with persistent AF, long-standing persistent AF, or both. At a mean follow-up of 40.5 months, patients who underwent LAAEI had significantly higher freedom from all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence than patients who underwent standard ablation alone [69.3% vs. 46.4%; risk ratio (RR) 0.54; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42-0.69; P < 0.0001]. A 46% relative risk reduction and 22.9% absolute risk reduction in atrial-arrhythmia recurrence was noted with LAAEI. Rates of cerebral thromboembolism were not significantly different between the two groups (LAAEI 3% vs. standard ablation 1.6%, respectively; RR 1.76; 95% CI 0.61-5.04; P = 0.29). Furthermore, there was no significant difference in the acute procedural complication rates between the two groups (LAAEI 4% vs. standard ablation 3%, respectively; RR 1.29; 95% CI 0.83-2.02; P = 0.26). CONCLUSION: At long-term follow-up, LAAEI led to a significantly higher improvement in freedom from all-atrial arrhythmia recurrence in patients with non-paroxysmal AF, when compared to standard ablation alone. Importantly, this benefit was achieved without an increased risk of acute procedural complications or cerebral thromboembolic events.

Endo-epicardial ablation vs endocardial ablation for the management of ventricular tachycardia in arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The pathologic process of ARVC (arrhythmogenic right ventricular cardiomyopathy) typically originates in the epicardium or subepicardial layers with progression toward endocardium. However, in the most recent ARVC international task force consensus statement, epicardial ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation is recommended as a Class I indication only in patients with at least one failed endocardial VT ablation attempt. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this meta-analysis is to assess the outcomes of ARVC patients undergoing combined endo-epicardial VT ablation, as compared to endocardial ablation alone. METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane was performed for studies reporting clinical outcomes of endo-epicardial VT ablation vs endocardial-only VT ablation in patients with ARVC. Fixed-Effect model was used if I2 < 25 and the Random-Effects Model was used if I2 ≥ 25%. RESULTS: Nine studies consisting of 452 patients were included (mean age 42.3 ± 5.7 years; 70% male). After a mean follow-up of 48.1 ± 21.5 months, endo-epicardial ablation was associated with 42% relative risk reduction in VA recurrence as opposed to endocardial ablation alone (risk ratio [RR], 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.45-0.75; P < .0001). No significant differences were noted between endo-epicardial and endocardial VT ablation groups in terms of all-cause mortality (RR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.03-47.08; P = .93) and acute procedural complications (RR, 5.39; 95% CI, 0.60-48.74; P = .13). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that in patients with ARVC, endo-epicardial VT ablation is associated with a significant reduction in VA recurrence as opposed to endocardial ablation alone, without a significant difference in all-cause mortality or acute procedural complications.

Cavotricuspid isthmus line in patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation with or without history of typical atrial flutter: A meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) is the mainstay of catheter ablation (CA) for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF). However, for persistent and long-standing persistent AF, there are no established strategies to improve the success rate of CA. Despite studies indicating that prophylactic cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation provides no or limited incremental benefit in patients with AF, it is still routinely performed worldwide. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine whether CTI ablation for AF is associated with improvement in recurrence of all-atrial arrhythmias, compared with PVI alone in patients with and without typical atrial flutter (AFL). METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed, Cochrane, and Embase was performed for clinical studies including AF patients, reporting outcomes of CTI + PVI versus PVI alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was recurrence of all-atrial arrhythmias. RESULTS: Five studies comprising 1400 patients undergoing CTI + PVI versus PVI alone were included; 1110 patients had AF without AFL, and 290 patients had coexistent AF and AFL. After a mean follow-up of 14.4 ± 4.8 months, CTI + PVI was not associated with improvement in recurrence of all-atrial arrhythmias when compared with PVI alone (risk ratio [RR]: 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.93-1.79;p = .13). In the subgroup analysis, there were no differences between both groups in patients with AF without AFL (RR: 1.55; 95% CI: 0.96-2.48; p = .07), and in patients with AF and AFL (RR: 0.91; 95% CI: 0.6-1.39; p = .68). CONCLUSION: In AF patients, irrespective of the presence of typical AFL, additional CTI ablation is not associated with improvement in recurrence of all-atrial arrhythmias, compared with PVI alone.

Oral anticoagulation after catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation and the associated risk of thromboembolic events and intracranial hemorrhage: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIMS: We sought to examine whether continuing oral anticoagulation (OAC) after catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) is associated with improved outcomes. OAC reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with AF. However, the continuation of OAC following the blanking period of CA is controversial due to conflicting published data. METHODS: A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase was performed for studies comparing patients who were continued on OAC (ON-OAC) vs those in which OAC was discontinued (OFF-OAC). CHA2 DS2 VASc score had to be available for the classification of patients into high- or low-risk cohorts (CHA2 DS2 VASc ≥ 2 and ≤ 1, respectively). The primary efficacy outcome was thromboembolic events (TE). Intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) was the primary safety outcome. RESULTS: Five studies comprising 3956 patients were included (mean age, 61.1 ± 2.9 years; 72.4% male, CHA2 DS2 VASc ≤ 1 50.1%; CHA2 DS2 VASc ≥ 2 49.9%). After a mean follow-up of 39.6 ± 11.7 months, OAC-continuation was associated with a significant decrease in risk of TE in the high-risk cohort (CHA2 DS2 VASc ≥ 2) (risk ratio [RR] 0.41, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.21-0.82, P = .01) with a RR reduction of 59%. ICH was significantly higher in the ON-OAC group (RR, 5.78; 95% CI, 1.33-25.08; P = .02). No significant benefit was observed in the low-risk cohort ON-OAC after the blanking period. CONCLUSION: Continuation of OAC after CA of AF with CHA2 DS2 VASc ≥ 2 is associated with a significant decreased TE risk and a favorable net clinical benefit in spite of ICH being significantly increased in the ON-OAC group. Continued OAC offers no benefit with CHA2 DS2 VASC ≤ 1.

Safety of catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation in the octogenarian population.

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation (CA) has been shown to be an effective treatment for atrial fibrillation (AF). The complication rates and outcomes among octogenarians remain poorly studied. We aimed to compare trends, morbidity, and mortality associated with CA for AF among octogenarians versus those less than 80 years old. METHODS: Using weighted sampling from the National Inpatient Sample database, we identified patients with a primary diagnosis of AF and a primary procedure of CA (2004-2013). Our primary outcome was mortality. Secondary outcomes included incidence of major and minor complications. RESULTS: Among 86,119 patients who underwent CA for AF, 3,482 were 80 years old or older. Complications were significantly more frequent in octogenarians; [16.2% (564 of 3,482) versus 9.8% (8,092 of 82,637), P < 0.001]. Of note, there was no significant difference for the composite of major complications; [3.6% (124 of 3482) in octogenarians versus 2.8% (2286 of 82637), P = 0.20]. The total mortality rate was not significant in a multivariate regression analysis (odds ratio [OR], 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.35-2.64; P = .94). The presence of chronic renal failure (OR, 4.19; 95% CI, 2.75-6.36; P < 0.001), anemia (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.03-2.97; P = .04), and chronic pulmonary disease (OR, 1.75; 95% CI, 1.11-2.62; P = .015) were predictors of major complications in octogenarians. CONCLUSION: Catheter ablation for AF in octogenarians does not confer a higher mortality risk than in those less than 80 years old. The procedure is associated with a higher rate of overall complications but there was no difference in terms of major complications or death. The presence of anemia, CKD or pulmonary disease were predictors of major complications in octogenarians.

Uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants vs. uninterrupted vitamin K antagonists during catheter ablation of non-valvular atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Aims: To assess the incremental benefit of uninterrupted direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) vs. uninterrupted vitamin K antagonists (VKA) for catheter ablation (CA) of non-valvular atrial fibrillation (NVAF) on three primary outcomes: major bleeding, thrombo-embolic events, and minor bleeding. A secondary outcome was post-procedural silent cerebral infarction (SCI) as detected by brain magnetic resonance imaging. Methods and results: A systematic review of Medline, Cochrane, and Embase was done to find all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which uninterrupted DOACs were compared against uninterrupted VKA for CA of NVAF. A fixed-effect model was used, with the exception of the analysis regarding major bleeding events (I2 > 25), for which a random effects model was used. The benefit of uninterrupted DOACs over VKA was analysed from four RCTs that enrolled a total of 1716 patients (male: 71.2%) with NVAF. Of these, 1100 patients (64.1%) had paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. No significant benefit was seen in major bleeding events [risk ratio (RR) 0.54, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 0.29-1.00; P = 0.05]. No significant differences were found in minor bleeding events (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.82-1.52; P = 0.50), thrombo-embolic events (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.26-2.11; P = 0.57), or post-procedural SCI (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.74-1.53; P = 0.74). Conclusion: An uninterrupted DOACs strategy for CA of NVAF appears to be as safe as uninterrupted VKA without a significantly increased risk of minor or major bleeding events. There was a trend favouring DOACs in terms of major bleeding. Given their ease of use, fewer drug interactions and a similar security and effectiveness profile, DOACs should be considered first line therapy in patients undergoing CA for NVAF.

Improved all-cause mortality with left bundle branch area pacing compared to biventricular pacing in cardiac resynchronization therapy: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has emerged as a physiological alternative pacing strategy to biventricular pacing (BIVP) in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT). We aimed to assess the impact of LBBAP vs. BIVP on all-cause mortality and heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization in patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: Studies comparing LBBAP and BIVP for CRT in patients with HF with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) were included. The coprimary outcomes were all-cause mortality and HF-related hospitalization. Secondary outcomes included procedural and fluoroscopy time, change in QRS duration, and change in LVEF. RESULTS: Thirteen studies (12 observational and 1 RCT, n = 3239; LBBAP = 1338 and BIVP = 1901) with a mean follow-up duration of 25.8 months were included. Compared to BIVP, LBBAP was associated with a significant absolute risk reduction of 3.2% in all-cause mortality (9.3% vs 12.5%, RR 0.7, 95% CI 0.57-0.86, p < 0.001) and an 8.2% reduction in HF-related hospitalization (11.3% vs 19.5%, RR 0.6, 95% CI 0.5-0.71, p < 0.00001). LBBAP also resulted in reductions in procedural time (mean weighted difference- 23.2 min, 95% CI - 42.9 to - 3.6, p = 0.02) and fluoroscopy time (- 8.6 min, 95% CI - 12.5 to - 4.7, p < 0.001) as well as a significant reduction in QRS duration (mean weighted difference:- 25.3 ms, 95% CI - 30.9 to - 19.8, p < 0.00001) and a greater improvement in LVEF of 5.1% (95% CI 4.4-5.8, p < 0.001) compared to BIVP in the studies that reported these outcomes. CONCLUSION: In this meta-analysis, LBBAP was associated with a significant reduction in all-cause mortality as well as HF-related hospitalization when compared to BIVP. Additional data from large RCTs is warranted to corroborate these promising findings.

Feasibility, Efficacy, and Safety of Fluoroless Ablation of VT in Patients With Structural Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) typically requires radiation exposure with its potential adverse health effects. A completely fluoroless ablation approach is achievable using a combination of electroanatomical mapping and intracardiac echocardiography. Nonetheless, data in patients undergoing VT ablation are limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of VT ablation in patients with structural heart disease using a zero-fluoroscopy approach. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy undergoing fluoroless VT ablation. Patients requiring epicardial access or coronary angiography were excluded. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2023 a total of 198 patients (aged 66.4 ± 13.4 years, 76% male, 48% ischemic) were included. Most patients (95.4%) underwent left ventricular (LV) mapping and/or ablation, which was conducted via transseptal route in 54.5% (n = 103), via retrograde aortic route in 43.4% (n = 82), and using a combined approach in 2.1% (n = 4). Two-thirds of patients had a cardiac device, including a biventricular device in 15%; 2 patients had a LV assist device, and 1 patient had a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis. The mean total procedural time was 211 ± 70 minutes, and the total radiofrequency time was 30 ± 22 minutes. During a follow-up period of 22 ± 18 months, the freedom from VT recurrence was 80%, and 7.6% of patients underwent a repeated ablation. Procedural-related complications occurred in 6 patients (3.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroless ablation of VT in structural heart disease is feasible, effective, and safe when epicardial mapping/ablation is not required.

Catheter Ablation of Left Ventricular Summit Arrhythmias from Adjacent Anatomic Vantage Points.

Idiopathic ventricular arrhythmias (VA), particularly left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) VA accounts for up to 10% of all VAs referred for ablative therapy. In addition to being infrequent, its intricate anatomy and its pathophysiology make catheter ablation (CA) of these arrhythmias a challenge even for experts. In this scenario, detailed right ventricular outflow tract as well as LVOT electroanatomic mapping including epicardial mapping are essential. In this article, we will emphasize our approach toward the CA technique used for LVOT VA, particularly IVS and/or LVS VA originating from intramural foci, along with its acute and long-term efficacy and safety.

Fluoroless Catheter Ablation of Left Ventricular Summit Arrhythmias: A Step-by-Step Approach.

Prolonged use of fluoroscopy during catheter ablation (CA) of arrhythmias is associated with a significant exposure to ionizing radiation and risk of orthopedic injuries given the need for heavy protective equipment. CA of ventricular arrhythmias (VAs) arising from the left ventricular (LV) summit is challenging, requiring a vast knowledge of the intricate cardiac anatomy of this area and careful imaging delineation of the different anatomical structures, which is frequently performed using fluoroscopic guidance. Certain techniques, including pericardial mapping and ablation, use of intracoronary wires, and mapping and ablation inside the coronary venous system have been proposed, further prolonging fluoroscopy time. Fluoroless CA procedures are feasible with currently available technology and appear to have similar safety and efficacy outcomes compared with conventional techniques. To successfully perform fluoroless CA of LV summit arrhythmias, it is important to be fully acquainted with intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) imaging and electroanatomic mapping (EAM). We will describe our approach to perform fluoroless CA in LV summit VAs.

Tumescent local anesthesia versus general anesthesia for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

BACKGROUND: General anesthesia (GA) is the standard anesthetic approach for subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) implantation. Nonetheless, GA is expensive and can be associated with adverse events. Tumescent local anesthesia (TLA) has been shown to reduce in-room and procedural times and to decrease post-procedural pain, all of which could result in a reduction in procedure-related costs. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to compare the cost-effectiveness of GA and TLA in patients undergoing S-ICD implantation. METHODS: The present study is a prospective, nonrandomized, controlled study of patients who underwent S-ICD implantation between 2019 and 2022. Patients were allocated to either the TLA or the GA group. We performed a cost analysis for each intervention. As an effectiveness measure, the 0-10 point Numeric Pain Rating Scale at 1, 12, and 24 hours post-implantation was analyzed and compared between the groups. A score of 0 was considered no pain; 1-5, mild pain; 6-7, moderate pain; and 8-10, severe pain. Cost-effectiveness was calculated using incremental cost-effectiveness ratios. RESULTS: Seventy patients underwent successful S-ICD implantation. The total cost of the electrophysiology laboratory was higher in the GA group than in the TLA group (median ± interquartile range US$55,824 ± US$29,411 vs US$37,222 ± US$24,293; P < .001), with a net saving of $20,821 when compared with GA for each S-ICD implantation. There was a significant decrease in post-procedural pain scores in the TLA group when compared with the GA group (repeated measures analysis of variance, P = .009; median ± interquartile range 0 ± 3 vs 0 ± 5 at 1 hour, P = .058; 3 ± 4 vs 6 ± 8 at 12 hours, P = .030; 0 ± 4 vs 2 ± 6 at 24 hours, P = .040). CONCLUSION: TLA is a more cost-effective alternative to GA for S-ICD implantation, with both direct and indirect cost reductions. Importantly, these reduced costs are associated with reduced postprocedural pain.

Sustained Apnea for Epicardial Access With Right Ventriculography: The SAFER Epicardial Approach.

BACKGROUND: Epicardial access (EA) has emerged as an increasingly important approach for the treatment of ventricular arrhythmias and to perform other interventional cardiology procedures. EA is frequently underutilized because the current approach is challenging and carries a high risk of life-threatening complications. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy and safety of the SAFER (Sustained Apnea for Epicardial Access With Right Ventriculography) epicardial approach. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent EA with the SAFER technique were included in this multicenter study. The primary efficacy outcome was the successful achievement of EA. The primary safety outcomes included right ventricular (RV) perforation, major hemorrhagic pericardial effusion (HPE), and bleeding requiring surgical intervention. Secondary outcomes included procedural characteristics and any complications. Our results were compared with those from previous studies describing other EA techniques to assess differences in outcomes. RESULTS: A total of 105 patients undergoing EA with the SAFER approach from June 2021 to February 2023 were included. EA was used for ventricular tachycardia ablation in 98 patients (93.4%), left atrial appendage closure in 6 patients (5.7%), and phrenic nerve displacement in 1 patient (0.9%). EA was successful in all subjects (100%). The median time to EA was 7 minutes (IQR: 5-14 minutes). No cases of RV perforation, HPE, or need of surgical intervention were observed in this cohort. Comparing our results with previous studies about EA, the SAFER epicardial approach resulted in a significant reduction in major pericardial bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: The SAFER epicardial approach is a simple, efficient, effective, and low-cost technique easily reproducible across multiple centers. It is associated with lower complication rates than previously reported techniques for EA.