ATE Score Diagnostic Accuracy for Predicting the Absence of Intra-Atrial Thrombi Before AF Ablation.

BACKGROUND: In a preliminary study in patients hospitalized for catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), the atrial thrombus exclusion (ATE) score (stroke, hypertension, heart failure, and D-dimers >270 ng/mL) was developed to rule out the diagnosis of intra-atrial thrombus, with a negative predictive value (NPV) of 100%, and to avoid performing transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). OBJECTIVES: The present study was designed to prospectively confirm the NPV of the ATE score in an independent population. METHODS: Consecutive patients hospitalized for catheter ablation of AF or left atrial tachycardia (LAT) were prospectively enrolled in a multicenter study. D-dimer levels were measured within 48 hours before ablation. An ATE score of 0 was considered predictive of no thrombus. TEE was routinely performed at the beginning or just before the ablation procedure. The primary endpoint was the presence of atrial thrombus diagnosed by TEE. RESULTS: The analysis included 3,072 patients (53.3% paroxysmal AF, 36.7% persistent AF, and 10% LAT). A thrombus was detected in 29 patients (0.94%; 95% CI: 0.63%-1.35%), all on appropriate anticoagulant therapy. An ATE score of 0 was observed in 818 patients (26.6%), and the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and NPV were 93.1%, 26.8%, 1.2%, and 99.8%, respectively. Follow-up of the 2 false negative patients revealed the persistence of chronic organized thrombi. CONCLUSIONS: In patients hospitalized for catheter ablation of AF or LAT, the ATE score identifies a population at very low risk for atrial thrombus. In consultation with the patient, the cardiologist may consider not performing a preoperative TEE in case of an ATE score of 0.

Conduction system pacing in France in 2022: A snapshot survey from the Working Group of Pacing and Electrophysiology of the French Society of Cardiology.

BACKGROUND: Conduction system pacing (CSP) is an emerging and promising approach for physiological ventricular pacing. While data from randomized controlled trials are scarce, use of His-bundle pacing (HBP) and left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has increased in France. AIM: To perform a national snapshot survey for cardiac electrophysiologists to evaluate adoption of CSP in France. METHODS: An online survey, distributed to every senior cardiac electrophysiologist in France, was conducted in November 2022. RESULTS: A total of 120 electrophysiologists completed the survey. Eighty-three (69%) respondents reported experience in undertaking CSP procedures and 27 (23%) were planning to start performing CSP in the coming 2 years. The implantation techniques and criteria used for successful implantation differed significantly among operators. The most frequent indications for HBP and LBBAP were high-degree atrioventricular block with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 40% (24 and 82%, respectively) or with LVEF ≥ 40% (27 and 74%, respectively), and after failure of a coronary sinus left ventricular lead (27 and 71%, respectively). The limitations respondents most frequently perceived when performing HBP were bad sensing/pacing parameters (45%), increased procedure duration (41%) and risk of lead dislodgement (30%). The most frequently perceived limitations to performing LBBAP were absence of guidelines or consensus (31%), lack of medical training (23%) and increased procedure duration (23%). CONCLUSIONS: Our national survey-based study supports wide adoption of CSP in France. CSP is currently used as a second-line approach for both antibradycardia and resynchronization indications, with important variations regarding implantation techniques and criteria for measuring success.

Primary prevention with a defibrillator: are therapies always really optimized before implantation?

AIMS: Left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 30-35% is widely accepted as a cut-off for primary prevention with an implantable cardiac defibrillator (ICD) in patients with both ischaemic and non-ischaemic cardiomyopathy supposedly on optimal medical therapy. This study reports evolutions of LVEF and treatments of patients implanted in our institution with an ICD for primary prevention of sudden death, after 2 years of follow-up. METHODS AND RESULTS: Among 84 patients with LVEF under 35% implanted between 2005 and 2007, 28 (33%) had improved their LVEF >35% after the 2 years of follow-up. During this period, even if Beta-blockers (98%) and renin-angiotensin system (RAS) blockers (95%) were already initially prescribed, treatments were significantly optimized with improvement of maximal doses of beta-blockers and RAS blockers at 2 year follow-up compared with initial prescription (62 vs. 37% and 68 vs. 45%, respectively). In patients with improved LVEF, a trend toward a better treatment optimization and revascularization procedures (in the sub-group of ischaemic patients) were observed compared with non-improved LVEF patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our study of patients with prophylactic ICD, one-third of them have improved their LVEF after a 2 year follow-up. Despite an optimal medical therapy at the time of implantation, we were able to further improve the maximal treatment doses after implantation. This study highlights the issue of what should be considered as 'optimal' therapy and the possibility of improvement of LVEF related to a real optimized treatment before implantation.

Comparison of outcomes in patients with abandoned versus extracted implantable cardioverter defibrillator leads.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increased number of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) recipients and the frequent need for device upgrading and/or occurrence of lead malfunction, the optimal approach to managing abandoned leads remains debated. AIMS: To determine the rate and type of complications related to either abandoned or extracted ICD leads. METHODS: Patients with abandoned or extracted leads were identified retrospectively. Patient medical records were reviewed to assess long-term lead or device malfunction, defibrillation test values before and after lead abandonment or extraction, and appropriateness of delivered shocks and subsequent surgical procedures related to devices or leads. RESULTS: A total of 58 ICD patients with 47 extracted and 34 abandoned leads were identified. After a mean follow-up of 3.2 ± 2.6 years, the defibrillation test was not affected by either abandoned or extracted leads (23.4 ± 6.6 J vs 25.4 ± 4.9 J, respectively; P = 0.24). There were no differences in the number of ICD-related surgical procedures after extracting versus abandoning leads (22% vs 12%, respectively; P = 0.3) or in the thromboembolic event rate (7.7% vs 6.3%; P = 0.83). During follow-up, no differences in the occurrence of major complications or appropriate/inappropriate shocks were observed between patients with or without abandoned leads. CONCLUSION: We observed no difference in rates of immediate or medium-term complications between extracting versus abandoning leads. Lead abandonment remains an alternative and safe option when extraction does not appear mandatory according to the age of the leads or experience of the operating centre.