Preoperative and Intraoperative Imaging during Transvenous Lead Extraction.

Transvenous lead extraction is performed for device infection, lead failure, or to provide access for additional leads/device upgrade. A patient-centered risk assessment for transvenous lead extraction can be determined using a combination of clinical factors and several imaging modalities. Predicting a complex lead extraction, for example, one that will require powered tools or the use of a femoral approach, is aided by pre-procedural imaging and clinical assessment. Procedural imaging utilizing fluoroscopy, transesophageal echocardiography, and intracardiac echocardiography during an extraction can improve safety and identify complications rapidly.

Interpreting Wide-Complex Tachycardia With the Use of Artificial Intelligence.

BACKGROUND: Adopting artificial intelligence (AI) in medicine may improve speed and accuracy in patient diagnosis. We sought to develop an AI algorithm to interpret wide-complex tachycardia (WCT) electrocardiograms (ECGs) and compare its diagnostic accuracy with that of cardiologists. METHODS: Using 3330 WCT ECGs (2906 supraventricular tachycardia [SVT] and 424 ventricular tachycardia [VT]), we created a training/validation (3131) and a test set (199 ECGs). A convolutional neural network structure using a modification of differentiable architecture search was developed to differentiate between SVT and VT. RESULTS: The mean accuracy of electrophysiology (EP) cardiologists was 92.5% with sensitivity 91.7%, specificity 93.4%, positive predictive value 93.7%, and negative predictive value 91.7%. Non-EP cardiologists had an accuracy of 73.2 ± 14.4% with sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values of 59.8 ± 18.2%, 93.8 ± 3.7%, 93.6 ± 2.3%, and 73.2 ± 14.4%, respectively. AI had superior sensitivity and accuracy (91.9% and 93.0%, respectively) than non-EP cardiologists and similar performance compared with EP cardiologists. Mean time to interpret each ECG varied from 10.1 to 13.8 seconds for EP cardiologists and from 3.1 to 16.6 seconds for non-EP cardiologists. AI required a mean of 0.0092 ± 0.0035 seconds for each ECG interpretation. CONCLUSIONS: AI appears to diagnose WCT with accuracy superior to non-EP cardiologists and similar to EP cardiologists. Using AI to assist with ECG interpretations may improve patient care.

Adherent skin barrier drape use is associated with a reduced risk of cardiac implantable device infection: Results from a prospective study of 14,225 procedures.

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a costly and highly morbid complication. Perioperative interventions, including the use of antibiotic pouches and intensified perioperative antibiotic regimens, have demonstrated marginal efficacy at reducing CIED infection. Additional research is needed to identify additional interventions to reduce infection risk. Objective: We sought to evaluate whether adherent skin barrier drape use is associated with a reduction in CIED infection. Methods: A prospective registry of all CIED implantation procedures was established at our institution in January 2007. The registry was established in collaboration with our hospital infection prevention team with a specific focus on prospectively identifying all potential CIED infections. All potential CIED infections were independently adjudicated by 2 physicians blinded to the use of an adherent skin barrier drape. Results: Over a 13-year period, 14,225 procedures were completed (mean age 72 ± 14 years; female 4,918 (35%); new implants 10,005 (70%); pulse generator changes 2585 (18%); upgrades 1635 (11%). Of those, 2469 procedures (17.4%) were performed using an adherent skin barrier drape. There were 103 adjudicated device infections (0.73%). The infection rate in patients in the barrier use groups was 8 of 2469 (0.32%) as compared with 95 of 11,756 (0.8%) in the nonuse group (P = .0084). In multivariable analysis, the use of an adherent skin barrier drape was independently associated with a reduction in infection (odds ratio 0.32; 95% confidence interval 0.154-0.665; P = .002). Conclusion: The use of an adherent skin barrier drape at the time of cardiac device surgery is associated with a lower risk of subsequent infection.

RAFF-5 Study to Improve the Quality and Safety of Care for Patients Seen in the Emergency Department With Acute Atrial Fibrillation and Flutter.

BACKGROUND: We sought to improve the immediate and subsequent care of emergency department (ED) patients with acute atrial fibrillation (AF) and flutter (AFL) by implementing the principles of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians AF/AFL Best Practices Checklist. METHODS: This cohort study included 3 periods: before (7 months), intervention introduction (1 month), and after (7 months), and was conducted at a major academic centre. We included patients who presented with an episode of acute AF or AFL and used multiple strategies to support ED adoption of the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians checklist. We developed new cardiology rapid-access follow-up processes. The main outcomes were unsafe and suboptimal treatments in the ED. RESULTS: We included 1108 patient visits, with 559 in the before and 549 in the after period. In a comparison of the periods, there was an increase in use of chemical cardioversion (20.6% vs 25.0%; absolute difference [AD], 4.4%) and in electrical cardioversion (39.2% vs 51.2%; AD, 12.0%). More patients were discharged with sinus rhythm restored (66.9% vs 75.0%; AD, 8.1%). The proportion seen in a follow-up cardiology clinic increased from 24.2% to 39.9% (AD, 15.7%) and the mean time until seen decreased substantially (103.3 vs 49.0 days; AD, -54.3 days). There were very few unsafe cases (0.4% vs 0.7%) and, although there was an increase in suboptimal care (19.5% vs 23.1%), overall patient outcomes were excellent. CONCLUSIONS: We successfully improved the care for ED patients with acute AF/AFL and achieved more frequent and more rapid cardiology follow-up. Although cases of unsafe management were uncommon and patient outcomes were excellent, there are opportunities for physicians to improve their care of acute AF/AFL patients. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT05468281.

Arrhythmic Risk in Biventricular Pacing Compared With Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing: Results From the I-CLAS Study.

BACKGROUND: Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) may be associated with greater improvement in left ventricular ejection fraction and reduction in death or heart failure hospitalization compared with biventricular pacing (BVP) in patients requiring cardiac resynchronization therapy. We sought to compare the occurrence of sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT) or ventricular fibrillation (VF) and new-onset atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients undergoing BVP and LBBAP. METHODS: The I-CLAS study (International Collaborative LBBAP Study) included patients with left ventricular ejection fraction ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for cardiac resynchronization therapy between January 2018 and June 2022 at 15 centers. We performed propensity score-matched analysis of LBBAP and BVP in a 1:1 ratio. We assessed the incidence of VT/VF and new-onset AF among patients with no history of AF. Time to sustained VT/VF and time to new-onset AF was analyzed using the Cox proportional hazards survival model. RESULTS: Among 1778 patients undergoing cardiac resynchronization therapy (BVP, 981; LBBAP, 797), there were 1414 propensity score-matched patients (propensity score-matched BVP, 707; propensity score-matched LBBAP, 707). The occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (4.2% versus 9.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.29-0.74]; P<0.001). The incidence of VT storm (>3 episodes in 24 hours) was also significantly lower with LBBAP compared with BVP (0.8% versus 2.5%; P=0.013). Among 299 patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy pacemakers (BVP, 111; LBBAP, 188), VT/VF occurred in 8 patients in the BVP group versus none in the LBBAP group (7.2% versus 0%; P<0.001). In 1194 patients with no history of VT/VF or antiarrhythmic therapy (BVP, 591; LBBAP, 603), the occurrence of VT/VF was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (3.2% versus 7.3%; hazard ratio, 0.46 [95% CI, 0.26-0.81]; P=0.007). Among patients with no history of AF (n=890), the occurrence of new-onset AF >30 s was significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (2.8% versus 6.6%; hazard ratio, 0.34 [95% CI, 0.16-0.73]; P=0.008). The incidence of AF lasting >24 hours was also significantly lower with LBBAP than with BVP (0.7% versus 2.9%; P=0.015). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP was associated with a lower incidence of sustained VT/VF and new-onset AF compared with BVP. This difference remained significant after adjustment for differences in baseline characteristics between patients with BVP and LBBAP. Physiological resynchronization by LBBAP may be associated with lower risk of arrhythmias compared with BVP.

Do barrier dressings reduce cardiac implantable device infection: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (BARRIER-PROTECT).

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures can be associated with serious complications, including infection with significant mortality and morbidity, necessitating removal of the device and prolonged hospitalization. One potential pathophysiological mechanism is pocket contamination at the time of device implantation. Therefore, steps taken to prevent contamination at this stage can potentially reduce CIED infections.The barrier dressing, an adhesive material applied to the skin, has the potential to reduce the colonization of the surgical site with host flora that can predispose to infection. There are a limited number of randomized prospective studies on barrier dressing use during various surgeries, but it has never been systematically studied in CIED implantation. Objectives: Do Barrier Dressings Reduce Cardiac Implantable Device Infection? (BARRIER-PROTECT trial; NCT04591366) is a single-centre, prospective, double-armed, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the use of an intra-operative adhesive barrier dressing to reduce the risk of end-of-procedure pocket swab positivity. We hypothesize that adhesive draping during implant procedures will reduce the risk of contamination from the skin flora. Also, we aim to investigate if the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity can be used as a potential surrogate marker of CIED infection. Methods and Design: Patients undergoing a second or later procedure on the same device pocket (pulse generator change, lead/pocket revision or upgrade) will be enrolled. Eligible and consenting patients will be equally randomized to the use of barrier dressing or not using an automated web-based system. Patients, but not the operator, will be blinded to the arm. The person performing the pocket swabs will also be blinded. The primary endpoint is the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. The main secondary endpoint is the CIED infection rate. Discussion: This is the first randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of using a barrier adhesive draping on reducing the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. In this study, we are exploring a low-cost intervention that may significantly reduce CIED infection. Also, having a valid surrogate marker for CIED infection at the time of implant will facilitate design of future clinical trials.

Incidence of Atrial Fibrillation as the Initial Manifestation of Cardiac Sarcoidosis: Insights From a Catheter Ablation Registry.

Background: Cardiac sarcoidosis (CS) is a rare form of arrhythmogenic cardiomyopathy; a delayed diagnosis can lead to significant consequences. Patients with clinically manifest CS often have minimal extracardiac involvement and thus frequently present initially to cardiology. Indeed, certain specific arrhythmic scenarios should trigger investigations for undiagnosed CS. Atrial fibrillation (AF) has been described as one of the presenting features of CS; however, the incidence of this presentation is not known. Methods: At our institution, cardiac computerized tomography is routinely performed prior to catheter ablation for AF. Noncardiac incidental findings are described by radiologists and are followed-up by interval investigations. We systematically reviewed noncardiac reports from 1574 consecutive patients in our prospective AF ablation registry. Specifically, we used text-scraping techniques to search on the following keywords: "adenopathy" and "sarcoidosis." Detailed chart review of identified cases was then performed to evaluate results of interval investigations and assess long-term outcomes. Results: Twenty of 1574 patients (1.3%) had noncardiac reports containing "adenopathy" and/or "sarcoidosis." After interval imaging and a follow-up period averaging 60 ± 35 months, only 2 patients of 1574 (0.13%) were diagnosed with CS. Four of 20 (20%) had a previous history of extracardiac sarcoidosis, and another 1 of 20 (5%) was subsequently diagnosed with extracardiac sarcoidosis. However, none of these 5 patients had evidence of cardiac involvement. Conclusions: CS is a rare finding among patients undergoing a first-time AF ablation. Our findings suggest that AF is an uncommon initial presentation of CS. Thus, investigations for CS in patients with AF are not warranted routinely, unless additional suggestive clinical features are present.

Contexte: La sarcoïdose cardiaque (SC) est une forme rare de cardiomyopathie arythmogène; un retard dans le diagnostic peut entraîner d'importantes conséquences. Les patients qui présentent une SC cliniquement manifeste ont souvent une atteinte extracardiaque minime, et consultent donc souvent d'abord en cardiologie. En effet, certains scénarios arythmiques précis devraient déclencher la recherche de signes d'une SC non diagnostiquée. La fibrillation auriculaire (FA) a été décrite comme un signe indicateur de SC; on ne connaît toutefois pas l'incidence de ce signe. Méthodologie: Dans notre établissement, la tomodensitométrie cardiaque est souvent réalisée avant une ablation par cathéter de la FA. Les découvertes non cardiaques fortuites sont décrites par les radiologues, puis font l'objet d'un suivi par des examens d'imagerie réalisés à intervalles déterminés. Nous avons systématiquement évalué les éléments non cardiaques signalés chez 1 574 patients consécutifs dans notre registre prospectif sur l'ablation de la FA. Nous avons utilisé des techniques de dépouillement du texte pour trouver les mots-clés suivants : « adenopathy ¼ (adénopathie) et « sarcoidosis ¼ (sarcoïdose). Un examen du dossier médical complet des cas retenus a été réalisé pour évaluer les résultats des examens de suivi et évaluer les résultats à long terme. Résultats: Parmi les 1 574 patients, 20 (1,3 %) présentaient des notes non cardiaques contenant les termes « adenopahy ¼ (adénopathie) ou « sarcoidosis ¼ (sarcoïdose). Après l'examen d'imagerie et une période de suivi d'une durée moyenne de 60 ±35 mois, seuls deux patients (0,13 %) ont reçu un diagnostic de SC. Quatre des 20 patients visés (20 %) présentaient des antécédents de sarcoïdose extracardiaque, et un patient sur 20 (5 %) a reçu un diagnostic de sarcoïdose extracardiaque à la suite de l'intervention. Toutefois, aucun de ces cinq patients ne montrait de signes d'atteinte cardiaque. Conclusions: La SC est une occurrence rare chez les patients qui subissent une première ablation de la FA. Nos constats indiquent que la FA est une présentation initiale peu commune de la SC. Aussi, la recherche de la SC chez les patients atteints de FA n'est pas justifiée dans une procédure de routine, à moins que d'autres caractéristiques cliniques pointant vers cette affection ne soient présentes.

Comparison of Left Bundle Branch Area Pacing and Biventricular Pacing in Candidates for Resynchronization Therapy.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) with biventricular pacing (BVP) is a well established therapy in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), heart failure, and wide QRS or expected frequent ventricular pacing. Left bundle branch area pacing (LBBAP) has recently been shown to be a safe alternative to BVP. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes between BVP and LBBAP among patients undergoing CRT. METHODS: This observational study included patients with LVEF ≤35% who underwent BVP or LBBAP for the first time for Class I or II indications for CRT from January 2018 to June 2022 at 15 international centers. The primary outcome was the composite endpoint of time to death or heart failure hospitalization (HFH). Secondary outcomes included endpoints of death, HFH, and echocardiographic changes. RESULTS: A total of 1,778 patients met inclusion criteria: 981 BVP, 797 LBBAP. The mean age was 69 ± 12 years, 32% were female, 48% had coronary artery disease, and mean LVEF was 27% ± 6%. Paced QRS duration in LBBAP was significantly narrower than baseline (128 ± 19 ms vs 161 ± 28 ms; P < 0.001) and significantly narrower compared to BVP (144 ± 23 ms; P < 0.001). Following CRT, LVEF improved from 27% ± 6% to 41% ± 13% (P < 0.001) with LBBAP compared with an increase from 27% ± 7% to 37% ± 12% (P < 0.001) with BVP, with significantly greater change from baseline with LBBAP (13% ± 12% vs 10% ± 12%; P < 0.001). On multivariable regression analysis, the primary outcome was significantly reduced with LBBAP compared with BVP (20.8% vs 28%; HR: 1.495; 95% CI: 1.213-1.842; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: LBBAP improved clinical outcomes compared with BVP in patients with CRT indications and may be a reasonable alternative to BVP.

Standard vs Augmented Ablation of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence: The AWARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly occurs after catheter ablation and is associated with patient morbidity and health care costs. Objective: To evaluate the superiority of an augmented double wide-area circumferential ablation (WACA) compared with a standard single WACA in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias (AA) (atrial tachycardia, atrial flutter, or atrial fibrillation [AF]) in patients with paroxysmal AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded end point superiority clinical trial conducted at 10 university-affiliated centers in Canada. The trial enrolled patients 18 years and older with symptomatic paroxysmal AF from March 2015 to May 2017. Analysis took place between January and April 2022. Analyses were intention to treat. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive radiofrequency catheter ablation for pulmonary vein isolation with either a standard single WACA or an augmented double WACA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was AA recurrence between 91 and 365 days postablation. Patients underwent 42 days of ambulatory electrocardiography monitoring after ablation. Secondary outcomes included need for repeated catheter ablation and procedural and safety variables. Results: Of 398 patients, 195 were randomized to the single WACA (control) arm (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [9.3] years; 65 [33.3%] female) and 203 to the double WACA (experimental) arm (mean [SD] age, 61.5 [9.3] years; 66 [32.5%] female). Overall, 52 patients (26.7%) in the single WACA arm and 50 patients (24.6%) in the double WACA arm had recurrent AA at 1 year (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.66-1.29; P = .64). Twenty patients (10.3%) in the single WACA arm and 15 patients (7.4%) in the double WACA arm underwent repeated catheter ablation (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.36). Adjudicated serious adverse events occurred in 13 patients (6.7%) in the single WACA arm and 14 patients (6.9%) in the double WACA arm. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with paroxysmal AF, additional ablation by performing a double ablation lesion set did not result in improved freedom from recurrent AA compared with a standard single ablation set. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02150902.

A Randomized Trial of Lenient Versus Strict Arm Instruction Post Cardiac Device Surgery (LENIENT).

BACKGROUND: Arm restriction after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement is common practice despite minimal supporting evidence. Patients receive a range of restriction recommendations of variable durations with the goal of reducing complications such as wound dehiscence, infection, lead dislodgement, or hematoma formation. These movement limitations can lead to emotional stress and anxiety, complications such as frozen shoulder, and upper extremity venous thrombosis due to immobilization. There are no published clinical trials assessing the benefits and risks of arm restrictions post-CIED implant. OBJECTIVES: The randomized trial of lenient vs strict arm and activity instruction post-CIED surgery (LENIENT trial; NCT04915261) is a single center nonblinded randomized prospective study designed to evaluate lenient compared to restrictive post-CIED care instructions. We hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in complications between the arms. METHODS/DESIGN: All patients receiving a de novo CIED or those with upgrades and revisions requiring a new lead implant will be enrolled. Subjects are enrolled in a nonblinded randomized prospective trial with 6 randomly assigned 8-month periods, during which either a lenient or restrictive postoperative activity instructions will be given to all patients. Postoperative instructions are given at the time of discharge and further reinforced by recurrent interactive voice recognition (IVR) phone calls, text messages and emails. The requirement for individual consent has been waived. The primary end point is a composite of (1) lead dislodgement, (2) frozen shoulder, (3) upper extremity venous thrombosis, (4) clinically significant hematoma, and (5) infection occurring within 52 weeks of index surgery. The study is a noninferiority trial with a sample size of 1,250 per group. DISCUSSION: This is the first large randomized clinical trial designed to establish an evidence-based postoperative standard of care for patients undergoing CIED implantation. This will improve the quality of care provided to patients and help guide implanting physicians providing postoperative care instructions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04915261.

Characterization of arrhythmia substrate to ablate persistent atrial fibrillation (COAST-AF): Randomized controlled trial design and rationale.

BACKGROUND: Atrial low voltage area (LVA) catheter ablation has emerged as a promising strategy for ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). It is unclear if catheter ablation of atrial LVA increases treatment success rates in patients with persistent AF. OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of this trial is to assess the potential benefit of adjunctive catheter ablation of atrial LVA in addition to pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with persistent AF, when compared to PVI alone. The secondary aims are to evaluate safety outcomes, the quality of life and the healthcare resource utilization. METHODS/DESIGN: A multicenter, prospective, parallel-group, 2-arm, single-blinded randomized controlled trial is under way (NCT03347227). Patients who are candidates for catheter ablation for persistent AF will be randomly assigned (1:1) to either PVI alone or PVI + atrial LVA ablation. The primary outcome is 18-month documented event rate of atrial arrhythmia (AF, atrial tachycardia or atrial flutter) post catheter ablation. Secondary outcomes include procedure-related complications, freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months, AF burden, need for emergency department visits/hospitalization, need for repeat ablation for atrial arrhythmia, quality of life at 12 and 18 months, ablation time, and procedure duration. DISCUSSION: Characterization of Arrhythmia Mechanism to Ablate Atrial Fibrillation (COAST-AF) is a multicenter randomized trial evaluating ablation strategies for catheter ablation. We hypothesize that catheter ablation of atrial LVA in addition to PVI will result in higher procedural success rates when compared to PVI alone in patients with persistent AF.

Rhythm-Monitoring Strategy and Arrhythmia Recurrence in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Trials: A Systematic Review.

Background: : The rhythm-monitoring strategy after catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) impacts the detection of atrial arrhythmia recurrence and is not well characterized. We performed a systematic review and meta-regression analysis to determine whether the duration and mode of rhythm monitoring after CA affects detection of atrial arrhythmia recurrence. Methods: Databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials of adult patients undergoing first CA for AF from 2007 to 2021. Duration and strategy of rhythm monitoring were extracted. Meta-regression was used to identify any association between duration of monitoring and detection of atrial arrhythmia recurrence. The primary measure of outcome was single-procedure recurrence of atrial arrhythmia. Results: The search strategy yielded 57 trial arms from 56 randomized controlled trials comprising 5322 patients: 36 arms of patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF), and 21 arms of patients with persistent AF (PeAF) or both PAF/PeAF. Intermittent monitoring was associated with detection of significantly less atrial arrhythmia recurrence than continuous monitoring in PAF arms (31.2% vs 46.9%, P = 0.001), but not in PeAF/PAF-PeAF combined arms (43.3% vs 63.6%, P = 0.12). No significant relationship was seen between the duration of intermittent rhythm monitoring and atrial arrhythmia recurrence detection in either the PAF (P = 0.93) or PeAF/PAF-PeAF combined arms (P = 0.20). Conclusions: Continuous rhythm monitoring detected higher atrial arrhythmia recurrence rates, compared to intermittent rhythm monitoring, in patients with PAF. The duration of intermittent monitoring did not show a statistically significant relationship to the yield of arrhythmia detection, in near identical cohorts of trial subjects undergoing similar interventions, with clinical and research implications.

Contexte: La stratégie qui consiste à surveiller le rythme cardiaque après une ablation par cathéter dans le traitement de la fibrillation auriculaire (FA) a un effet sur la détection de récidive de l'arythmie auriculaire, mais elle n'est pas bien définie. Nous avons mené une revue systématique et une méta-régression pour déterminer si le mode employé pour surveiller le rythme après une ablation par cathéter et la durée de cette surveillance ont un effet sur la détection de récidive de l'arythmie auriculaire. Méthodologie: Des bases de données ont été systématiquement épluchées à la recherche d'essais contrôlés randomisés menés auprès d'adultes subissant leur première ablation par cathéter pour une FA entre 2007 et 2021. La durée et la stratégie utilisées dans la surveillance du rythme ont été recensées. La méta-régression a été utilisée pour déceler tout lien entre la durée de la surveillance et la détection d'une récidive de l'arythmie auriculaire. Le paramètre d'évaluation principal était la récidive de l'arythmie auriculaire avec une seule intervention. Résultats: La stratégie de recherche a fait ressortir 57 groupes de 56 essais contrôlés randomisés comprenant 5 322 patients : 36 groupes de patients présentant une FA paroxystique et 21 groupes de patients présentant une FA persistante ou ces deux types de FA (paroxystique et persistante). La surveillance intermittente a été associée à une moins grande détection de cas d'arythmie auriculaire récidivante, comparativement à la surveillance constante (31,2 % vs 46,9 %, p = 0,001), ce qui n'a pas été le cas dans les groupes où les types de FA (persistante ou paroxystique et persistante) étaient combinés (43,3 % vs 63,6 %, p = 0,12). Aucun lien notable n'a été observé entre la durée de la surveillance intermittente du rythme et la détection de l'arythmie auriculaire récidivante dans le groupe FA paroxystique (p = 0,93) ou dans le groupe des types de FA combinés (p = 0,20). Conclusions: Le taux de détection de l'arythmie auriculaire récidivante était plus élevé avec la surveillance constante qu'avec la surveillance intermittente chez les patients atteints de FA paroxystique. La durée de la surveillance intermittente n'a pas eu de lien statistiquement significatif avec le rendement de détection de l'arythmie, dans des cohortes presque identiques de participants aux essais subissant des interventions similaires, comportant des implications cliniques ou expérimentales.

Should they stay, or should they go: Do we need to remove the old cardiac implantable electronic device if a new system is required on the contralateral side?

Background: Ipsilateral approach in patients requiring cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision or upgrade may not be feasible, primarily due to vascular occlusion. If a new CIED is implanted on the contralateral side, a common practice is to explant the old CIED to avoid device interaction. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess a conservative approach of abandoning the old CIED after implanting a new contralateral device. Methods: We used an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyze postimplant chest radiographs to identify those with multiple CIEDs. Outcomes of interest included device interaction, abandoned CIED elective replacement indicator (ERI) behavior, subsequent programming changes, and explant of abandoned CIED. Theoretical risk of infection with removal of abandoned CIED was estimated using a validated scoring system. Results: Among 12,045 patients, we identified 40 patients with multiple CIEDs. Occluded veins were the most common indication for contralateral implantation (n = 27 [67.5%]). Fifteen abandoned CIEDs reached ERI, with 4 reverting to VVI 65. One patient underwent explant due to device interaction, and 2 required device reprogramming. Of 32 patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 8 (25%) had treated ventricular arrhythmia. There were no failed or inappropriate therapies due to interaction. Eighteen patients (45%) had hypothetical >1% annual risk of hospitalization for device infection if the abandoned CIED had been explanted. Conclusion: In patients requiring new CIED implant on the contralateral side, abandoning the old device is feasible. This approach may reduce the risk of infection and concerns regarding abandoned leads and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Knowledge of ERI behavior is essential to avoid device interactions.

Outcomes of a comprehensive strategy during repeat atrial fibrillation ablation.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) recurs post-ablation in 30-40% of patients. The approach to a repeat ablation, beyond isolation of reconnected pulmonary veins (PVs), is not well established. We sought to prospectively assess outcomes and predictors of recurrence among consecutive patients who underwent repeat AF ablation with a standardized approach. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective study of consecutive patients who underwent repeat AF ablation. Our protocol consisted of six steps: PV re-isolation, ablation of left atrial low-voltage areas (LVAs), ablation of isoproterenol-induced non-PV triggers, electrophysiology study (EPS) and ablation of induced AVNRT/AVRT, ablation of induced clinical atrial flutters, and lastly empiric ablation as per operator discretion if no other ablation was performed. RESULTS: Among 725 AF ablations performed during the study period, 74 were repeat ablations. Of those undergoing repeat ablation, 53 (72%) had PV reconnection, 30 (41%) had LVAs, seven (10%) had non-PV triggers, five (7%) had AVNRT, and 15 (20%) had typical atrial flutter. Following repeat ablation, arrhythmia-free survival was 65% at 1 year. The absence of PV reconnection was the only factor independently associated with recurrence after repeat ablation (recurrence rate 71%, adjusted OR 7.91, 95% CI 2.31-27.16, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive approach to repeat AF ablation including PV re-isolation, LVA ablation, non-PV trigger ablation, EPS, and flutter ablation was associated with a 65% 1-year arrhythmia-free survival. The absence of PV reconnection was the only independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence. Further research is needed to identify therapies beyond PV isolation for patients undergoing repeat ablation.

Prevalence of Left Atrial Appendage Thrombus in Patients Anticoagulated With Direct Oral Anticoagulants: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Multiple studies have examined the prevalence of left atrial appendage thrombus (LAAT) in patients anticoagulated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) and have reported conflicting results. METHODS: Studies reporting the prevalence of LAAT on transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) after 3 or more weeks of DOAC therapy were identified. The proportions of anticoagulated patients diagnosed with LAAT were pooled using random-effects models. Prespecified subgroup analyses by the indication of TEE (pre-atrial fibrillation [AF] ablation vs cardioversion) and TEE strategy (routine use vs selective) were conducted via stratification. RESULTS: Forty studies were identified: 22 full manuscripts and 18 abstracts. Only 11 studies performed TEE routinely. Most studies included patients with paroxysmal AF and low thromboembolic risk. The pooled prevalence of LAAT was 2.5% (95% confidence interval [1.6%-3.4%]). The prevalence of LAAT is lower in the pre-AF ablation group compared with pre-cardioversion (1.1% vs 4.0%, P = 0.033). Routine TEE strategy yielded a lower LAAT prevalence in both groups (0.1% vs 2.3%, P = 0.002 and 3.2% vs 5.8%, P = 0.432, respectively). CONCLUSION: The reported prevalence of LAAT on TEE in patients treated with DOACs is highly variable. Factors associated with a high LAAT prevalence were pre-cardioversion indication and selective TEE strategy. Routine use of TEE before AF ablation may not be warranted.

INTRODUCTION: De nombreuses études ont porté sur la prévalence des thrombi se formant dans l'appendice auriculaire gauche (TAAG) chez les patients qui reçoivent des anticoagulants oraux directs (AOD) et ont révélé des résultats contradictoires. MÉTHODES: Nous avons recensé les études qui ont fait état de la prévalence des TAAG à l'échocardiographie transœsophagienne (ETO) trois semaines ou plus après le traitement par AOD. Les modèles à effets aléatoires ont permis de regrouper les patients qui prenaient des anticoagulants et avaient reçu un diagnostic de TAAG. Nous avons réalisé les analyses de sous-groupes prédéterminés par l'indication d'ETO (fibrillation auriculaire [FA] avant l'ablation vs FA avant la cardioversion) et la stratégie d'utilisation de l'ETO (systématique vs sélective) grâce à la stratification. RÉSULTATS: Nous avons recensé 40 études : 22 manuscrits complets et 18 résumés. Seules 11 études portaient sur l'utilisation systématique de l'ETO. La plupart des études portaient sur des patients qui étaient atteints de FA paroxystique et exposés à un faible risque thromboembolique. La prévalence groupée de TAAG était de 2,5 % (intervalle de confiance à 95 % [1,6 %-3,4 %]). La prévalence de TAAG était plus faible dans le groupe de FA avant l'ablation que dans le groupe de FA avant la cardioversion (1,1 % vs 4,0 %, P = 0,033). La stratégie d'utilisation systématique de l'ETO a permis d'obtenir une prévalence plus faible de TAAG dans les deux groupes (0,1 % vs 2,3 %, P = 0,002 et 3,2 % vs 5,8 %, P = 0,432, respectivement). CONCLUSION: La prévalence de TAAG à l'ETO chez les patients traités par AOD varie beaucoup. Les facteurs associés à une prévalence élevée de TAAG étaient l'indication avant la cardioversion et la stratégie d'utilisation sélective de l'ETO. L'utilisation systématique de l'ETO avant l'ablation peut ne pas être justifiée.

High-power, short-duration atrial fibrillation ablation compared with a conventional approach: Outcomes and reconnection patterns.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness, safety, and pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection patterns of point-by-point high-power, short-duration (HPSD) ablation relative to conventional force-time integral (FTI)-guided strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation are unknown. OBJECTIVES: To compare 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia (AA), complication rates, procedural times, and PV reconnection patterns with HPSD AF AF ablation versus an FTI-guided low-power, long-duration (LPLD) strategy. METHODS: We compared consecutive patients undergoing a first ablation procedure for paroxysmal or persistent AF. The HPSD protocol utilized a power of 50 W and durations of 6-8 s posteriorly and 8-10 s anteriorly. The LPLD protocol was FTI-guided with a power of ≤25 W posteriorly (FTI ≥ 300g·s) and ≤35 W anteriorly (FTI ≥ 400g·s). RESULTS: In total, 214 patients were prospectively included (107 HPSD, 107 LPLD). Freedom from AA at 1 year was achieved in 79% in the HPSD group versus 73% in the LPLD group (p = .339; adjusted hazard ratio with HPSD, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.36-1.23; p < .004 for non-inferiority). Procedure duration was shorter in the HPSD group (229 ± 60 vs. 309 ± 77 min; p < .005). Patients undergoing repeat ablation had a higher propensity for reconnection at the right PV carina in the HPSD group compared with the LPLD group (14/30 = 46.7% vs. 7/34 = 20.6%; p = .035). There were no differences in complication rates. CONCLUSION: HPSD AF ablation resulted in similar freedom from AAs at 1 year, shorter procedure times, and a similar safety profile when compared with an LPLD ablation strategy. Patients undergoing HPSD ablation required more applications at the right carina to achieve isolation, and had a significantly higher rate of right carinal reconnections at redo procedures.

Assessment of Radiation-Induced Malfunction in Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

BACKGROUND: Radiation therapy (RT) is a standard cancer treatment modality, and an increasing number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are being referred for RT. The goals of this study were as follows: (i) to determine the incidence of CIED malfunction following RT; (ii) to characterize the various types of malfunctions that occur; and (iii) to identify risk factors associated with CIED malfunction following RT. METHODS: A retrospective study of patients with CIEDs who received RT between 2007 and 2018 at 4 Canadian centres (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Kingston General Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre, and University of Ottawa Heart Institute) was conducted. Patients underwent CIED interrogation after completion of RT, to assess for late damage to the CIEDs. Data on demographics, devices, and RT were compared for the primary outcome of device malfunction. RESULTS: Of 1041 patients with CIEDs who received RT, 811 patients with complete data were included. Device malfunctions occurred in 32 of 811 patients (4%). The most common device malfunctions were reduced ventricular/atrial sensing (in 13 of 32 [41%]), an increase in lead threshold (in 9 of 32 [22%]), lead noise (in 5 of 32 [16%]), and electrical reset (in 2 of 32 [6%]). Higher beam energy (≥ 10 MV) was associated with malfunction (P < 0.0001). Radiation dose was not significantly different between the malfunction and non-malfunction groups (58.3 cGy vs 65 cGy, respectively, P = 0.71). CONCLUSIONS: Although RT-induced CIED malfunctions are rare (occurring in 4% of patients with a CIED who undergo RT), collaborative efforts between radiation oncologists and cardiac rhythm device clinics to optimize CIED monitoring are needed, to detect and manage CIED malfunctions. Malfunctions are more common in patients receiving higher-beam energy ( ≥ 10 MV ) RT.

CONTEXTE: La radiothérapie (RT) est une modalité standard de traitement du cancer, et un nombre croissant de patients porteurs de dispositifs cardiaques électroniques implantables (DCEI) doivent recevoir un traitement de RT. Les objectifs de cette étude étaient les suivants : (i) déterminer l'incidence d'une défaillance du DCEI après une RT; (ii) caractériser les différents types de défaillances qui se produisent; (iii) déterminer les facteurs de risque associés à la défaillance du DCEI après une RT. MÉTHODOLOGIE: Une étude rétrospective des patients avec un DCEI ayant reçu une RT entre 2007 et 2018 dans quatre centres canadiens (Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Kingston General Hospital, Hamilton Health Sciences Centre et Institut de cardiologie de l'Université d'Ottawa) a été menée. Le DCEI des patients a été interrogé après la fin de la RT, pour en évaluer les dommages tardifs. Les données sur les caractéristiques démographiques, les dispositifs et la RT ont été comparées pour le paramètre d'évaluation principal, soit la défaillance du dispositif. RÉSULTATS: Sur les 1 041 patients avec un DCEI ayant reçu une RT, 811 patients avec des données complètes ont été inclus. Des défaillances du dispositif sont survenues chez 32 des 811 patients (4 %). Les défaillances les plus fréquentes du dispositif étaient une détection ventriculaire/atriale réduite (chez 13 des 32 patients [41 %]), une augmentation du seuil de la sonde (chez 9 des 32 patients [22 %]), un bruit provenant de la sonde (chez 5 des 32 patients [16 %]) et une réinitialisation électrique (chez 2 des 32 patients [6 %]). Une énergie de faisceau plus élevée (≥ 10 MV) était associée à une défaillance (p < 0,0001). La dose de rayonnement ne présentait pas de différence significative entre le groupe où une défaillance a été constatée et l'autre groupe (58,3 cGy vs 65 cGy, respectivement, p = 0,71). CONCLUSIONS: Bien que les défaillances du DCEI causées par la RT soient rares (survenant chez 4 % des patients avec un DCEI qui subissent une RT), une collaboration est nécessaire entre les radio-oncologues et les cliniques de dispositifs de gestion du rythme cardiaque, afin d'optimiser la surveillance du DCEI et de détecter et de gérer ces défaillances. Les défaillances sont plus fréquentes chez les patients recevant une énergie de faisceau plus élevée au moment de la RT ( ≥ 10 MV ) .