Different methods of 3D QRS area calculation from vectorcardiographic X, Y, and Z Leads.

3DQRSarea is a strong marker for cardiac resynchronization therapy and can be obtained by taking the (i) summation or the (ii) difference of the areas subtended by positive and negative deflections in X, Y, Z vectorcardiographic electrocardiogram (ECG) leads. We correlated both methods with the instantaneous-absolute-3D-voltage-time-integral (VTIQRS-3D). 3DQRSarea consistently underestimated the VTIQRS -3D, but the summation method was a closer and more reliable approximation. The dissimilarity was less apparent in left bundle branch block (r2 summation .996 vs. difference .972) and biventricular paced ECGs (r2 .996 vs. .957) but was more apparent in normal ECGs (r2 .988 vs. .653).

Safety of catheter ablation in patients with recently implanted cardiac implantable electronic device: A 5-year experience.

INTRODUCTION: Catheter ablation (CA) can interfere with cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) function. The safety of CA in the 1st year after CIED implantation/lead revision is uncertain. METHODS: This single center, retrospective cohort included patients who underwent CA between 2012 and 2017 and had a CIED implant/lead revision within the preceding year. We assessed the frequency of device/lead malfunctions in this population. RESULTS: We identified 1810 CAs in patients between 2012 and 2017, with 170 CAs in 163 patients within a year of a CIED implant/lead revision. Mean age 68 ± 12 years (68% men). Time between the CIED procedure and CA was 158 ± 99 days. The CA procedures included AF ablation (n = 57, 34%), AV node ablation (n = 40, 24%), SVT ablation (n = 37, 22%), and PVC/VT ablations (n = 36, 21%). The cumulative frequency of lead dislodgement, significant CIED dysfunction, and/or CIED-related infection following CA was (n = 1/170, 0.6%). There was a single atrial lead dislodgement (0.6%). There were no instances of power-on-reset or CIED-related infection. Following CA, there was no significant difference in RA or RV lead sensing (p = 0.52 and 0.84 respectively) or thresholds (p = 0.94 and 0.17 respectively). The RA impedance slightly decreased post-CA from 474 ± 80 Ohms to 460 ± 73 Ohms (p = 0.002), as did the RV impedance (from 515 ± 111 Ohms to 497 ± 98 Ohms, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: CA can be performed within 1 year following CIED implantation/lead revision with a low risk of CIED/lead malfunction or lead dislodgement. The ideal time to perform CA after a CIED remains uncertain.

Artificial Intelligence Interpretation of the Electrocardiogram: A State-of-the-Art Review.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming electrocardiography (ECG) interpretation. AI diagnostics can reach beyond human capabilities, facilitate automated access to nuanced ECG interpretation, and expand the scope of cardiovascular screening in the population. AI can be applied to the standard 12-lead resting ECG and single-lead ECGs in external monitors, implantable devices, and direct-to-consumer smart devices. We summarize the current state of the literature on AI-ECG. RECENT FINDINGS: Rhythm classification was the first application of AI-ECG. Subsequently, AI-ECG models have been developed for screening structural heart disease including hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, cardiac amyloidosis, aortic stenosis, pulmonary hypertension, and left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Further, AI models can predict future events like development of systolic heart failure and atrial fibrillation. AI-ECG exhibits potential in acute cardiac events and non-cardiac applications, including acute pulmonary embolism, electrolyte abnormalities, monitoring drugs therapy, sleep apnea, and predicting all-cause mortality. Many AI models in the domain of cardiac monitors and smart watches have received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) clearance for rhythm classification, while others for identification of cardiac amyloidosis, pulmonary hypertension and left ventricular dysfunction have received breakthrough device designation. As AI-ECG models continue to be developed, in addition to regulatory oversight and monetization challenges, thoughtful clinical implementation to streamline workflows, avoiding information overload and overwhelming of healthcare systems with false positive results is necessary. Research to demonstrate and validate improvement in healthcare efficiency and improved patient outcomes would be required before widespread adoption of any AI-ECG model.

Complications following symptom-limited thoracentesis using suction.

BACKGROUND: Thoracentesis using suction is perceived to have increased risk of complications, including pneumothorax and re-expansion pulmonary oedema (REPO). Current guidelines recommend limiting drainage to 1.5 L to avoid REPO. Our purpose was to examine the incidence of complications with symptom-limited drainage of pleural fluid using suction and identify risk factors for REPO. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of all adult patients who underwent symptom-limited thoracentesis using suction at our institution between January 1, 2004 and August 31, 2018 was performed, and a total of 10 344 thoracenteses were included. RESULTS: Pleural fluid ≥1.5 L was removed in 19% of the procedures. Thoracentesis was stopped due to chest discomfort (39%), complete drainage of fluid (37%) and persistent cough (13%). Pneumothorax based on chest radiography was detected in 3.98%, but only 0.28% required intervention. The incidence of REPO was 0.08%. The incidence of REPO increased with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS) ≥3 compounded with ≥1.5 L (0.04-0.54%; 95% CI 0.13-2.06 L). Thoracentesis in those with ipsilateral mediastinal shift did not increase complications, but less fluid was removed (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Symptom-limited thoracentesis using suction is safe even with large volumes. Pneumothorax requiring intervention and REPO are both rare. There were no increased procedural complications in those with ipsilateral mediastinal shift. REPO increased with poor ECOG PS and drainage ≥1.5 L. Symptom-limited drainage using suction without pleural manometry is safe.

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.