Transvenous lead extraction: Experience of the Tandem approach.

AIMS: Transvenous lead extraction (TLE) is important in the management of cardiac implantable electronic devices but carries risk. It is most commonly completed from the superior access, often with 'bail-out' support via the femoral approach. Superior and inferior access may be used in tandem, which has been proposed as an advance in safety and efficacy. The aim of this study is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the Tandem approach. METHOD: The 'Tandem' procedure entailed grasping of the targeted lead in the right atrium to provide countertraction as a rotational dissecting sheath was advanced over the lead from the subclavian access. Consecutive 'Tandem' procedures performed by a single operator between December 2020 and March 2023 in a single large-volume TLE centre were included and compared with the conventional superior approach (control) using 1:1 propensity score matching; patients were statistically matched for demographics. RESULTS: The Tandem in comparison with the conventional approach extracted leads of much greater dwell time (148.9 ± 79 vs. 108.6 ± 77 months, P < 0.01) in a shorter procedure duration (96 ± 36 vs. 127 ± 67 min, P < 0.01) but requiring more fluoroscopy (16.4 ± 10.9 vs. 10.8 ± 14.9 min, P < 0.01). The Tandem and control groups had similar clinical (100% vs. 94.7%, P = 0.07) and complete (94.8% vs. 92.8%, P = 0.42) success, with comparable minor (4% vs. 6.7%, P = 0.72) and major (0% vs. 4%, P = 0.25) complications; procedural (0% vs. 1.3%, P = 1) and 30-day (1.3% vs. 4%, P = 0.62) mortality were also similar. CONCLUSION: The Tandem procedure is as safe and effective as the conventional TLE. It can be applied to leads of a long dwell time with a potentially shorter procedure duration.

Effect of esophageal cooling on ablation lesion formation in the left atrium: Insights from Ablation Index data in the IMPACT trial and clinical outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: The IMPACT study established the role of controlled esophageal cooling in preventing esophageal thermal injury during radiofrequency (RF) ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF). The effect of esophageal cooling on ablation lesion delivery and procedural and patient outcomes had not been previously studied. The objective was to determine the effect of esophageal cooling on the formation of RF lesions, the ability to achieve procedural endpoints, and clinical outcomes. METHODS: Participants in the IMPACT trial underwent AF ablation guided by Ablation Index (30 W at 350-400 AI posteriorly, 40 W at ≥450 AI anteriorly). A blinded 1:1 randomization assigned patients to the use of the ensoETM® device to keep esophageal temperature at 4°C during ablation or standard practice using a single-sensor temperature probe. Ablation parameters and clinical outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Procedural data from 188 patients were analyzed. Procedure and fluoroscopy times were similar, and all pulmonary veins were isolated. First-pass pulmonary vein isolation and reconnection at the end of the waiting period were similar in both randomized groups (51/64 vs. 51/68; p = 0.54 and 5/64 vs. 7/68; p = 0.76, respectively). Posterior wall isolation was also similar: 24/33 versus 27/38; p = 0.88. Ablation effect on tissue, measured in impedance drop, was no different between the two randomized groups: 8.6Ω (IQR: 6-11.8) versus 8.76Ω (IQR: 6-12.2; p = 0.25). Arrhythmia recurrence was similar after 12 months (21.1% vs. 24.1%; 95% CI: 0.38-1.84; HR: 0.83; p = 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: Esophageal cooling has been shown to be effective in reducing ablation-related thermal injury during RF ablation. This protection does not compromise standard procedural endpoints or clinical success at 12 months.

Patient related outcomes of mechanical lead extraction techniques (PROMET) study: A comparison of two professions.

BACKGROUND: With an increasing number of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs), there has been a paralleled increase in demand for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Cardiac surgeons (CS) and cardiologists perform TLE; however, data comparing the two groups of operators is scarce. OBJECTIVE: We compared the outcomes of TLE performed by cardiologists and CS from six European lead extraction units. METHOD: Data was collected retrospectively of 2205 patients who had 3849 leads extracted (PROMET) between 2005 and 2018. Patient demographics and procedural outcomes were compared between the CS and cardiologist groups, using propensity score matching. A multivariate regression analysis was also performed for variables associated with 30-day mortality. RESULTS: CS performed the majority of extractions (59.8%), of leads with longer dwell times (90 [57-129 interquartile range (IQR)] vs. 62 [31-102 IQR] months, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001) and with pre-dominantly non-infectious indications (57.4% vs. 50.2%, CS vs. cardiologists, p < .001). CS achieved a higher complete success per lead than the cardiologists (98.1% vs. 95.7%, respectively, p < .01), with a higher number of minor complications (5.51% vs. 2.1%, p < .01) and similar number of major complications (0.47% vs. 1.3%, p = .12). Thirty-day mortality was similarly low in the CS and cardiologist groups (1.76% vs. 0.94%, p = .21). Unmatched data multivariate analysis revealed infection indication (OR 6.12 [1.9-20.3], p < .01), procedure duration (OR 1.01 [1.01-1.02], p < .01) and CS operator (OR 2.67, [1.12-6.37], p = .027) were associated with 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: TLE by CS was performed with similar safety and higher efficacy compared to cardiologists in high and medium-volume lead extraction centers.

Multi-lead cephalic venous access and long-term performance of high-voltage leads.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) implantation via the cephalic vein is feasible and safe. Recent evidence has suggested a higher implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) lead failure in multi-lead defibrillator therapy via the cephalic route. We evaluated the relationship between CRT-D implantation via the cephalic and ICD lead failure. METHODS: Data was collected from three CRT-D implanting centers between October 2008 and September 2017. In total 633 patients were included. Patient and lead characteristics with ICD lead failure were recorded. Comparison of "cephalic" (ICD lead via cephalic) versus "non-cephalic" (ICD lead via non-cephalic route) cohorts was performed. Kaplan-Meier survival and a Cox-regression analysis were applied to assess variables associated with lead failure. RESULTS: The cephalic and non-cephalic cohorts were equally male (81.9% vs. 78%; p = .26), similar in age (69.7 ± 11.5 vs. 68.7 ± 11.9; p = .33) and body mass index (BMI) (27.7 ± 5.1 vs. 27.1 ± 5.7; p = .33). Most ICD leads were implanted via the cephalic vein (73.5%) and patients had a mean of 2.9 ± 0.28 leads implanted via this route. The rate of ICD lead failure was low and statistically similar between both groups (0.36%/year vs. 0.13%/year; p = .12). Female gender was more common in the lead failure cohort than non-failure (55.6% vs. 17.9%, respectively; p = .004) as was hypertension (88.9% vs. 54.2%, respectively, p = .038). On multivariate Cox-regression, female sex (p = .008; HR, 7.12 [1.7-30.2]), and BMI (p = .047; HR, 1.12 [1.001-1.24]) were significantly associated with ICD lead failure. CONCLUSION: CRT-D implantation via the cephalic route is not significantly associated with premature ICD lead failure. Female gender and BMI are predictors of lead failure.

Prolonged QT predicts prognosis in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) causes severe illness and multi-organ dysfunction. An abnormal electrocardiogram is associated with poor outcome, and QT prolongation during the illness has been linked to pharmacological effects. This study sought to investigate the effects of the COVID-19 illness on the corrected QT interval (QTc). METHOD: For 293 consecutive patients admitted to our hospital via the emergency department for COVID-19 between 01/03/20 -18/05/20, demographic data, laboratory findings, admission electrocardiograph and clinical observations were compared in those who survived and those who died within 6 weeks. Hospital records were reviewed for prior electrocardiograms for comparison with those recorded on presentation with COVID-19. RESULTS: Patients who died were older than survivors (82 vs 69.8 years, p < 0.001), more likely to have cancer (22.3% vs 13.1%, p = 0.034), dementia (25.6% vs 10.7%, p = 0.034) and ischemic heart disease (27.8% vs 10.7%, p < 0.001). Deceased patients exhibited higher levels of C-reactive protein (244.6 mg/L vs 146.5 mg/L, p < 0.01), troponin (1982.4 ng/L vs 413.4 ng/L, p = 0.017), with a significantly longer QTc interval (461.1 ms vs 449.3 ms, p = 0.007). Pre-COVID electrocardiograms were located for 172 patients; the QTc recorded on presentation with COVID-19 was longer than the prior measurement in both groups, but was more prolonged in the deceased group (448.4 ms vs 472.9 ms, pre-COVID vs COVID, p < 0.01). Multivariate Cox-regression analysis revealed age, C-reactive protein and prolonged QTc of >455 ms (males) and >465 ms (females) (p = 0.028, HR 1.49 [1.04-2.13]), as predictors of mortality. QTc prolongation beyond these dichotomy limits was associated with increased mortality risk (p = 0.0027, HR 1.78 [1.2-2.6]). CONCLUSION: QTc prolongation occurs in COVID-19 illness and is associated with poor outcome.

Percutaneous management of lead-related cardiac perforation with limited use of computed tomography and cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED)-related perforation is uncommon but potentially lethal. Management typically includes the use of computed tomography (CT) scanning and often involves cardiac surgery. METHODS: Patients presenting to a single referral centre with CIED-related cardiac perforation between 2013 and 2019 were identified. Demographics, diagnostic modalities, the method of lead revision, and 30-day complications were examined. RESULTS: A total of 46 cases were identified; median time from implantation to diagnosis was 14 days (interquartile range = 4-50). Most were females (29/46, 63%), 9/46 (20%) had cancer, 18 patients (39%) used oral anticoagulants, and no patients had prior cardiac surgery. Active fixation was involved in 98% of cases; 9% involved an implantable cardioverter defibrillator lead. Thirty-seven leads perforated the right ventricle (apex: 24) and 9 punctured the right atrium (lateral wall: 5). Abnormal electrical parameters were noted in 95% of interrogated cases. Perforation was visualized in 41% and 6% of cases with chest X-ray (CXR) and transthoracic echocardiography, respectively. CXR revealed a perforation, gross lead displacement, or left-sided pleural effusion in 74% of cases. Pericardial effusion occurred in 26 patients (57%) of whom 11 (24%) developed tamponade, successfully drained percutaneously. Pre-extraction CT scan was performed in 19 patients but was essential in four cases. Transvenous lead revision (TLR) was successfully performed in all cases with original leads repositioned in six patients, without recourse to surgery. Thirty-day mortality and complications were low (0% and 26%, respectively). CONCLUSION: CT scanning provides incremental diagnostic value in a minority of CIED-related perforations. TLR is a safe and effective strategy.

Transvenous lead extraction: The influence of age on patient outcomes in the PROMET study cohort.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) therapy contributes to an improvement in morbidity and mortality across all patient demographics. Patient age is a recognized risk factor for unfavorable outcomes in invasive procedures. This is the largest series of non-laser transvenous lead extraction (TLE) evaluating the association between patient age and procedure outcomes. METHODS: Data of 2205 (3849 leads) patients was collected retrospectively from six European TLE centers between January 2005-December 2018 in the PROMET study. Of these, 153 patients with 319 leads were excluded for incomplete data. A comparison of outcomes was performed between the age groups young [< 50 years], young intermediate [50-69 years], older intermediate [70-79 years], and octogenarian [≥80 years]. RESULTS: Infection was most common indication for TLE in the octogenarian cohort, less common in the younger population (60.1% vs. 33.2%, respectively, p < .01). High-voltage leads were extracted most frequently from young patients, less frequently from octogenarians (31.6% vs. 10%, p < .001), while the opposite was evident for pacemaker leads (p < .001). Rotational sheath use was equally prevalent across all patient groups (p = .79). Minor and major complications across all the age groups were statistically similar, as was procedural success; the 30-day mortality was most significant in the octogenarian and least in the young patients (4.9% vs. 0.4%, p = .005). Propensity matching multivariate analysis found systemic infection, lead dwell time, and patient age (p = .013, OR 1.064 [1.013-1.116]) increased risk of 30-day mortality. CONCLUSION: TLE is safe and effective across all age groups. 30-day mortality risk is significantly higher in the older patients.

Left atrial appendage isolation during ablation in the interatrial septum: Rapid recognition by continuous monitoring of appendage electrograms.

Extensive atrial ablation in the setting of atrial fibrillation (AF) and atrial tachycardia (AT) can affect interatrial connections. A 76-year-old man with a history of tachycardia-induced cardiomyopathy and nine ablation procedures for AF/AT over 15 years presented with highly symptomatic recurrent AT. Previous ablation lesions included pulmonary vein isolation, left atrial posterior wall isolation, mitral isthmus line, cavotricuspid isthmus line, and the ablation of areas of fractionated electrograms. Electroanatomical mapping found the pulmonary veins and the left atrial posterior wall to be silent, as was the posterior interatrial septum and the mitral isthmus area. Activation mapping showed progression of electrograms in the left atrial appendage (LAA) from the septal aspect posteriorly, and in the coronary sinus from proximal to distal; implying the existence of a septal circuit, where extensive fractionation was noted. This was targeted, while monitoring conduction into the LAA using a multielectrode catheter. Ablation led to prompt termination of tachycardia and simultaneous LAA isolation. Immediate cessation of ablation led to recovery of conduction into LAA. Additional lesions in the interatrial septum were required to render the tachycardia noninducible, accompanied by temporary isolation of LAA. The ablation lesion sets employed while ablating AF and left AT can block many interatrial pathways, rendering conduction dependent on muscle bundles in the interatrial septum and, therefore, vulnerable to block by lesions in this area. LAA isolation has been associated with high incidence of LAA thrombus formation and stroke despite oral anticoagulation. Continuous observation of LAA electrograms during ablation can help to avoid this complication.

Isolating the entire pulmonary venous component versus isolating the pulmonary veins for persistent atrial fibrillation: A propensity-matched analysis.

BACKGROUND: The outcomes of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) are suboptimal. The entire pulmonary venous component (PV-Comp), consisting of the pulmonary veins, their antra, and the area between the antra, provides triggers and substrate for AF. PV-Comp isolation is an alternative strategy for persistent AF ablation. METHODS: Among 328 patients with persistent AF who underwent a first radiofrequency ablation procedure, 200 patients (PVI, n = 100; PV-Comp isolation, n = 100) were selected by propensity score matching. Both groups were followed up for 1 year. RESULTS: At 6- and 12-month follow-up, atrial tachyarrhythmia (AF/atrial tachycardia) recurred in 41 and 61 patients in PVI group and 22 (P = .006) and 33 patients (P < .001) in PV-Comp isolation group, respectively. PV-Comp isolation was associated with longer mean time to recurrence (PVI: 8 months, PV-Comp isolation: 10 months, log-rank P < .001) and a lower probability of recurrence (odds ratio [OR] = 0.32; 95% confidence of interval [CI] = 0.18-0.56, P < .001), with no increase in procedural complications (PVI: 5 of 100, PV-Comp isolation: 6 of 100, P = .76). Procedure duration was longer in PV-Comp isolation group (PVI: 186 ± 42 min, PV-Comp isolation: 238 ± 44 min, P < .001), as well as fluoroscopy time (PVI: 22 ± 16 min, PV-Comp isolation: 31 ± 21 min, P = .001). CONCLUSION: PV-Comp isolation for persistent AF reduced atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence up to 1 year compared with PVI alone. While procedure and fluoroscopy time increased, there was no difference in procedural complications.

Anterograde His bundle activation during right ventricular overdrive pacing in supraventricular tachycardia.

BACKGROUND: Differentiation between atrioventricular nodal re-entrant tachycardia (AVNRT), atrioventricular re-entrant tachycardia (AVRT), and atrial tachycardia (AT) is often challenging during electrophysiology studies. This study compared the sensitivity and specificity of identifying anterograde His bundle activation during entrainment with commonly used right ventricular (RV) pacing maneuvers to differentiate between these types of supraventricular tachycardia (SVT). METHODS: Out of 112 consecutive patients with SVT, 90 (36 males [40%], age 37 ± 16 years) were prospectively studied. After entrainment during RV pacing, atrial response upon cessation of pacing, anterograde His activation during entrainment, stimulus-atrial (SA), ventriculoatrial (VA) intervals, and post-pacing interval minus tachycardia cycle length (PPI-TCL) were determined. Ventricular extrastimulation during tachycardia and para-Hisian pacing were performed. RESULTS: The final diagnosis was AVNRT in 54, AVRT in 33, and AT in 3 patients. Entrainment was achieved in 87(96%) patients. Anterograde His bundle activation predicted AVRT (sensitivity: 62.5%, specificity: 100%). PPI-TCL ≥129 ms predicted AVNRT (sensitivity: 83%, specificity: 84%), as did SA-VA value ≥85 ms (sensitivity: 91%, specificity: 87%). Atria were advanced during transition zone in 57% of AVRTs. Atrial pre-excitation in response to progressively premature ventricular extrastimuli identified AVRT (sensitivity: 90%, specificity: 85%). Pre-excitation index ≥87 ms identified AVNRT (sensitivity: 80%, specificity: 100%). Para-Hisian pacing identified AVRT (sensitivity: 25%, specificity: 100%). CONCLUSION: RV pacing maneuvers, applied in isolation, can misclassify a significant proportion of SVTs. Identifying anterograde His bundle activation during entrainment can complement other discriminators in differential diagnosis of SVT, with greatest sensitivity in septal and right-sided accessory pathways.

Medium-Term Outcomes in COVID-19.

COVID-19 causes severe illness that results in morbidity and mortality. Electrocardiographic features, including QT prolongation, have been associated with poor acute outcomes; data on the medium-term outcomes remain scarce. This study evaluated the 1-year outcomes of patients who survived the acute COVID-19 infection. Methods and Materials: Data of the 159 patients who survived the COVID-19 illness during the first wave (1 March 2020−18 May 2020) were collected. Patient demographics, laboratory findings and electrocardiography data were evaluated. Patients who subsequently died within 1-year of the index illness were compared to those who remained well. Results: Of the 159 patients who had survived the index illness, 28 (17.6%) subsequently perished within 1-year. In comparison to the patients that were alive after 1-year, the deceased were older (68 vs. 83 years, p < 0.01) and equally male (60.4% vs. 53.6%, p = 0.68), with a similar proportion of hypertension (59.5% vs. 57.1%, p = 0.68), diabetes (25.2% vs. 39.2%, p = 0.096) and ischaemic heart disease (11.5% vs. 7.1%, p = 0.54). The QTc interval for the alive and deceased patients shortened by a similar degree from the illness to post-COVID (−26 ± 33.5 vs. −20.6 ± 30.04 milliseconds, p = 0.5); the post-COVID R-R interval was longer in the alive patients compared to the deceased (818.9 ± 169.3 vs. 761.1 ± 61.2 ms, p = 0.02). A multivariate Cox regression analysis revealed that age (HR1.098 [1.045−1.153], p < 0.01), diabetes (HR3.972 [1.47−10.8], p < 0.01) and the post-COVID R-R interval (HR0.993 [0.989−0.996], p < 0.01) were associated with 1-year mortality. Conclusions: The COVID-19-associated mortality risk extends to the post-COVID period. The QTc does recover following the acute illness and is not associated with outcomes; the R-R interval is a predictor of 1-year mortality.

Management of atrial fibrillation after transcatheter aortic valve replacement: Challenges and therapeutic considerations.

Atrial Fibrillation (AF) is very common among patients with severe aortic stenosis. Moreover, new onset AF (NOAF) is a frequent finding after Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement (TAVR). There is a significant impact of AF on outcomes in patients undergoing TAVR including mortality, thrombo-embolic and bleeding events. There is lack of clear evidence about the optimal management of AF in TAVR patients. This review aims to summarize the epidemiology, predictors, prognosis, therapeutic considerations and challenges in the management of AF in patients undergoing TAVR.

Contact force sensing in ablation of ventricular arrhythmias using a 56-hole open-irrigation catheter: a propensity-matched analysis.

PURPOSE: The effect of adding contact force (CF) sensing to 56-hole tip irrigation in ventricular arrhythmia (VA) ablation has not been previously studied. We aimed to compare outcomes with and without CF sensing in VA ablation using a 56-hole radiofrequency (RF) catheter. METHODS: A total of 164 patients who underwent first-time VA ablation using Thermocool SmartTouch Surround Flow (TC-STSF) catheter (Biosense-Webster, Diamond Bar, CA, USA) were propensity-matched in a 1:1 fashion to 164 patients who had first-time ablation using Thermocool Surround Flow (TC-SF) catheter. Patients were matched for age, gender, cardiac aetiology, ejection fraction and approach. Acute success, complications and long-term follow-up were compared. RESULTS: There was no difference between procedures utilising either TC-SF or TC-STSF in acute success (TC-SF: 134/164 (82%), TC-STSF: 141/164 (86%), p = 0.3), complications (TC-SF: 11/164 (6.7%), TC-STSF: 11/164 (6.7%), p = 1.0) or VA-free survival (TC-SF: mean arrhythmia-free survival time = 5.9 years, 95% CI = 5.4-6.4, TC-STSF: mean = 3.2 years, 95% CI = 3-3.5, log-rank p = 0.74). Fluoroscopy time was longer in normal hearts with TC-SF (19 min, IQR: 14-30) than TC-STSF (14 min, IQR: 8-25; p = 0.04). CONCLUSION: Both TC-SF and TC-STSF catheters are safe and effective in treating VAs. The use of CF sensing catheters did not improve safety or acute and long-term outcomes, but reduced fluoroscopy time in normal heart VA.

The rationale for isolation of the left atrial pulmonary venous component to control atrial fibrillation: A review article.

Catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) is an evolving field. In this review, we discuss the rationale for isolation of the pulmonary venous component of the left atrium to control AF. The review describes the embryologic origin of this component and makes the important distinction between the true posterior wall and the pulmonary venous component, which forms the dome of the left atrium. Studies that have examined the role of left atrial posterior wall isolation in AF ablation have loosely referred to the pulmonary venous component as the posterior wall. We critically reexamine this nomenclature and provide a sound argument underpinned by fundamental anatomic considerations, a clear understanding of which is critical to the operator. We discuss the various techniques used in isolating this region and review the outcome data of studies targeting this region in AF ablation.