Imaging in patients with cardiovascular implantable electronic devices: part 1-imaging before and during device implantation. A clinical consensus statement of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging (EACVI) and the European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) of the ESC.

More than 500 000 cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) are implanted in the European Society of Cardiology countries each year. The role of cardiovascular imaging in patients being considered for CIED is distinctly different from imaging in CIED recipients. In the former group, imaging can help identify specific or potentially reversible causes of heart block, the underlying tissue characteristics associated with malignant arrhythmias, and the mechanical consequences of conduction delays and can also aid challenging lead placements. On the other hand, cardiovascular imaging is required in CIED recipients for standard indications and to assess the response to device implantation, to diagnose immediate and delayed complications after implantation, and to guide device optimization. The present clinical consensus statement (Part 1) from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging, in collaboration with the European Heart Rhythm Association, provides comprehensive, up-to-date, and evidence-based guidance to cardiologists, cardiac imagers, and pacing specialists regarding the use of imaging in patients undergoing implantation of conventional pacemakers, cardioverter defibrillators, and resynchronization therapy devices. The document summarizes the existing evidence regarding the use of imaging in patient selection and during the implantation procedure and also underlines gaps in evidence in the field. The role of imaging after CIED implantation is discussed in the second document (Part 2).

Cryoablation vs. radiofrequency ablation of the atrioventricular node in patients with His-bundle pacing.

AIMS: Radiofrequency ablation (RFA) of the atrioventricular node (AVN) with His-bundle pacing (HBP) can cause rise in capture thresholds. Cryoablation (CRYO) may offer reversibility in case of threshold rise but has never been tested for AVN ablation in this setting. Our aim was to compare procedural characteristics and outcome of CRYO compared with RFA for AVN ablation in patients with HBP. METHODS AND RESULTS: Forty-four patients with HBP underwent AVN ablation for an 'ablate and pace' indication. Cryoablation was performed in the first 22 patients and RFA in the following 22 patients. Procedural characteristics, success rates, and change in His capture thresholds were compared between groups. Distance from the ablation site to the His lead was measured using biplane fluoroscopy. Acute success was 100% with both strategies. Median procedural duration was significantly longer for CRYO {50 [interquartile range (IQR) 38-63] min} compared with RFA [36 (IQR, 30-41) min; P = 0.027]. An acute threshold rise of ≥1 V was observed in four CRYO (one complete loss of capture) and three RFA patients (P = 0.38), with all of the applications being within 6 mm of the His lead tip. During follow-up, nine patients had AVN re-conduction (six CRYO vs. three RFA; P = 0.58), but only four patients required a redo procedure (all CRYO; P = 0.09). CONCLUSION: Cryoablation does not offer any advantage over RFA for AVN ablation in patients with HBP and tended to require more redo procedures. If possible, a distance of ≥6 mm should be maintained from the His lead tip to avoid a rise in capture thresholds.