Feasibility and efficacy of a novel size adjustable cryoballoon for ablation of atrial fibrillation.

The aim of the present case series was to characterize the feasibility of a novel size adjustable cryoballoon system (PolarX Fit, Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA). This cryoballoon catheter can be inflated to two different diameters (28 mm and 31 mm) within the same procedure allowing vein adapted PVI. In summary, the novel size adjustable cryoballoon shows similar characteristics as the established versions. The intraprocedural flexibility of balloon size led to employment of the larger variant in the majority of freeze applications. Of note, in all but one procedure, both sizes were employed to ensure optimal occlusion for all veins. This initial series suggests that the size adjustable balloon offers more flexibility of obtain optimal occlusions in particular, in challenging anatomies, including common pulmonary vein ostia.

Direct comparison of the novel automated screening tool (AST) versus the manual screening tool (MST) in patients with already implanted subcutaneous ICD.

BACKGROUND: The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) has evolved as a valuable alternative to the transvenous ICD, especially in young patients. Unfortunately, some of these patients are ineligible for S-ICD implantation due to specific electrocardiographic features. So far, these patients were identified by mandatory pre-implantation screening using the manual screening tool (MST), which lacks objective value. Therefore, a novel automated screening tool (AST) has been introduced recently for objective screening, which has not been evaluated yet. METHODS/RESULTS: We here first investigate the novel AST, in direct comparison to MST, in 33 consecutive patients with already implanted S-ICD system to compare predicted eligibility by screening tools with true sensing of the S-ICD system. Both screening tools reliably predicted true ineligible single vectors, but also suggested overall ineligibility in a similar fraction of patients (MST: 3.0%; AST: 6.1%), albeit the implanted S-ICD worked flawlessly in these patients. AST did not predict the finally selected sensing vector better than MST. There was a surprising mismatch between AST and MST for the predicted eligibility of single vectors; only in 49% of patients did both screening tools predict eligibility for the same vectors. CONCLUSIONS: The novel AST predicted overall eligibility approximately similar to MST. Both tools predicted ineligibility in a few patients, who were actually eligible. There was a striking mismatch between both screening tools when eligibility of single vectors was predicted. Thus, the AST seems to be a valuable advance, due to its standardized and objective process, but it still lacks specificity.