Postprocedural LGE-CMR comparison of laser and radiofrequency ablation lesions after pulmonary vein isolation.

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the anatomical characteristics of scar formation achieved by visual-guided laser balloon (Laser) and radiofrequency (RF) pulmonary vein isolation (PVI), using late-gadolinium-enhanced cardiac magnetic resonance imaging (LGE-CMR). METHODS AND RESULTS: We included 17 patients with paroxysmal or early persistent drug resistant AF who underwent Laser ablation; 2 were excluded due to procedure-related complications. The sample was matched with a historical group of 15 patients who underwent PVI using RF. LGE-CMR sequences were acquired before and 3 months post-PVI. Ablation gaps were defined as pulmonary vein (PV) perimeter sections showing no gadolinium enhancement. The number of ablation gaps was lower in Laser versus RF ablations (median 7 vs. 14, P  =  0.015). Complete anatomical PVI (circumferential scar around PV, without gaps) was more frequently achieved with Laser than with RF (39% vs. 19% of PVs, P  =  0.025). Fewer gaps were present at the superior and anterior left PV and posterior right PV antral regions in the Laser group, compared to RF. Scar extension into the PVs was similar in both groups, although RF produced more extensive ablation scar toward the LA body. AF recurrences at 1 year were similar in both groups (Laser 36% vs. RF 27%, P  =  1.00). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to RF, Laser ablation achieved more complete anatomical PVI, with less LA scar extension. However, AF recurrence appears to be similar after Laser compared to RF ablation. Further studies are needed to assess whether the anatomical advantages of Laser ablation translate into clinical benefit in patients with AF.

Assessment of aortic valve disease - a clinician oriented review.

Aortic valve disease [aortic stenosis (AS) and aortic regurgitation (AR)] represents an important global health problem; when severe, aortic valve disease carries poor prognosis. For AS, aortic valve replacement, either surgical or interventional, may provide definite treatment in carefully selected patients. For AR, valve surgery (either replacement or - in selected cases - aortic valve repair) remains the gold standard of care. To properly identify those patients who are candidates for surgery, the clinician has to carefully assess the severity of valve disease with an understanding of the potential pitfalls involved in these assessments. This review focuses on the practical issues concerning the evaluation of patients with AS and AR from a general cardiologist's perspective. The most important issues regarding the documentation of the severity of AS and AR are summarized. More specific issues, such as the role of stress echocardiography, other imaging techniques and details regarding the treatment options (medical, surgical, or interventional), are mentioned briefly.

Accuracy of fluoroscopic and electrocardiographic criteria for pacemaker lead implantation by comparison with three-dimensional echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Fluoroscopic and electrocardiographic (ECG) criteria for the documentation of pacing lead positioning (apical and alternative sites) have been described, but data regarding their accuracy are lacking. METHODS: Fifty patients (27 men; mean age, 76 ± 9 years) with permanent right ventricular (RV) pacing leads were included. RV lead position was classified as apical, mid septal, mid RV free wall, RV outflow tract (RVOT) septal, or RVOT free wall. Exact anatomic lead position was documented using three-dimensional (3D) transthoracic echocardiography (TTE). Cohen's κ coefficient was used to assess agreement between fluoroscopic or ECG criteria and 3D TTE. RESULTS: True lead positions were as follows: 15 apical, 24 mid septal, three mid RV free wall, and eight RVOT septal wall; no leads were implanted into the RVOT free wall. Fluoroscopy (κ = 0.56; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.37-0.76) and electrocardiography (κ = 0.43; 95% CI, 0.25-0.60) had moderate overall agreement with 3D TTE. Fluoroscopy had moderate agreement with 3D TTE for apical (κ = 0.57; 95% CI, 0.32-0.83), mid septal (κ = 0.48; 95% CI, 0.25-0.72), and mid free wall sites (κ = 0.54; 95% CI, 0.08-1.00) and moderate to good agreement for the RVOT septal wall (κ = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.30-0.90). Fluoroscopy misclassified as mid septal six of the 15 RV apical leads. ECG criteria had moderate agreement with 3D TTE for apical positions (κ = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.34-0.77) and RVOT sites (κ = 0.47; 95% CI, 0.21-0.73). Electrocardiography misclassified as apical 10 and as RVOT six of the 24 mid septal leads. CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroscopic and ECG criteria are only moderately accurate in discriminating between RV apical, mid septal, mid free wall, and RVOT pacing sites. These data suggest that both fluoroscopy and electrocardiography may not be adequate techniques for the correct documentation of RV pacing lead position for routine clinical practice or research purposes.