Electroanatomic voltage mapping for tissue characterization beyond arrhythmia definition: A systematic review.

Three-dimensional (3D) reconstruction by means of electroanatomic mapping (EAM) systems, allows for the understanding of the mechanism of focal or re-entrant arrhythmic circuits, which can be identified by means of dynamic (activation and propagation) and static (voltage) color-coded maps. However, besides this conventional use, EAM may offer helpful anatomical and functional information for tissue characterisation in several clinical settings. Today, data regarding electromechanical myocardial viability, scar detection in ischaemic and nonischaemic cardiomyopathy and arrhythmogenic right ventricle dysplasia (ARVC/D) definition are mostly consolidated, while emerging results are becoming available in contexts such as Brugada syndrome and cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) implant procedures. As part of an invasive procedure, EAM has not yet been widely adopted as a stand-alone tool in the diagnostic path. We aim to review the data in the current literature regarding the use of 3D EAM systems beyond the definition of arrhythmia.

Three-Dimensional Electroanatomic Mapping System-Enhanced Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy Device Implantation: Results From a Multicenter Registry.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation guided by an electroanatomic mapping system (EAMS) is an emerging technique that may reduce fluoroscopy and angiography use and provide information on coronary sinus (CS) electrical activation. We evaluated the outcome of the EAMS-guided CRT implantation technique in a multicenter registry. METHODS: During the period 2011-2014 we enrolled 125 patients (80% males, age 74 [71-77] years) who underwent CRT implantation by using the EnSite system to create geometric models of the patient's cardiac chambers, build activation mapping of the CS, and guide leads positioning. Two hundred and fifty patients undergoing traditional CRT implantation served as controls. Success and complication rates, fluoroscopy and total procedure times in the overall study population and according to center experience were collected. Centers that performed ≥10 were defined as highly experienced. RESULTS: Left ventricular lead implantation was successful in 122 (98%) cases and 242 (97%) controls (P = 0.76). Median fluoroscopy time was 4.1 (0.3-10.4) minutes in cases versus 16 (11-26) minutes in controls (P < 0.001). Coronary sinus angiography was performed in 33 (26%) cases and 208 (83%) controls (P < 0.001). Complications occurred in 5 (4%) cases and 17 (7%) controls (P = 0.28). Median fluoroscopy time (median 11 minutes vs. 3 minutes, P < 0.001) and CS angiography rate (55% vs. 21%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in low experienced centers, while success rate and complications rate were similar. CONCLUSIONS: EAMS-guided CRT implantation proved safe and effective in both high- and low-experienced centers and allowed to reduce fluoroscopy use by ≈75% and angiography rate by ≈70%.

Multicentre comparison Of shock efficacy using single-vs. Dual-coil lead systems and Anodal vs. cathodaL polarITY defibrillation in patients undergoing transvenous cardioverter-defibrillator implantation. The MODALITY study.

PURPOSE: An optimal active-can lead configuration during implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) placement is important to obtain an adequate defibrillation safety margin. The purpose of this multicenter study was to evaluate the rate of the first shock success at defibrillation testing according to the type of lead implant (single vs. dual coil) and shock polarity (cathodal and anodal) in a large series of consecutive patients who received transvenous ICDs. METHODS: This was a multicenter study enrolling 469 consecutive patients. Single- versus dual-coil leads and cathodal versus anodal polarity were evaluated at defibrillation testing. In all cases, the value of the energy for the first shock was set to 20 J less than the maximum energy deliverable from the device. RESULTS: A total of 469 patients underwent defibrillation testing: 158 (34 %) had dual-coil and 311 (66 %) had single-coil lead systems configuration, 254 (54 %) received anodal shock and 215 (46 %) received cathodal shock. In 35 (7.4 %) patients, the shock was unsuccessful. No significant differences in the outcome of defibrillation testing using single- versus dual-coil lead were observed but the multivariate analysis showed an increased risk of shock failure using cathodal shock polarity (OR 2.37, 95 % CI 1.12-5.03). CONCLUSIONS: Both single- and dual-coil transvenous ICD lead systems were associated with high rates of successful ICD implantation, and we found no significant differences in ventricular arrhythmias interruption between the two ICD lead systems configuration. Instead, anodal defibrillation was more likely to be successful than cathodal defibrillation.