Pulsed Field or Conventional Thermal Ablation for Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Catheter-based pulmonary vein isolation is an effective treatment for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation. Pulsed field ablation, which delivers microsecond high-voltage electrical fields, may limit damage to tissues outside the myocardium. The efficacy and safety of pulsed field ablation as compared with conventional thermal ablation are not known. METHODS: In this randomized, single-blind, noninferiority trial, we assigned patients with drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in a 1:1 ratio to undergo pulsed field ablation or conventional radiofrequency or cryoballoon ablation. The primary efficacy end point was freedom from a composite of initial procedural failure, documented atrial tachyarrhythmia after a 3-month blanking period, antiarrhythmic drug use, cardioversion, or repeat ablation. The primary safety end point included acute and chronic device- and procedure-related serious adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 305 patients were assigned to undergo pulsed field ablation, and 302 were assigned to undergo thermal ablation. At 1 year, the primary efficacy end point was met (i.e., no events occurred) in 204 patients (estimated probability, 73.3%) who underwent pulsed field ablation and 194 patients (estimated probability, 71.3%) who underwent thermal ablation (between-group difference, 2.0 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval, -5.2 to 9.2; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). Primary safety end-point events occurred in 6 patients (estimated incidence, 2.1%) who underwent pulsed field ablation and 4 patients (estimated incidence, 1.5%) who underwent thermal ablation (between-group difference, 0.6 percentage points; 95% Bayesian credible interval, -1.5 to 2.8; posterior probability of noninferiority, >0.999). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation receiving a catheter-based therapy, pulsed field ablation was noninferior to conventional thermal ablation with respect to freedom from a composite of initial procedural failure, documented atrial tachyarrhythmia after a 3-month blanking period, antiarrhythmic drug use, cardioversion, or repeat ablation and with respect to device- and procedure-related serious adverse events at 1 year. (Funded by Farapulse-Boston Scientific; ADVENT ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04612244.).

Pulsed Field Ablation for the Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: PULSED AF Pivotal Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pulsed field ablation uses electrical pulses to cause nonthermal irreversible electroporation and induce cardiac cell death. Pulsed field ablation may have effectiveness comparable to traditional catheter ablation while preventing thermally mediated complications. METHODS: The PULSED AF pivotal study (Pulsed Field Ablation to Irreversibly Electroporate Tissue and Treat AF) was a prospective, global, multicenter, nonrandomized, paired single-arm study in which patients with paroxysmal (n=150) or persistent (n=150) symptomatic atrial fibrillation (AF) refractory to class I or III antiarrhythmic drugs were treated with pulsed field ablation. All patients were monitored for 1 year using weekly and symptomatic transtelephonic monitoring; 3-, 6-, and 12-month ECGs; and 6- and 12-month 24-hour Holter monitoring. The primary effectiveness end point was freedom from a composite of acute procedural failure, arrhythmia recurrence, or antiarrhythmic escalation through 12 months, excluding a 3-month blanking period to allow recovery from the procedure. The primary safety end point was freedom from a composite of serious procedure- and device-related adverse events. Kaplan-Meier methods were used to evaluate the primary end points. RESULTS: Pulsed field ablation was shown to be effective at 1 year in 66.2% (95% CI, 57.9 to 73.2) of patients with paroxysmal AF and 55.1% (95% CI, 46.7 to 62.7) of patients with persistent AF. The primary safety end point occurred in 1 patient (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.1 to 4.6) in both the paroxysmal and persistent AF cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: PULSED AF demonstrated a low rate of primary safety adverse events (0.7%) and provided effectiveness consistent with established ablation technologies using a novel irreversible electroporation energy to treat patients with AF. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov; Unique identifier: NCT04198701.

Impact of omitting the intravenous heparin bolus on outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation.

BACKGROUND: Early guidance recommended a bolus of intravenous heparin at the beginning of leadless pacemaker (LP) implantation procedures. However, due to concern about bleeding complications, more recent practice has tended toward omitting the bolus and only running a continuous heparin infusion through the introducer sheath. The impact of omitting the heparin bolus on procedural outcomes is not clear. METHODS: We reviewed all Medtronic Micra LP implants at our institution from 9/2014 to 9/2022. The decision to bolus with heparin was at operator discretion. RESULTS: Among 621 LP implants, 326 received an intravenous heparin bolus, 243 did not, and 52 patients were excluded because heparin bolus status could not be confirmed. There was a trend toward more frequent omission of the heparin bolus with more recent implants. Median follow-up after LP implant was 14.3 (interquartile range [IQR]: 8.4-27.9) months. There was no difference between heparin bolus and no bolus groups in the number of device deployments/recaptures (1.42 ± 0.81 vs. 1.31 ± 0.66, p = .15). Implant-related adverse events were also similar between heparin bolus and no bolus groups: access-site hematoma requiring intervention (7 vs. 5, p = .99), pseudoaneurysm (1 vs. 1, p = .99), cardiac perforation (1 vs. 1, p = .99), intraprocedural device thrombus formation (2 vs. 4, p = .41), 30-day rehospitalization (21 vs. 15, p = .98), and 30-day all-cause mortality (16 vs. 14, p = .70). There was one additional nonfatal cardiac perforation in a patient who was excluded due to unknown heparin bolus status. Regarding device electrical parameters between heparin bolus and no bolus groups, there were no significant differences at the time of implant: pacing capture threshold 0.5 ± 0.4 vs. 0.5 ± 0.3, p = .10; pacing impedance 739.9 ± 226.4 vs. 719.1 ± 215.4, p = .52; R wave sensing 11.7 ± 5.7 vs. 12.0 ± 5.4, p = .34). Long-term device performance was also similar between groups. CONCLUSION: Omission of the systemic heparin bolus at the time of LP implantation appears safe in appropriately selected patients. Heparin bolus may still be considered in long cases requiring multiple device deployments or in patients at high risk for thrombotic complications.

Spontaneous fluctuation in atrial fibrillation burden and duration in patients with implantable loop monitors.

BACKGROUND: Most studies of device-detected atrial fibrillation (AF) have recommended indefinite anticoagulation once a patient crosses a particular threshold for AF duration or burden. However, durations and burdens are known to fluctuate over time, but little is known about the magnitude of spontaneous fluctuations and the potential impact on anticoagulation decisions. OBJECTIVE: To quantify spontaneous fluctuations in AF duration and burden in patients with implantable loop recorders (ILRs) METHODS: We reviewed all ILR interrogations for patients with non-permanent AF at our institution from 2018 to 2023. We excluded patients treated with rhythm control. The duration of longest AF episode at each interrogation was classified as < 6, 6-24, and > 24 h, and the AF burden reported at each interrogation was classified as < 2%, 2%-11.4%, and > 11.4%. RESULTS: Out of 156 patients, the mean age at ILR implant was 70.9 ± 12.5 years, CHA2DS2-VASc score was 4.2 ± 1.8, duration of ILR follow-up was 23.4 ± 11.2 months, and number of ILR interrogations per patient was 18.0 ± 8.9. The duration of longest AF episode at any point during follow-up was < 6 , 6-24 , and > 24 h in 110, 30, and 16 patients, respectively. Among the 30 patients with a longest AF episode of 6-24 h at some point during follow-up, out of 594 total ILR interrogations, only 75 (12%) showed a longest episode of 6-24 h. In the remaining 519 interrogations, the longest episode was < 6 h. In patients with a longest episode of > 24 h at any point during follow-up (n = 16), only 47 out of 320 total ILR interrogations (15%) showed an episode of > 24 h. When evaluating AF burden, 96, 38, and 22 patients had maximum reported AF burdens of < 2%, 2%-11.4%, and > 11.4% at any point during ILR follow-up. Among those with a maximum burden of 2%-11.4% at some point during follow-up (n = 38), out of 707 ILR interrogations, only 76 (11%) showed a burden of 2%-11.4%. In the remaining 631 interrogations, the burden was < 2%. In the 22 patients with a burden > 11.4% at some point during follow-up, only 80 out of 480 interrogations (17%) showed a burden of > 11.4%. In 65% of interrogations, the burden was < 2%. CONCLUSION: Significant, spontaneous fluctuations in AF burden and duration are common in patients with ILRs. Even in patients with AF episodes of 6-24 h or > 24 h at some point during follow-up, the vast majority of interrogations show episodes of < 6 h. Similarly, in patients with burdens of 2%-11.4% or > 11.4% at some point during follow-up, the vast majority of interrogations show burdens of < 2%. More data are needed to determine whether crossing an AF burden or duration threshold once is sufficient to merit lifelong anticoagulation or whether spontaneous fluctuations in AF burden and duration should impact anticoagulation decisions.

Outcomes of leadless pacemaker implantation after cardiac surgery and transcatheter structural valve interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Permanent pacing indications are common after cardiac surgery and transcatheter structural valve interventions. Leadless pacemakers (LPs) have emerged as a useful alternative to transvenous pacemakers. However, current commercially available LPs are unable to provide atrial pacing or cardiac resynchronization and relatively little is known about LP outcomes after cardiac surgery and transcatheter valve interventions. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who received a Micra VR (MicraTM MC1VR01) or Micra AV (MicraTM MC1AVR1) (Medtronic) leadless pacemaker following cardiac surgery or transcatheter structural valve intervention between September 2014 and September 2022. Device performance and clinical outcomes, including ventricular pacing burden, ejection fraction, and need for conversion to transvenous pacing systems, were evaluated during follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 78 patients were included, of whom 40 received a Micra VR LP implant, and 38 received a Micra AV LP implant. The mean age of the cohort was 65.9 ± 17.9 years, and 48.1% were females. The follow-up duration for the entire cohort was 1.3 ± 1.1 years: 1.6 ± 1.3 years for the Micra VR group and 0.8 ± 0.5 years for the Micra AV group. Among the cohort, 50 patients had undergone cardiac surgery and 28 underwent transcatheter structural valve interventions. Device electrical performance was excellent during follow-up, with a small but clinically insignificant increase in ventricular pacing threshold and a slight decrease in pacing impedance. The mean right ventricle pacing (RVP) burden significantly decreased over time in the entire cohort (74.3% ± 37.2% postprocedure vs. 47.7% ± 40.6% at last follow-up, p < .001), and left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) showed a modest but significant downward trend during follow-up (55.0% ± 10.6% vs. 51.5% ± 11.2% p < .001). Patients with Micra VR implants had significantly reduced LVEF during follow-up (54.1% ± 11.9% vs. 48.8% ± 11.9%, p = .003), whereas LVEF appeared stable in the Micra AV group during follow-up (56.1% ± 9.0% vs. 54.6% ± 9.7%, p = .06). Six patients (7.7%) required conversion to transvenous pacing systems, four who required cardiac resynchronization for drop in LVEF with high RVP burden and two who required dual-chamber pacemakers for symptomatic sinus node dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Leadless pacemakers provide a useful alternative to transvenous pacemakers in appropriately selected patients after cardiac surgery and transcatheter structural valve interventions. Device performance is excellent over medium-term follow-up. However, a significant minority of patients require conversion to transvenous pacing systems for cardiac resynchronization or atrial pacing support, demonstrating the need for close electrophysiologic follow-up in this cohort.

Same-day discharge following catheter ablation and venous closure with VASCADE MVP: A postmarket registry.

INTRODUCTION: Early and safe ambulation can facilitate same-day discharge (SDD) following catheter ablation, which can reduce resource utilization and healthcare costs and improve patient satisfaction. This study evaluated procedure success and safety of the VASCADE MVP venous vascular closure system in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). METHODS: The AMBULATE SDD Registry is a two-stage series of postmarket studies in patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF undergoing catheter ablation followed by femoral venous access-site closure with VASCADE MVP. Efficacy endpoints included SDD success, defined as the proportion of patients discharged the same day who did not require next-day hospital intervention for procedure/access site-related complications, and access site sustained success within 15 days of the procedure. RESULTS: Overall, 354 patients were included in the pooled study population, 151 (42.7%) treated for paroxysmal AF and 203 (57.3%) for persistent AF. SDD was achieved in 323 patients (91.2%) and, of these, 320 (99.1%) did not require subsequent hospital intervention based on all study performance outcomes. Nearly all patients (350 of 354; 98.9%) achieved total study success, with no subsequent hospital intervention required. No major access-site complications were recorded. Patients who had SDD were more likely to report procedure satisfaction than patients who stayed overnight. CONCLUSION: In this study, 99.7% of patients achieving SDD required no additional hospital intervention for access site-related complications during follow-up. SDD appears feasible and safe for eligible patients after catheter ablation for paroxysmal or persistent AF in which the VASCADE MVP is used for venous access-site closure.

Contact force catheter ablation for the treatment of persistent atrial fibrillation: Results from the PERSIST-END study.

INTRODUCTION: Use of a novel magnetic sensor enabled optical contact force ablation catheter has been established to be safe and effective for treatment of symptomatic drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) but has yet to be demonstrated in the persistent AF (PersAF) population. METHODS: PERSIST-END was a multicenter, prospective, nonrandomized, investigational study designed to demonstrate the safety and effectiveness of TactiCath™ Ablation Catheter, Sensor Enabled™(SE) (TactiCath SE) for use in the treatment of subjects with documented PersAF refractory or intolerant to at least one Class I/III AAD. The ablation strategy included pulmonary vein isolation and additional targets at physician discretion. Follow-up through 15-months, including a 3-month blanking period and 3-month therapy consolidation period, was performed with cardiac event and Holter monitoring. Primary safety, primary effectiveness, clinical success, and quality of life (QOL) endpoints were analyzed. RESULTS: Of 224 subjects enrolled at 21 investigational sites in the United States and Australia, 223 underwent ablation with the investigational catheter. The primary safety event rate was 3.1% (seven events in seven subjects). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from AF/atrial flutter/atrial tachycardia recurrence at 15-months was 61.6% and clinical success at 15 months was 89.8%. Subject QOL significantly improved following ablation as assessed via AFEQT (31.6 point increase, p < .0001) and EQ-5D-5L (10.7 point increase, p < .0001) and was met with a 53% reduction in all cause cardiovascular healthcare utilization. CONCLUSION: The sensor-enabled force-sensing catheter is safe and effective for the treatment of drug refractory recurrent symptomatic PersAF, reducing arrhythmia recurrence while improving QOL and healthcare utilization.

The hybrid convergent procedure for persistent and long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation from an electrophysiologist's perspective.

In atrial fibrillation (AF), the pulmonary veins (PVs) are central to arrhythmogenicity and are targeted by PV isolation (PVI). As AF progresses, triggers become more prevalent in non-PV areas including the left atrial posterior wall (LAPW). Reported benefits of LAPW isolation in Cox-maze IV led to exploration of ablation strategies using endocardial catheters. However, no single approach to endocardial LAPW isolation exists. Relative success in comparison to PVI alone has been mixed. The hybrid convergent procedure was developed to combine minimally invasive surgical and electrophysiology techniques to accomplish effective PVI and LAPW isolation. Epicardial LAPW isolation is performed by a cardiothoracic surgeon followed by endocardial ablation by an electrophysiologist who ensures PVI completion and targets any remaining gaps. Safety and effectiveness of hybrid convergent were evaluated in the prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial, Convergence of Epicardial and Endocardial Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Persistent AF (CONVERGE). CONVERGE compared the effectiveness of the hybrid convergent procedure to endocardial catheter ablation for treatment of drug-refractory persistent and long-standing persistent AF and demonstrated primary effectiveness of higher freedom from atrial arrhythmias absent new/increased dose previously failed/intolerant antiarrhythmic drugs through 12 months compared to endocardial catheter ablation. Greater freedom from AF and proportion of patients experiencing ≥90% burden reduction with hybrid convergent ablation were seen through 18 months of follow-up. Improved electrophysiology lab efficiency was demonstrated by the reduction in endocardial ablation time with addition of epicardial ablation. This multidisciplinary heart team procedure may improve outcomes in difficult-to-treat patients with advanced AF.

Posterior left atrial epicardial adipose tissue: scope of the problem and impact of new technology.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Patients with persistent forms of atrial fibrillation are seeking treatments based on the promise of better restoration of sinus rhythm with newer therapies. Successful catheter ablation and maintenance of atrial fibrillation in this subgroup is negatively impacted by the presence of epicardial adipose tissue (EAT) associated with the posterior left atrium. RECENT FINDINGS: EAT is now understood to be hormonally active and promotes adverse atrial remodelling, including fibrosis and myopathy. Despite being dominantly adipose tissue, it is known to be electrically active, comprising ganglia, neural tissue and ectopic atrial myocardium that may contribute to endo-epicardial dissociation and persistent electrical activity and atrial fibrillation despite good endocardial electrical silencing. Hybrid procedures that include direct epicardial ablation of the posterior wall, including the EAT, are associated with superior outcomes in nonparoxysmal atrial fibrillation. SUMMARY: Therapies for persistent atrial fibrillation that also ablate the EAT as part of a well tolerated transmural posterior wall ablation may improve outcomes in this challenging subset of patients.

Results from the prospective, multicenter AMBULATE-CAP trial: Reduced use of urinary catheters and protamine with hemostasis via the Mid-Bore Venous Vascular Closure System (VASCADE® MVP) following multi-access cardiac ablation procedures.

INTRODUCTION: Manual compression (MC), historically the most common method to achieve hemostasis after percutaneous vascular procedures, is time consuming, requires prolonged bedrest, and is uncomfortable for patients and clinicians. Recent studies demonstrate the efficacy and safety of vascular closure devices and suggest shorter times to hemostasis and patient ambulation compared with MC. The current study evaluated the feasibility of the VASCADE® venous vascular closure system (VVCS) while allowing for urinary catheter (UC) elimination, and elimination of protamine and/or same calendar day discharge (SCDD). METHODS AND RESULTS: In this prospective, multicenter trial, patients were enrolled and assigned to the following groups: no UC, no protamine, and/or SCDD (no co-enrollment in no protamine and SCDD). After completing the catheter-based cardiac procedure, access sites were closed using the VVCS. Outcomes included final hemostasis (all sites) without major access site-related complications at 30 days, rates of access site closure-related complications, device success, and study group success. All 168 patients had hemostasis without major access site-related complications through 30 days. In the no UC group, 160 out of 164 (97.6%) patients did not receive a UC. Additionally, 39 out of 41 (95.1%) patients received heparin without protamine reversal and no access site bleeding-related ambulation delays, and 18 out of 18 (100%) patients were discharged on the same day. There were no major access site closure-related complications, few minor complications, and adverse events were generally mild and well managed. CONCLUSION: The VVCS was effective for achieving hemostasis following catheter-based procedures; access site closure-related complications and adverse events were well managed.

Life cycle management of Micra transcatheter pacing system: Data from a high-volume center.

BACKGROUND: Data on the management of Micra transcatheter pacing system (TPS) at the time of an upgrade or during battery depletion is limited. OBJECTIVE: We sought to evaluate the management patterns of patients implanted with a Micra TPS during long-term follow-up. METHODS: We retrospectively identified patients who underwent Micra implantation from April 2014 to November 2019. We identified patients who underwent extraction (n = 11) or had an abandoned Micra (n = 12). RESULTS: We identified 302 patients who received a Micra during the period of the study. Mean age was 72.7 ± 15.4 years, 54.6% were men, and left ventricular ejection fraction was 51.9 ± 5.2%. Mean follow-up was 1105.5 ± 529.3 days. Procedural complications included pericardial tamponade (n = 1) treated with pericardiocentesis, significant rise in thresholds (n = 6) treated with reimplantation (n = 4), and major groin complications (n = 2). Indications for extraction included an upgrade to cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device (n = 3), bridging after extraction of an infected transvenous system (n = 3), elevated thresholds (n = 3), and non-Micra-related bacteremia (n = 2). The median time from implantation to extraction was 78 days (interquartile range: 14-113 days), with the longest extraction occurring at 1442 days. All extractions were successful, with no procedural or long-term complications. Indications for abandonment included the need for CRT (n = 6), battery depletion (n = 2), increasing thresholds/failure to capture (n = 3), and pacemaker syndrome (n = 1). All procedures were successful, with no procedural or long-term complications. CONCLUSION: In this large single-center study, 6% of patients implanted with a Micra required a system modification during long-term follow-up, most commonly due to the requirement for CRT pacing. These patients were managed successfully with extraction or abandonment.

Convergence of Epicardial and Endocardial RF Ablation for the Treatment of Symptomatic Persistent AF (CONVERGE Trial): Rationale and design.

Atrial fibrillation is the most common sustained arrhythmia affecting over 33 million people worldwide. Approximately 70% of AF patients have non-paroxysmal AF. As AF progresses from paroxysmal to non-paroxysmal forms, the prevalence of comorbidities increases. The efficacy of catheter ablation for persistent and long standing persistent (LSP) AF is <40%, often requiring multiple ablation procedures with greater cost and potentially more complications. There is an unmet need to effectively treat such patients. METHODS: CONVERGE is an investigational device exempt, prospective, multi-center, open label 2:1 randomized controlled pivotal study to evaluate the overall success of the Convergent hybrid procedure compared to endocardial catheter ablation for the treatment of symptomatic persistent AF refractory or intolerant to at least one Class I and /or III anti-arrhythmic drug (AAD). A total of 153 subjects at 27 centers are treated in the study. The CONVERGE study is differentiated from other studies currently being conducted on the persistent AF population, because a) there is no time restriction on the duration of diagnosed AF in the patients being studied and b) the trial allows patients with left atrial sizes up to 6 centimeters. The ongoing trials are limited to either 6 months, 12 months or 3-years of continuous AF making CONVERGE the only ablation trial thus far to include a substantial portion of patients with longstanding persistent AF. The convergent procedure involves combination of minimally invasive pericardioscopic epicardial ablation with endocardial left atrial ablation. The primary endpoint is freedom from AF/AFL/AF absent class I/III AAD, except for a previously failed class I/ III AAD with no increase in dosage following 3-months through 12-months. The primary safety endpoint is the incidence of major adverse events from the procedure through 30-days post procedure. CONCLUSION: CONVERGE AF compares the overall success of the Convergent hybrid procedure to endocardial catheter ablation for the treatment of persistent and longstanding persistent AF. By providing objective comparative data, the study aims to provide guidance on the treatment of such patients.

Evaluation of stroke incidence with duty-cycled multielectrode-phased radiofrequency ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation results of the VICTORY AF Study.

INTRODUCTION: The VICTORY AF Study was designed to evaluate the risk of the procedure and/or device-related strokes in patients with PersAF on warfarin undergoing ablation with a phased radiofrequency (RF) system. METHODS: The VICTORY AF trial was a prospective, multicenter, single-arm, investigational study. PersAF patients on vitamin K antagonism without major structural heart disease or history of stroke/transient ischemic attack undergoing phased RF ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of the procedure and/or device-related stroke within 30 days of the ablation by a board-certified neurologist's assessment. The secondary outcomes were an acute procedural success, 6 months effectiveness (defined as the reduction in AF/atrial flutter episodes lasting ≥10 minutes by 48-hour Holter 6 months postablation) and the number of patients with pulmonary vein (PV) stenosis. RESULTS: A total of 129 (108 PersAF, 21 long-standing PersAF) patients were treated (mean age: 60.6 ± 7.7; 79.8% male, 54.3% CHA2Ds2-VASc score ≥ 2). Two nondisabling strokes were reported (1.6%); one before discharge and the second diagnosed at the 30-day visit. Due to slow enrollment, the study was terminated before reaching the 95% one-sided upper confidence boundary for stroke incidence. Acute procedural success was 93.8%, and at 6 months, 72.8% of patients demonstrated ≥90% reduction in AF burden, 78.9% were off all antiarrhythmic drugs. There were no patients with PV stenosis of greater than 70%. CONCLUSIONS: VICTORY AF demonstrated a 1.6% incidence of stroke in PersAF undergoing ablation with a phased RF system which did not meet statistical confidence due to poor enrollment. The secondary outcomes suggest comparable efficacy to phased RF in the tailored treatment of permanent AF trial. Rigorous clinical evaluation of the stroke risk of new AF ablation technologies as well as restriction to Vitamin K antagonist anticoagulation appears to be unachievable goals in a clinical multicenter IDE trial of AF ablation in the current era.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices in patients with persistent left superior vena cava-A single center experience.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on cardiac implantable electronic device implantation (CIED) in patients with persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC). OBJECTIVE: To describe the outcomes of implanting CIEDs with a focus on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in patients with PLSVC. METHODS: We identified all patients with a PLSVC that underwent CIED implantation from December 2008 until February 2019 at our institution by querying the electronic medical record (n = 34). We then identified controls in a 3:1 fashion (n = 102) by matching on device type (CRT vs non-CRT). Procedure success, complications, fluoroscopy and procedural time were recorded. Outcomes were compared using a two-way analysis of variance test and conditional regression modeling for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. RESULTS: A total of 34 patients with PLSVC underwent 38 procedures. Four patients underwent dual chamber system implantation followed by a subsequent upgrade to CRT. Thirteen patients underwent CRT implantation: one was implanted via the right subclavian while the rest were implanted via the PLSVC. Left ventricular (P = .06). Procedure and fluoroscopy times were significantly higher in the PLSVC as compared with the control group (97.7 vs 66.1 minute, P < .001 and 18.1 minute vs 8.7 minutes, P = .005, respectively). CONCLUSION: CIED implant in patients with PLSVC is feasible but technically more challenging and appears to be associated with higher risk of right ventricular lead dislodgment.

Outcomes of convergent atrial fibrillation ablation with continuous rhythm monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Outcomes of catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation (PeAF) are suboptimal. The convergent procedure (CP) may offer improved efficacy by combining endocardial and epicardial ablation. METHODS: We reviewed 113 consecutive patients undergoing the CP at our institution. The cohort was divided into two groups based on the presence (n = 92) or absence (n = 21) of continuous rhythm monitoring (CM) following the CP. Outcomes were reported in two ways. First, using a conventional definition of any atrial fibrillation/atrial tachycardia (AF/AT) recurrence lasting >30 seconds, after a 90 day blanking period. Second, by determining AF/AT burden at relevant time points in the group with CM. RESULTS: Across the entire cohort, 88% had either persistent or long-standing persistent AF, mean duration of AF diagnosis before the CP was 5.1 ± 4.6 years, 45% had undergone at least one prior AF ablation, 31% had impaired left ventricle ejection fraction and 62% met criteria for moderate or severe left atrial enlargement. Mean duration of follow-up after the CP was 501 ± 355 days. In the entire cohort, survival free from any AF/AT episode >30 seconds at 12 months after the blanking period was 53%. However, among those in the CM group who experienced recurrences, mean burden of AF/AT was generally very low (<5%) and remained stable over the duration of follow-up. Ten patients (9%) required elective cardioversion outside the 90 day blanking period, 11 patients (9.7%) underwent repeat ablation at a mean of 229 ± 178 days post-CP and 64% were off AADs at the last follow-up. Procedural complications decreased significantly following the transition from transdiaphragmatic to sub-xiphoid surgical access: 23% versus 3.8% (P = .005) CONCLUSIONS: In a large, consecutive series of patients with predominantly PeAF, the CP was capable of reducing AF burden to very low levels (generally <5%), which appeared durable over time. Complication rates associated with the CP decreased significantly with the transition from transdiaphragmatic to sub-xiphoid surgical access. Future trials will be necessary to determine which patients are most likely to benefit from the convergent approach.

Effect of Catheter Ablation With Vein of Marshall Ethanol Infusion vs Catheter Ablation Alone on Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: The VENUS Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Catheter ablation of persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) has limited success. Procedural strategies beyond pulmonary vein isolation have failed to consistently improve results. The vein of Marshall contains innervation and AF triggers that can be ablated by retrograde ethanol infusion. Objective: To determine whether vein of Marshall ethanol infusion could improve ablation results in persistent AF when added to catheter ablation. Design, Setting, and Participants: The Vein of Marshall Ethanol for Untreated Persistent AF (VENUS) trial was an investigator-initiated, National Institutes of Health-funded, randomized, single-blinded trial conducted in 12 centers in the United States. Patients (N = 350) with persistent AF referred for first ablation were enrolled from October 2013 through June 2018. Follow-up concluded in June 2019. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to catheter ablation alone (n = 158) or catheter ablation combined with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion (n = 185) in a 1:1.15 ratio to accommodate for 15% technical vein of Marshall ethanol infusion failures. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was freedom from AF or atrial tachycardia for longer than 30 seconds after a single procedure, without antiarrhythmic drugs, at both 6 and 12 months. Outcome assessment was blinded to randomization treatment. There were 12 secondary outcomes, including AF burden, freedom from AF after multiple procedures, perimitral block, and others. Results: Of the 343 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 66.5 [9.7] years; 261 men), 316 (92.1%) completed the trial. Vein of Marshall ethanol was successfully delivered in 155 of 185 patients. At 6 and 12 months, the proportion of patients with freedom from AF/atrial tachycardia after a single procedure was 49.2% (91/185) in the catheter ablation combined with vein of Marshall ethanol infusion group compared with 38% (60/158) in the catheter ablation alone group (difference, 11.2% [95% CI, 0.8%-21.7%]; P = .04). Of the 12 secondary outcomes, 9 were not significantly different, but AF burden (zero burden in 78.3% vs 67.9%; difference, 10.4% [95% CI, 2.9%-17.9%]; P = .01), freedom from AF after multiple procedures (65.2% vs 53.8%; difference, 11.4% [95% CI, 0.6%-22.2%]; P = .04), and success achieving perimitral block (80.6% vs 51.3%; difference, 29.3% [95% CI, 19.3%-39.3%]; P < .001) were significantly improved in vein of Marshall-treated patients. Adverse events were similar between groups. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with persistent AF, addition of vein of Marshall ethanol infusion to catheter ablation, compared with catheter ablation alone, increased the likelihood of remaining free of AF or atrial tachycardia at 6 and 12 months. Further research is needed to assess longer-term efficacy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01898221.

Assessment of diagnostic accuracy of SanketLife - A wireless, pocket-sized ECG biosensor, in comparison to standard 12 lead ECG in the detection of cardiovascular diseases in a tertiary care setting.

BACKGROUND: The SanketLife is a low cost, portable, pocket sized 12 lead ECG mechanised by SanketLife app running on compatible iOS and Android phones that connect wirelessly via Bluetooth technology to the device. OBJECTIVE: The current study was conducted to assess the diagnostic accuracy of SanketLife ECG in comparison to standard 12 lead ECG (GE-2000) in detection of cardiovascular diseases. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a prospective diagnostic test accuracy trial conducted in outpatient settings of a tertiary cardiac care centre in India. A total of 100 patients, attended cardiology OPD, were included in the study. Consecutive ECGs were taken by 12 lead standard ECG as well as by SanketLife ECG. Diagnostic accuracy variables such as sensitivity, specificity, negative and positive predictive value, negative and positive likelihood ratios were estimated. Ethical permission was taken from the Institutional ethical committee. RESULTS & CONCLUSION: The analysis showed a high degree of agreement and accuracy of SanketLife in detecting major cardiovascular conditions (Major Minnesota codes) such as Left and right bundle branch block, ST-segment elevation and ST-segment depression, AV conduction block. SanketLife showed high sensitivity (98.15%) and specificity (100%) in diagnosing major cardiovascular conditions.

Clinical Performance of Magnetic Resonance Imaging Conditional and Nonconditional Cardiac Implantable Electronic Devices.

OBJECTIVES: This study compared risks associated with magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) in patients with non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional pacing and defibrillator systems with particular attention to clinically actionable outcomes. BACKGROUND: While recipients of new MRI conditional pacemaker and defibrillator systems may undergo MRI scanning with very low risk, safety and regulatory concerns persist regarding such scanning in recipients of non-MRI conditional systems. METHODS: Patients with any cardiac device who were referred for MRI were prospectively enrolled at a single center and underwent scanning at 1.5 Tesla. Pre- and postscan lead characteristic changes, system integrity, and symptoms were analyzed. A comparison was made between non-MRI conditional and MRI conditional devices. RESULTS: 105 patients were evaluated allowing for comparison of 97 scans with non-MRI conditional devices and 16 scans with MRI conditional devices. The cohort included those with pacemaker dependency, defibrillator, and cardiac resynchronization devices. Small, nonsignificant changes were observed in lead characteristics following scanning, and there was no significant difference when comparing non-MRI and MRI conditional devices. Lead parameter changes did not require lead revision or programming changes. No device reset, failures, or premature scan termination was observed. CONCLUSIONS: 1.5 T MRI scanning in patients with MRI conditional and non-MRI conditional cardiac devices was performed with similar, low clinical risk.

Outcome of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantation in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis.

BACKGROUND: Although the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD®) is an attractive alternative in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD), data on S-ICD outcomes in dialysis patients are lacking. METHODS: Patients with cardiomyopathy undergoing S-ICD implantation in our center were stratified by need for chronic dialysis at the time of implant. The primary endpoint was incidence of death, heart failure hospitalization or appropriate S-ICD shocks, and secondary endpoints were incidence of inappropriate shocks or implant related complications requiring surgical re-intervention. Mean follow-up was longer in the nondialysis cohort (514 ± 495 vs. 227 ± 233 days, P = 0.006), so all endpoints were analyzed using time-dependent comparisons and reported as annual event rates. RESULTS: Out of 79 S-ICD implants included in this analysis, 27 patients were on dialysis. Dialysis patients were older and more likely to be diabetic. Mean ejection fraction across the entire cohort was 26.9% without significant difference between dialysis and nondialysis groups. Although not significant, the incidence of the primary endpoint was higher in the dialysis cohort (23.8%/year vs. 10.9%/year, P = 0.317), driven primarily by a higher rate of appropriate shocks. The rate of inappropriate shocks was similar between groups (dialysis 6.0%/year vs. nondialysis 6.8%/year, P = 0.509). No patients in the dialysis cohort had complications requiring surgical re-intervention versus 6 patients in the nondialysis cohort (P = 0.086). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that S-ICD implantation in dialysis patients is not associated with an excess risk of implant related complications or inappropriate shocks.

Predictors of Long-Term Survival Following Transvenous Extraction of Defibrillator Leads.

BACKGROUND: Little data exist on long-term outcomes following extraction of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) leads, particularly for noninfectious indications. We sought to identify predictors of long-term survival after ICD lead extraction. METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed ICD lead extractions at our institution (n = 508). Procedural outcomes and long-term survival were ascertained by medical records review. RESULTS: Indication for lead extraction was infection in 32.5% and lead failure in 61.8%. Mean dwell time of the oldest extracted lead was 5.1 ± 5.9 years. Complete procedural success was achieved in 96.5% of cases. Major procedure-related complications occurred in 1.6% with six periprocedural deaths. During a mean follow-up of 866 ± 798 days, survival was significantly worse among patients with infection as the indication for extraction. At 1 year after extraction, survival among those with infection was 88.2%, compared to 95.0% in the lead failure cohort (P < 0.001). Procedural failure was a significant predictor of long-term mortality, even after excluding periprocedural deaths. In multivariate models, the presence of chronic kidney disease, increased number of leads requiring extraction, lower ejection fraction, and procedural failure were predictors of mortality. CONCLUSION: Despite high rates of procedural success, infectious indication for ICD lead extraction is associated with increased long-term mortality. In contrast, among patients undergoing extraction for lead failure, long-term survival was excellent. The presence of procedural failure was a significant predictor of long-term mortality. Further studies will be necessary to better understand the mechanisms by which procedural failure may adversely impact long-term outcomes.