Safety and effectiveness of transvenous lead extraction in octogenarians.

INTRODUCTION: As the population ages, the number of elderly patients with implantable cardiac devices referred for transvenous lead extraction will dramatically increase in Western countries. The safety and effectiveness of lead extraction in elderly patients has not been well evaluated. We report the safety and effectiveness of transvenous lead extraction in octogenarians. METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 2005 to January 2011, we reviewed data from consecutive patients ≥ 80 years referred to our institutions for transvenous lead extraction because of cardiac device infection or lead malfunction. Clinical characteristics, procedural features, and periprocedural major and minor complications were compared between octogenarians and younger patients. Out of 849 patients undergoing lead extraction in the participating institutions during the study period, 150 (18%) patients were octogenarians (mean age 84 years; range 80-96; 64% males). A significantly higher percentage of octogenarians presented with chronic renal failure (55% vs 26%; P < 0.001), history of malignancy (22% vs 6%; P < 0.001), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (46% vs 19%; P < 0.001). Complete lead extraction rates were similar in the 2 age groups (97% in octogenarians vs 96% in patients <80 years; P = 0.39). Periprocedural death occurred in 2 (1.3%) patients ≥80 years and in 5 (0.72%) patients <80 years (P = 0.45 for comparison). No differences in terms of other periprocedural major and minor complications were found between the 2 age groups. CONCLUSION: Despite presenting with a significantly higher rate of comorbidities, transvenous lead extraction can be performed safely and successfully in octogenarians.

Positioning of left ventricular pacing lead guided by intracardiac echocardiography with vector velocity imaging during cardiac resynchronization therapy procedure.

INTRODUCTION: Intraoperative modality for "real-time" left ventricular (LV) dyssynchrony quantification and optimal resynchronization is not established. This study determined the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE), coupled with vector velocity imaging (VVI), to evaluate LV dyssynchrony and to guide LV lead placement at the time of cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implant. METHODS: One hundred and four consecutive heart failure patients undergoing ICE-guided (Group 1, N = 50) or conventional (Group 2, N = 54) CRT implant were included in the study. For Group 1 patients, LV dyssynchrony and resynchronization were evaluated by VVI including visual algorithms and the maximum differences in time-to-peak (MD-TTP) radial strain. Based on the findings, the final LV lead site was determined and optimal resynchronization was achieved. CRT responders were defined using standard criteria 6 months after implantation. RESULTS: Both groups underwent CRT implant with no complications. In Group 1, intraprocedural optimal resynchronization by VVI including visual algorithms and MD-TTP was a predictor discriminating CRT response with a sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 89%. Use of ICE/VVI increased number of and predicted CRT responders (82% in Group 1 vs 63% in Group 2; OR = 2.68, 95% CI 1.08-6.65, P = 0.03). CONCLUSION: ICE can be safely performed during CRT implantation. "Real-time" VVI appears to be helpful in determining the final LV lead position and pacing mode that allow better intraprocedural resynchronization. VVI-optimized acute resynchronization predicts CRT response and this approach is associated with higher number of CRT responders.

Ablation of atrial fibrillation utilizing robotic catheter navigation in comparison to manual navigation and ablation: single-center experience.

BACKGROUND: Robotic catheter navigation and ablation either with magnetic catheter driving or with electromechanical guidance have emerged in the recent years for the treatment of atrial fibrillation. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare our center's experience of atrial fibrillation ablation using the Hansen Robotic Medical System with our current manual ablation technique in terms of acute and chronic success, as well as procedure time and radiation exposure to both the patient and the operator. METHODS: A total of 390 consecutive patients with symptomatic and drug-resistant atrial fibrillation (289 males, 62 +/- 11 years) were prospectively enrolled in the study. All patients underwent the procedure either with conventional manual ablation (group 1, n = 197) or with the robotic navigation system (RNS) (group 2, n = 193). RESULTS: The success rate for RNS was 85% (164 patients), while for manual ablation it was 81% (159 patients) (p = 0.264) at 14.1 +/- 1.3 months with AADs previously ineffective. Fluoroscopy time was significantly lower for RNS (48.9 +/- 24.6 minutes for RNS vs. 58.4 +/- 20.1 minutes for manual ablation, P < 0.001). Mean fluoroscopy time was statistically reduced after 50 procedures (61.8 +/- 23.2 minutes for first 50 cases vs. 44.5 +/- 23.6 minutes for subsequent procedures, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Robotic navigation and ablation of atrial fibrillation is safe and effective. Fluoroscopy time decreases with experience.