Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients with Heart Failure: A MANIFEST-PF Sub-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) coexist, increasing morbidity and mortality. Studies have demonstrated improved outcomes following AF ablation in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF). OBJECTIVE: To assess the outcomes of pulsed-field ablation (PFA) in HF. METHODS: MANIFEST-PF is a multicenter patient-level registry of consecutive patients undergoing PFA for paroxysmal (PAF) or persistent AF (PerAF). In this sub-study, patients were stratified as: no history of HF (no-HF), HF with preserved EF (HFPEF; LVEF≥50%) or HF with reduced/mildly-reduced EF (HFMR/REF; LVEF<50%). The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were freedom from documented atrial arrhythmias lasting ≥30s and major adverse events (MAEs), respectively. RESULTS: Of the 1,381 patients, 85% (n=1,174) were no-HF, 6.2% (n=87) were HFPEF, and 8.6% (n=120) were HFMR/REF. No-HF patients had less PerAF than patients with HF (p<0.001), with no difference between HF subtypes (p=1.00). The 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in no-HF than with HFPEF or HFMR/REF (79.9%, 71.3%, 67.5%, p<0.001), but similar between HFMR/REF and HFPEF (p=0.26). However, there was no significant difference in freedom from atrial arrhythmia among patients with no-HF vs HFPEF vs HFMR/REF for those with PAF (82.8%/82.4%/71.7%, p=0.09) and PerAF (73.3%, 64.2%, and 64.9%, p=0.14.MAE rates were similar between the no-HF, HFPEF and HFMR/REF groups (1.9%, 0%, and 2.5%, respectively). CONCLUSION: PFA appears to be potentially safe and effective in AF patients with HF. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia post-PFA was higher in patients without a history of HF, with no significant difference between HF subtypes.

Safety and Effectiveness of Pulsed Field Ablation for Atrial Fibrillation in Patients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) coexist, increasing morbidity and mortality. Studies have demonstrated improved outcomes following AF ablation in HF patients with reduced ejection fraction (EF). OBJECTIVE: This study sought to assess the outcomes of pulsed field ablation (PFA) in HF. METHODS: MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-Approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) is a multicenter, patient-level registry of consecutive patients undergoing PFA for paroxysmal AF or persistent AF (PerAF). In this substudy, patients were stratified as no history of HF (no-HF), HF with preserved EF (HFpEF) (left ventricular EF of ≥50%) or HF with reduced/mildly reduced EF (HFmr/rEF) (left ventricular EF of <50%). The primary effectiveness and safety endpoints were freedom from documented atrial arrhythmias lasting ≥30 seconds and major adverse events, respectively. RESULTS: Of the 1,381 patients, 85% (n = 1,174) were no-HF, 6.2% (n = 87) were HFpEF, and 8.6% (n = 120) were HFmr/rEF. No-HF patients had less PerAF than patients with HF (P < 0.001), with no difference between HF subtypes (P = >0.99). The 1-year freedom from atrial arrhythmia was significantly higher in no-HF patients than in those with HFpEF or HFmr/rEF (79.9%, 71.3%, and 67.5%, respectively; P < 0.001) but similar between patients with HFmr/rEF and HFpEF (P = 0.26). However, there was no significant difference in freedom from atrial arrhythmia among patients with no-HF vs HFpEF vs HFmr/rEF for those with paroxysmal AF (82.8%, 82.4%, and 71.7%, respectively; P = 0.09) and PerAF (73.3%, 64.2%, and 64.9%, respectively; P = 0.14). Major adverse event rates were similar between the no-HF, HFpEF, and HFmr/rEF groups (1.9%, 0%, and 2.5%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PFA appears to be potentially safe and effective in AF patients with HF. Freedom from atrial arrhythmia post-PFA was higher in patients without a history of HF, with no significant difference between HF subtypes.

Arrhythmia monitoring and outcome after myocardial infarction (BIO|GUARD-MI): a randomized trial.

Objectives: Cardiac arrhythmias predict poor outcome after myocardial infarction (MI). We studied if arrhythmia monitoring with an insertable cardiac monitor (ICM) can improve treatment and outcome. Design: BIO|GUARD-MI was a randomized, international open-label study with blinded outcome assessment. Setting: Tertiary care facilities monitored the arrhythmias, while the follow-up remained with primary care physicians. Participants: Patients after ST-elevation (STEMI) or non-ST-elevation MI with an ejection fraction >35% and a CHA2DS2-VASc score ≥4 (men) or ≥5 (women). Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned to receive or not receive an ICM in addition to standard post-MI treatment. Device-detected arrhythmias triggered immediate guideline recommended therapy changes via remote monitoring. Main outcome measures: MACE, defined as a composite of cardiovascular death or acute unscheduled hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. Results: 790 patients (mean age 71 years, 72% male, 51% non-STEMI) of planned 1,400 pts were enrolled and followed for a median of 31.6 months. At 2 years, 39.4% of the device group and 6.7% of the control group had their therapy adapted for an arrhythmia [hazard ratio (HR) = 5.9, P < 0.0001]. Most frequent arrhythmias were atrial fibrillation, pauses and bradycardia. The use of an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort (HR = 0.84, 95%-CI: 0.65-1.10; P = 0.21). In secondary analysis, a statistically significant interaction of the type of infarction suggests a benefit in the pre-specified non-STEMI subgroup. Risk factor analysis indicates that this may be connected to the higher incidence of MACE in patients with non-STEMI. Conclusions: The burden of asymptomatic but actionable arrhythmias is large in post-infarction patients. However, arrhythmia monitoring with an ICM did not improve outcome in the entire cohort. Post-hoc analysis suggests that it may be beneficial in non-STEMI patients or other high-risk subgroups. Clinical Trial Registration: [https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02341534], NCT02341534.

Initial experience, safety, and feasibility using remote access or onsite technical support for complex ablation procedures: results of the REMOTE study.

Aims: Electroanatomical mapping (EAM) systems are essential for the treatment of cardiac arrhythmias. The EAM system is usually operated by qualified staff or field technical engineers from the control room. Novel remote support technology allows for remote access of EAM via online services. Remote access increases the flexibility of the electrophysiological lab, reduces travel time, and overcomes hospital access limitations especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Here, we report on the feasibility and safety of EAM remote access for cardiac ablation procedures. Methods and results: Mapping and ablation were achieved by combining the EnsiteX™ EAM system and the integrated Ensite™ Connect Remote Support software, together with an integrated audiovisual solution system for remote support (Medinbox). Communication between the operator and the remote support was achieved using an incorporated internet-based common communication platform (Zoom™), headphones, and high-resolution cameras. We investigated 50 remote access-assisted consecutive electrophysiological procedures from September 2022 to February 2023 (remote group). The data were compared with matched patients (n = 50) with onsite support from the control room (control group). The median procedure time was 100 min (76, 120; remote) vs. 86 min (60, 110; control), P = 0.090. The procedural success (both groups 100%, P = 0.999) and complication rate (remote: 2%, control: 0%, P = 0.553) were comparable between the groups. Travel burden could be reduced by 11 280 km. Conclusion: Remote access for EAM was feasible and safe in this single-centre study. Procedural data were comparable to procedures with onsite support. In the future, this new solution might have a great impact on facilitating electrophysiological procedures.

Sex differences among subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator recipients: a propensity-matched, multicentre, international analysis from the i-SUSI project.

AIMS: Women have been historically underrepresented in implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) trials. No data on sex differences regarding subcutaneous ICDs (S-ICD) carriers have been described. Aim of our study was to investigate sex-related differences among unselected S-ICD recipients. METHODS AND RESULTS: Consecutive patients enrolled in the multicentre, international i-SUSI registry were analysed. Comparisons between sexes were performed using a 1:1 propensity matching adjusted analysis for age, body mass index (BMI), left ventricular function, and substrate. The primary outcome was the rate of appropriate shocks during follow-up. Inappropriate shocks and other device-related complications were deemed secondary outcomes. A total of 1698 patients were extracted from the i-SUSI registry; 399 (23.5%) were females. After propensity matching, two cohorts of 374 patients presenting similar baseline characteristics were analysed. Despite similar periprocedural characteristics and a matched BMI, women resulted at lower risk of conversion failure as per PRAETORIAN score (73.4% vs. 81.3%, P = 0.049). Over a median follow-up time of 26.5 [12.7-42.5] months, appropriate shocks were more common in the male cohort (rate/year 3.4% vs. 1.7%; log-rank P = 0.049), while no significant differences in device-related complications (rate/year: 6.3% vs. 5.8%; log-rank P = 0.595) and inappropriate shocks (rate/year: 4.3% vs. 3.1%; log-rank P = 0.375) were observed. After controlling for confounders, sex remained significantly associated with the primary outcome (aHR 1.648; CI 0.999-2.655, P = 0.048), while not resulting predictor of inappropriate shocks and device-related complications. CONCLUSION: In a propensity-matched cohort of S-ICD recipients, women are less likely to experience appropriate ICD therapy, while not showing higher risk of device-related complications. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0473876.

[Lead placement in cardiac implantable electronic devices]. / Elektrodenplatzierung in der kardialen Devicetherapie.

The implantation of electrodes for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) requires profound technical understanding and precise execution. The positioning of electrodes in the right ventricle and atrium has significant implications for patient safety and the effectiveness of CIED therapy. Particular focus is given to the distinction between apical and septal stimulation in ventricular positioning. Based on current data, this article provides a practice-oriented guide that leads implanters through the individual steps of electrode positioning. The implantation of electrodes for physiological stimulation (cardiac resynchronization therapy, CRT, and conduction system pacing, CSP) is not addressed in this article.

Mortality and rehospitalization in patients with pre-existing implantable pacemakers undergoing catheter ablation are related to increased comorbidity burden-data from the German Ablation Registry.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter is routinely performed in patients with implantable devices. The aim of the present study was to assess success rates and potential complications in a large registry cohort of patients with cardiac pacemakers. METHODS AND RESULTS: The German Ablation Registry is a nationwide, prospective registry with a 1-year follow-up investigating patients who underwent catheter ablation of supraventricular arrhythmias in 51 German centers. The present analysis focussed on the presence of cardiac pacemakers in 591 patients undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. These were compared to 7393 patients without a pacemaker. Patients with pacemakers were significantly older and presented more comorbidities like diabetes, renal failure, cardiovascular disease, or previous stroke. One-year mortality (2.4% vs. 1.3%, p = 0.022) and a combined endpoint of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke (3.6% vs. 2.1%, p = 0.014) were significantly elevated in patients with pacemakers. Re-hospitalization was also more common in patients with a pacemaker (53.3% vs. 45.0%, p < 0.01). After adjustment for important comorbidities, pre-existing pacemaker systems did not show any negative effect. Procedural success was reported in 98.8% vs. 98.4% (p = 0.93). Device-related complications were only observed in 0.4% of patients with pacemakers. CONCLUSION: Patients with pacemaker systems undergoing catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter demonstrate an increased risk of death, cardiovascular events, and re-hospitalization. This observation can be largely attributed to an older patient population and an increased rate of comorbidities.

Impact of ventricular tachycardia ablation in subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator carriers: a multicentre, international analysis from the iSUSI project.

AIMS: Catheter ablation (CA) of ventricular tachycardia (VT) has become an important tool to improve clinical outcomes in patients with appropriate transvenous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks. The aim of our analysis was to test whether VT ablation (VTA) impacts long-term clinical outcomes even in subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) carriers. METHODS AND RESULTS: International Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator (iSUSI) registry patients who experienced either an ICD shock or a hospitalization for monomorphic VT were included in this analysis. Based on an eventual VTA after the index event, patients were divided into VTA+ vs. VTA- cohorts. Primary outcome of the study was the occurrence of a combination of device-related appropriate shocks, monomorphic VTs, and cardiovascular mortality. Secondary outcomes were addressed individually. Among n = 1661 iSUSI patients, n = 211 were included: n = 177 experiencing ICD shocks and n = 34 hospitalized for VT. No significant differences in baseline characteristics were observed. Both the crude and the yearly event rate of the primary outcome (5/59 and 3.8% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 41/152 and 16.4% yearly event rate in the VTA-; log-rank: P value = 0.0013) and the cardiovascular mortality (1/59 and 0.7% yearly event rate VTA+ vs. 13/152 and 4.7% yearly event rate VTA-; log-rank P = 0.043) were significantly lower in the VTA + cohort. At multivariate analysis, VTA was the only variable remaining associated with a lower incidence of the primary outcome [adjusted hazard ratio 0.262 (0.100-0.681), P = 0.006]. CONCLUSION: In a real-world registry of S-ICD carriers, the combined study endpoint of arrhythmic events and cardiovascular mortality was lower in the patient cohort undergoing VTA at long-term follow-up. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT0473876.

Economic Considerations of Cardiovascular Implantable Electronic Devices for The Treatment of Heart Failure.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem worldwide, affecting more than 64 million people [1]. The complex and severe nature of HF presents challenges in providing cost-effective care as patients often require multiple hospitalizations and treatments. This review of relevant studies with focus on the last 10 years summarizes the health and economic implications of various HF treatment options in Europe and beyond. Although the main cost drivers in HF treatment are clinical (re)admission and decompensation of HF, an assessment of the economic impacts of various other device therapy options for HF care are included in this review. This includes: cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as cardiac-resynchronisation-therapy devices that include pacemaking (CRT-P), cardiac-resynchronisation-therapy devices that include defibrillation (CRT-D), implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) and various types of pacemakers. The impact of (semi)automated (tele)monitoring as a relevant factor for increasing both the quality and economic impact of care is also taken into consideration. Quality of life adjusted life years (QALYs) are used in the overall context as a composite metric reflecting quantity and quality of life as a standardized measurement of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of different device-based HF interventions. RECENT FINDINGS: In terms of the total cost of different devices, CRT-Ds were found in several studies to be more expensive than all other devices in regards to runtime and maintenance costs including (re)implantation. In the case of CRT combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D) versus ICD alone, CRT-D was found to be the most cost-effective treatment in research work over the past 10 years. Further comparison between CRT-D vs. CRT-P does not show an economic advantage of CRT-D as a minority of patients require shock therapy. Furthermore, a positive health economic effect and higher survival rate is seen in CRT-P full ventricular stimulation vs. right heart only stimulation. Telemedical care has been found to provide a positive health economic impact for selected patient groups-even reducing patient mortality. For heart failure both in ICD and CRT-D subgroups the given telemonitoring benefit seems to be greater in higher-risk populations with a worse HF prognosis. In patients with HF, all CIED therapies are in the range of commonly accepted cost-effectiveness. QALY and ICER calculations provide a more nuanced understanding of the economic impact these therapies create in the healthcare landscape. For severe cases of HF, CRT-D with telemedical care seems to be the better option from a health economic standpoint, as therapy is more expensive, but costs per QALY range below the commonly accepted threshold.

Venous vascular closure system vs. figure-of-eight suture following atrial fibrillation ablation: the STYLE-AF Study.

AIMS: Simplified ablation technologies for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) are increasingly performed worldwide. One of the most common complications following PVI are vascular access-related complications. Lately, venous closure systems (VCSs) were introduced into clinical practice, aiming to reduce the time of bed rest, to increase the patients' comfort, and to reduce vascular access-related complications. The aim of the present study is to compare the safety and efficacy of using a VCS to achieve haemostasis following single-shot PVI to the actual standard of care [figure-of-eight suture and manual compression (MC)]. METHODS AND RESULTS: This is a prospective, multicentre, randomized, controlled, open-label trial performed at three German centres. Patients were randomized 1:1 to undergo haemostasis either by means of VCS (VCS group) or of a figure-of-eight suture and MC (F8 group). The primary efficacy endpoint was the time to ambulation, while the primary safety endpoint was the incidence of major periprocedural adverse events until hospital discharge. A total of 125 patients were randomized. The baseline characteristics were similar between the groups. The VCS group showed a shorter time to ambulation [109.0 (82.0, 160.0) vs. 269.0 (243.8, 340.5) min; P < 0.001], shorter time to haemostasis [1 (1, 2) vs. 5 (2, 10) min; P < 0.001], and shorter time to discharge eligibility [270 (270, 270) vs. 340 (300, 458) min; P < 0.001]. No major vascular access-related complication was reported in either group. A trend towards a lower incidence of minor vascular access-related complications on the day of procedure was observed in the VCS group [7 (11.1%) vs. 15 (24.2%); P = 0.063] as compared to the control group. CONCLUSION: Following AF ablation, the use of a VCS results in a significantly shorter time to ambulation, time to haemostasis, and time to discharge eligibility. No major vascular access-related complications were identified. The use of MC and a figure-of-eight suture showed a trend towards a higher incidence of minor vascular access-related complications.

Surgical ventricular reconstruction and intraoperative cryoablation in a patient with drug-refractory ventricular tachycardia and left ventricular thrombus: a case report.

Background: Despite modern techniques for ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT), the procedure faces challenges such as deep intramural substrates or inaccessibility of the pericardial space. We aim to present a case of successful surgical treatment of a patient with drug-refractory VT, an apical aneurysm, large left ventricular (LV) thrombus, and recurrent implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shocks following failed epicardial catheter ablation. Case summary: A 67-year-old male with a history of ischaemic cardiomyopathy was brought to the emergency room after a syncope because of VT. The VT was terminated by an external cardioversion prior to admission. The ICD interrogation showed an episode of sustained monomorphic VT with eight appropriate but mostly ineffective ICD shocks. An echocardiogram revealed an apical aneurysm with a thrombus. Anticoagulation and antiarrhythmic drug therapy were initiated. Days later, the patient suffered recurrent episodes of sustained VTs, refractory to pharmacological therapy, and epicardial ablation; therefore, following aneurysmectomy and thrombus removal, a reconstruction of the LV and surgical endocardial cryoablation were performed. In addition, ICD extraction was done due to recurrent bacteraemia with Staphylococcus aureus. A subcutaneous ICD was later implanted. After surgery, the patient remained free of any VT episodes during 44 months of follow-up. Conclusion: Combined surgical ventricular reconstruction and intraoperative cryoablation may be considered as an alternative, highly effective therapy in patients with drug-refractory VTs in the setting of a LV thrombus.

Impact of Left Atrial Posterior Wall Ablation During Pulsed-Field Ablation for Persistent Atrial Fibrillation.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) alone is insufficient to treat many patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (PersAF). Adjunctive left atrial posterior wall (LAPW) ablation with thermal technologies has revealed lack of efficacy, perhaps limited by the difficulty in achieving lesion durability amid concerns of esophageal injury. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to compare the safety and effectiveness of PVI + LAPW ablation vs PVI in patients with PersAF using pulsed-field ablation (PFA). METHODS: In a retrospective analysis of the MANIFEST-PF (Multi-National Survey on the Methods, Efficacy, and Safety on the Post-approval Clinical Use of Pulsed Field Ablation) registry, we studied consecutive PersAF patients undergoing post-approval treatment with a pentaspline PFA catheter. The primary effectiveness outcome was freedom from any atrial arrhythmia of ≥30 seconds. Safety outcomes included the composite of acute and chronic major adverse events. RESULTS: Of the 547 patients with PersAF who underwent PFA, 131 (24%) received adjunctive LAPW ablation. Compared to PVI-alone, patients receiving adjunctive LAPW ablation were younger (65 vs 67 years of age, P = 0.08), had a lower CHA2DS2-VASc score (2.3 ± 1.6 vs 2.6 ± 1.6, P = 0.08), and were more likely to receive electroanatomical mapping (48.1% vs 39.0%, P = 0.07) and intracardiac echocardiography imaging (46.1% vs 17.1%, P < 0.001). The 1-year Kaplan-Meier estimate for freedom from atrial arrhythmias was not statistically different between groups in the full (PVI + LAPW: 66.4%; 95% CI: 57.6%-74.4% vs PVI: 73.1%; 95% CI: 68.5%-77.2%; P = 0.68) and propensity-matched cohorts (PVI + LAPW: 71.7% vs PVI: 68.5%; P = 0.34). There was also no significant difference in major adverse events between the groups (2.2% vs 1.4%, respectively, P = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with PersAF undergoing PFA, as compared to PVI-alone, adjunctive LAPW ablation did not improve freedom from atrial arrhythmia at 12 months.

Challenges and pitfalls during CRT implantation in patients with persistent left superior vena cava.

BACKGROUND: Persistent left superior vena cava (PLSVC) is a rare venous anomaly, affecting 0.3-0.5% of the general population. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) implantation in patients with PLSVC is challenging due to a complex anatomy. Moreover, data on CRT implantation in this patient population is scarce. Our aim was to report a series of patients with PLSVC and CRT implantation focusing on challenges and pitfalls. METHODS: Electronic medical databases on patients with CRT implantation at the University Heart Centers in Zurich, Switzerland, and Lübeck, Germany, were screened for individuals with a PLSVC. Clinical and demographic characteristics as well as procedural data were reported in all patients. RESULTS: This study presents six cases with a median age of 66 years. CRT implantation was successful in five patients, leading to a reduced QRS duration and improved left ventricular ejection fraction. Atrial fibrillation, ischemic cardiomyopathy, valvular heart disease, and dilated cardiomyopathy were observed in this group as underlying conditions. Specialized tools, such as active fixation left ventricular leads, were utilized. One patient experienced major complications. CONCLUSIONS: This case series shows that although challenging, conventional endovascular CRT implantation is feasible in PLSVC patients. Specialized tools for visualization and fixation may help. Our experiences highlight the importance of preprocedural evaluation of the anatomy and precise intervention planning.

[Ventricular tachycardia-without structural heart disease: History]. / VT ­ ohne strukturelle Herzerkrankung: Historischer Überblick.

This article focuses on ventricular arrythmias without evidence for structural heart disease. There are many different reasons for this type of arrythmia and there is still a gap of knowledge. Starting with the first description of this disease, we present the diagnosis and management with medication, and finally catheter ablation procedures from the beginning to how it is currently treated and how it possibly will be treated in the near future.

Predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation test success in patients with subcutaneous ICD: A subanalysis of the PRAETORIAN-DFT trial.

BACKGROUND: The PRAETORIAN score estimates the risk of failure of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) therapy by using generator and lead positioning on bidirectional chest radiographs. The PRospective randomized compArative trial of subcutanEous implanTable cardiOverter-defibrillatoR ImplANtation with and without DeFibrillation Testing (PRAETORIAN-DFT) investigates whether PRAETORIAN score calculation is noninferior to defibrillation testing (DFT) with regard to first shock efficacy in spontaneous events. OBJECTIVE: This prespecified subanalysis assessed the predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for defibrillation success in induced ventricular arrhythmias. METHODS: This multicenter investigator-initiated trial randomized 965 patients between DFT and PRAETORIAN score calculation after de novo S-ICD implantation. Successful DFT was defined as conversion of induced ventricular arrhythmia in <5 seconds from shock delivery within 2 attempts. Bidirectional chest radiographs were obtained after implantation. The predictive value of the PRAETORIAN score for DFT success was calculated for patients in the DFT arm. RESULTS: In total, 482 patients were randomized to undergo DFT. Of these patients, 457 (95%) underwent DFT according to protocol, of whom 445 (97%) had successful DFT and 12 (3%) had failed DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 had a positive predictive value of 25% for failed DFT, and a PRAETORIAN score of <90 had a negative predictive value of 99% for successful DFT. A PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 was the strongest independent predictor for failed DFT (odds ratio 33.77; confidence interval 6.13-279.95; P < .001). CONCLUSION: A PRAETORIAN score of <90 serves as a reliable indicator for DFT success in patients with S-ICD, and a PRAETORIAN score of ≥90 is a strong predictor for DFT failure.

Pulmonary vein isolation durability after very high-power short-duration ablation utilizing a very-close protocol - The FAST AND FURIOUS redo study.

Background: Very high-power short-duration (vHP-SD) radiofrequency (RF) ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) treatment by pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) aims for safer, more effective and faster procedures. Although acute efficacy and safety for PVI was recently shown data on chronic PVI durability is limited. Here chronic PVI durability was evaluated during repeat electrophysiological procedures in patients after initial vHP-SD and conventional RF based PVI. Methods: A total of 25 consecutive patients with repeat left atrial procedures after initial vHP-SD based PVI were included in this study. Twenty-five patients with previous conventional RF based PVI and repeat left atrial procedures served as control (control group). Results: For index procedures the median RF time was 328 (277, 392) seconds (vHP-SD) and 1470 (1310, 1742) seconds (control); p < 0.001, the median procedure time was 55 (53, 68) minutes (vHP-SD) and 110 (94, 119) (control); p < 0.001). First pass isolation rate was 84 % (vHP-SD) and 88 % (control, p = 0.888). No differences for severe adverse events (vHP-SD: 1/25, 4 % vs. control: 0/25, 0 %; p = 0.676 were detected.Chronic durability of all PVs was assessed in vHP-SD: 16/25 (64 %) and control: 8/25 (32 %) patients (p = 0.023) and vHP-SD: 81 % and control: 62 % of PVs were found to be isolated (p = 0.003). For right PVs vHP-SD: 84 % vs. control: 60 % of PVs (p < 0.001) and for left PVs vHP-SD: 78 % vs. control: 64 % (p = 0.123) were found to be isolated. Conclusions: PVI solely utilizing vHP-SD via a very close-protocol provides fast, safe and effective acute PVI. High rates of chronically isolated pulmonary veins have been detected.

Left ventricular assist device in the presence of subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator: Data from a multicenter experience.

BACKGROUND: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) might be a viable alternative to conventional ICDs with a lower risk of short- and long-term of device-related complications and infections.The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the outcomes and management of S-ICD recipients who underwent LVAD implantation. METHODS: The study population included patients with a preexisting S-ICD who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced HF despite optimal medical therapy. RESULTS: The study population included 30 patients (25 male; median age 45 [38-52] years).The HeartMate III was the most common LVAD type. Median follow-up in the setting of concomitant use of S-ICDs and LVADs was 7 months (1-20).There were no reports of inability to interrogate S-ICD systems in this population. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred in 21 (70%) patients. The primary sensing vector was the one most significantly involved in determining EMI. Twenty-seven patients (90%) remained eligible for S-ICD implantation with at least one optimal sensing vector. The remaining 3 patients (10%) were ineligible for S-ICD after attempts of reprogramming of sensing vectors. Six patients (20%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IS) due to EMI. Six patients (20%) experienced appropriate shocks. No S-ICD extraction because of need for antitachycardia pacing, ineffective therapy or infection was reported. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant use of LVAD and S-ICD is feasible in most patients. However, the potential risk of EMI oversensing, IS and undersensing in the post-operative period following LVAD implantation should be considered. Careful screening for EMI should be performed in all sensing vectors after LVAD implantation.

[Perioperative management for cardiovascular implantable electronic devices]. / Perioperatives Management bei der Versorgung mit aktiven Rhythmusimplantaten.

Cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIED) are an important part of modern cardiology and careful perioperative planning of these procedures is necessary. All information relevant to the indication, the procedure, and the education of the patient must be available prior to surgery. This provides the basis for appropriate device selection. Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis and perioperative anticoagulation management are essential to prevent infection. After surgery, postoperative monitoring, telemetric control, and device-based diagnostics are required before discharge. These processes need to be adapted to the increasing trend towards outpatient care. This review summarises perioperative management based on practical considerations.