Antidromic snare technique for re-implantation of a coronary sinus lead into the same cardiac vein after transvenous lead extraction: a case report.

Background: After coronary sinus (CS) lead extraction in patients with cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT), occlusion of the branch vessel from which CS lead was extracted is a major obstacle to re-implantation, particularly if that vessel is the only optimal vessel for resynchronization. Case summary: A 75-year-old female who underwent CRT implantation 11 years prior presented with worsening dyspnoea, right ventricle-only pacing rhythm, and increased CS lead pacing threshold. Because she was a CRT responder, we decided to replace the malfunctioning CS lead. After successful extraction, the vessel from which CS lead was extracted was not visualized, and guidewire re-insertion attempts failed. No other branch vessels suitable for re-implantation were observed. Fortunately, distal portion of the target vessel was viewed by a retrograde flow of contrast. A guidewire was advanced retrograde into the target vein via a connecting vessel, and the distal end of the guidewire was snared around CS ostium and then pulled out of the sheath. A new CS lead was inserted through the distal end of the guidewire and successfully implanted antegrade into the same target vein using a veno-venous loop of the guidewire ('anti-dromic snare technique'). The patient was discharged 2 days after the procedure without complications. Discussion: Antegrade re-implantation of CS lead may not be possible after extracting CS leads with long dwell times, possibly due to extraction-induced vessel occlusion. If the occluded vessel is the only proper vessel for CS lead re-implantation, the anti-dromic snare technique could be a safe and effective bail-out strategy.

Exercise capacity and risk of incident atrial fibrillation in healthy adults.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia and is associated with cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. It is important to identify and control the modifiable risk factors of AF. We aimed to examine the association of exercise capacity with the risk of incident AF within 3 years in healthy subjects. METHODS: We evaluated asymptomatic adults who had undergone more than two consecutive health checkups. We included subjects who exhibited normal sinus rhythm on the first health examination and who developed AF on the second or subsequent health examinations. Subjects who underwent cardiopulmonary exercise testing within 3 years before the diagnosis of AF were examined. RESULTS: The study population in the analyses included 428 cases (mean age 58.4 ± 7.6 yr, male 95.6%). There were significant differences in maximal systolic blood pressure (SBP; case 169.4 ± 24.2 vs. control 173.9 ± 22.3 mmHg), peak VO2 (29.5 ± 5.4 vs. 30.4 ± 4.8 mL/kg per minute), and maximal metabolic equivalents (METs; 8.5 ± 1.6 vs. 8.7 ± 1.4) between the two groups. In the multivariable logistic models, adjusted odds ratios were 0.99 for maximal SBP (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98-0.99), 0.97 for peak VO2 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), and 0.91 for maximal METs (95% CI 0.83-0.98). CONCLUSION: We demonstrated that poorer exercise capacity was associated with the development of AF in a healthy population. A prospective, systematic trial is necessary to confirm that appropriate exercise training will be beneficial in preventing the development of AF in such patients.

Long-term outcome of thoracoscopic ablation and radiofrequency catheter ablation for persistent atrial fibrillation as a de novo procedure.

AIMS: Limited data are available regarding the efficacy of thoracoscopic ablation as the first procedure for persistent atrial fibrillation (AF). We sought to compare the long-term efficacy of thoracoscopic ablation vs. radiofrequency (RF) catheter ablation as the first procedure for persistent AF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between February 2011 and December 2020, 575 patients who underwent ablation for persistent AF were studied. Among them, thoracoscopic ablation was performed in 281 patients, RF catheter ablation in 228, and hybrid ablation in 66. Rhythm, clinical, and safety outcomes during 7-year follow-up were compared. The patients who underwent thoracoscopic ablation were older, had a higher prevalence of stroke, and had a larger left atrial volume than those who underwent RF catheter ablation. In the propensity score-matched population (n = 306), incidences of atrial tachyarrhythmia recurrence were 51.4% in the thoracoscopic ablation group and 62.5% in the RF catheter ablation group [adjusted hazard ratio (HR) 0.869, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.618-1.223, P = 0.420]. Stroke and total procedural adverse events were not significantly different between thoracoscopic and RF catheter ablation (2.7 vs. 2.5%, P = 0.603, and 7.1 vs. 4.8%, P = 0.374, respectively). The hybrid ablation group showed similar rhythm outcomes compared with both the thoracoscopic and the RF catheter ablation groups. At the redo procedure, pulmonary vein gaps were more frequently observed in the RF catheter ablation group (32.6%) than in the thoracoscopic ablation group (7.9%) and in the hybrid ablation group (8.8%) (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: As a first procedure in persistent AF, thoracoscopic ablation and RF catheter ablation showed comparable efficacy, clinical, and safety outcomes during long-term follow-up.

The efficacy of single-lead implantable cardioverter-defibrillator with atrial sensing dipole to detect atrial fibrillation and to reduce inappropriate therapy according to atrial sensing ON or OFF: Rationale and design of the SMART-CONTROL study, a prospective multicenter randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have compared the efficacy of single-lead implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) with atrial sensing dipole (VDD-ICD) and conventional single-chamber ICD from the aspect of atrial fibrillation (AF) detection or inappropriate ICD therapy reduction. In the SMART-CONTROL trial (NCT03932604), we primarily aim to investigate whether the atrial sensing capability of VDD-ICD is useful in AF detection and inappropriate therapy reduction by randomly activating or deactivating the atrial sensing function. METHODS AND DESIGN: This study was designed as a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized trial to enroll 640 patients with no history of clinical AF or rhythm control for AF within 1 year who were undergoing the implantation of VDD-ICD system. Patients are assigned randomly to atrial sensing "ON" or "OFF" group, with crossover allowed during follow-up. The coprimary outcomes are the incidence of AF detection and inappropriate ICD therapy over a 2-year follow-up period. The secondary outcomes include non-AF atrial tachyarrhythmia, ventricular tachyarrhythmia with or without ICD therapy, thromboembolic events, bleeding, heart failure hospitalization, mortality, a composite of adverse cardiovascular events, and long-term atrial sensing stability or variability. CONCLUSION: We expect that this trial can evaluate the efficacy of a single-lead ICD system on various clinical outcomes including AF detection and inappropriate therapy reduction, and ultimately provide guidance to selection of ICD system.

Orthodromic and Antidromic Snare Techniques for Left Ventricular Lead Implantation in Cardiac Resynchronization Therapy.

The snare technique can be used to overcome unsuitable cardiac venous anatomies for left ventricular (LV) lead implantation in cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) procedures. However, limited data exist regarding performance of the snare technique. We classified 262 patients undergoing CRT procedure into the snare (n = 20) or conventional group (n = 242) according to the LV lead implantation method. We compared the safety, efficacy, and composite outcome (all-cause death and heart failure readmission) at 3 years post-implant between the snare and conventional groups. In the snare group, all LV leads were implanted safely using orthodromic (n = 15) or antidromic (n = 5) techniques, and no immediate complications occurred including vessel perforation, tamponade, and lead dislodgement. During follow-up, LV lead threshold and impedance remained stable without requiring lead revision in the snare group. There were no significant between-group differences regarding LV ejection fraction increase (12 ± 13% vs. 12 ± 13%, p = 0.929) and LV end-systolic volume reduction (18 ± 48% vs. 28 ± 31%, p = 0.501). Both groups exhibited comparable CRT-response rates (62.5% vs. 60.6%, p = 1.000). The risk of primary outcome was not significantly different between the two groups (25.9% vs. 30.9%, p = 0.817). In patients who failed conventional LV lead implantation for CRT, the snare technique could be a safe and effective solution to overcome difficult coronary venous anatomy.

Predictors of permanent pacemaker implantation after sinus conversion of cavotricuspid isthmus-dependent atrial flutter.

It is unclear which factors are associated with progressive sinus node dysfunction after cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI)-dependent atrial flutter (AFL) ablation. We sought to evaluate the incidence and predictors for permanent pacemaker (PPM) implantation after CTI-dependent AFL ablation. Between January 2011 and June 2021, 353 patients underwent CTI-dependent AFL ablation were studied. During a median follow-up of 31.6 months, 30 patients (8.5%) received PPM implantation, 24 for sick sinus syndrome and 6 for atrioventricular block. In multivariable model, prior atrial fibrillation (AF) (HR 3.570; 95% CI 1.034-12.325; P = 0.044), lowest previous sinus heart rate (HR 0.942; 95% CI 0.898-0.988; P = 0.015), and left atrial volume index (LAVI) (HR 1.067; 95% CI 1.024-1.112; P = 0.002) were independently associated with PPM implantation after CTI-dependent AFL ablation. The best cut-off points for predicting PPM implantation were 60.1 ml/m2 for LAVI and 46 beats per minute for lowest previous sinus heart rate. Among the patients discharged without PPM implantation after ablation, sinus pause over three seconds at AFL termination during ablation was an independent predictor of PPM implantation (HR 17.841; 95% CI 4.626-68.807; P < 0.001). Physicians should be aware of the possibility of PPM implantation during follow-up after AFL ablation, especially in patients with the relevant risk factors.