RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF), both cryoablation ablation (CBA) and radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA), have demonstrated to be safe and effective. About 1 in 3 patients may face a redo due to recurrence and the best technique is unknown. The aim of this study is to assess the efficacy of CBA as a repeat procedure in patients with prior CBA or RFCA. METHODS: A nation-wide CBA registry (RECABA) was analyzed and patients were compared who had previously undergone CBA (Prior-CB) or RFCA (Prior-RF). The primary endpoint was AF recurrence at 12 months after a 3-month blanking period. A survival analysis was performed, univariate and multivariate Cox models were also built. RESULTS: Seventy-four patients were included. Thirty-three (44.6%) were in the Prior-CB group and 41 (55.4%) in the Prior-RF. There were more reconnected pulmonary veins in the Prior-RF than in Prior-CB group (40.4% vs.16.5%, p = 0.0001). The 12-month Kaplan-Meier estimate of freedom from AF recurrence after the blanking period was 61.0% (95% confidence interval [CI] 41.4-75.8%) in the Prior-CB, and 89.2% (95% CI 73.6-95.9%) in the Prior-RF group (p = 0.002). Multivariate Cox regression pointed Prior-CB as the sole independent predictor of AF recurrence, with an adjusted HR of 2.67 (95% CI 1.05-6.79). CONCLUSIONS: Repeat CBA shows higher rates of AF recurrences compared to CBA after a previous RFCA despite presenting less reconnected veins at the procedure. These data suggest that patients with AF recurrence after CBA may benefit from other ablation techniques after a recurrence. RECABA is registered at clinicaltrials.gov with the Unique Identifier NCT02785991.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Suitability for the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) depends on a pre-implant electrocardiogram (ECG) screening to ensure appropriate sensing of electrical cardiac signals. Screening is performed positioning electrodes guided by chest surface anatomical landmarks. CASE SUMMARY: We report a case of a patient with an initially negative conventional automatic screening for S-ICD, who underwent a modified screening guided by cardiac silhouette position, as seen under fluoroscopy, resulting in eligibility for the S-ICD. DISCUSSION: The S-ICD reduces endovascular infection risk, providing therefore a potentially safer alternative in patients with prosthetic valves. It might be reasonable to perform a pre-implant ECG screening guided by fitting the cardiac silhouette in the shock vector, as this modified screening position could increase eligibility in patients who may benefit from S-ICD therapy such as the one presented.
