Search

Background: Catheter ablation of papillary muscle ventricular arrhythmias (PM‐VAs) has been associated with unsatisfactory results. Features that may affect acute and long‐term procedural outcomes are not well established. Objective: To systematically review the available data in the literature assessing efficacy and safety of PM‐VAs catheter ablation. Methods: An online search of PubMed, Cochrane Registry, Web of Science, Scopus and EMBASE libraries (from inception to March 1, 2021) was performed, in addition to manual screening. Twenty‐one observational noncontrolled case‐series were considered eligible for the systematic review, including 536 patients. Results: Postero‐medial PM harbored 60.8% of PM‐VAs, while antero‐lateral PM and right ventricular PMs 34.9% and 4.3% of cases, respectively. The mean acute success rate of the index ablation procedure was 88.1% (95% CI 82.8% to 91.9%, p <.001, I2 0%). After a mean follow‐up period of 15.5 ± 17.4 months, pooled long‐term arrhythmia‐free rate was 69.2%, while the pooled long‐term success rate after multiple ablation procedure was 84.9%. Overall, procedure complications occurred in nine patients (1.7%) and no procedure‐related deaths were reported. The use of intracardiac echocardiography (ICE) as well as contact force sensing (CFS) and irrigated catheters during ablation was associated with higher rates of arrhythmia‐freedom at long‐term follow‐up. Conclusions: Catheter ablation is an effective and safe strategy for PM‐VAs, with an acute success rate of 88.1%, a long‐term success rate of 69.2%, with a relatively low procedural complication rate. The use of ICE, irrigated catheters and catheters with CFS capability was associated with higher rates of arrhythmia‐freedom at long‐term follow‐up. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: During the COVID‐19 pandemic in‐person visits for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices should be replaced by remote monitoring (RM), in order to prevent viral transmission. A direct home‐delivery service of the RM communicator has been implemented at 49 Italian arrhythmia centers. Methods: According to individual patient preference or the organizational decision of the center, patients were assigned to the home‐delivery group or the standard in‐clinic delivery group. In the former case, patients received telephone training on the activation process and use of the communicator. In June 2020, the centers were asked to reply to an ad hoc questionnaire to describe and evaluate their experience in the previous 3 months. Results: RM was activated in 1324 patients: 821 (62%) received the communicator at home and the communicator was activated remotely. Activation required one additional call in 49% of cases, and the median time needed to complete the activation process was 15 min [25th‐75th percentile: 10–20]. 753 (92%) patients were able to complete the correct activation of the system. At the time when the questionnaire was completed, 743 (90%) communicators were regularly transmitting data. The service was generally deemed useful (96% of respondents) in facilitating the activation of RM during the COVID‐19 pandemic and possibly beyond. Conclusions: Home delivery of the communicator proved to be a successful approach to system activation, and received positive feedback from clinicians. The increased use of a RM protocol will reduce risks for both providers and patients, while maintaining high‐quality care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]