Search

BACKGROUND Data comparing remote magnetic catheter navigation (RMN) with manual catheter navigation (MCN) ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF) is lacking. The aim of the present prospective observational study was to compare the outcome of RMN versus (vs.) MCN ablation of AF with regards to AF recurrence. METHODS The study comprised 667 consecutive patients with a total of 939 procedures: 287 patients were ablated using RMN, 380 using MCN. RESULTS There was no significant difference between the groups at baseline. After 2.3 ± 2.3 years of follow-up, 23% of the patients in the MCN group remained free of AF recurrence compared to 13% in the RMN group (p

Background In atrial fibrillation (AF) patients, catheter ablation of pulmonary veins (PVI) is the most effective therapeutic option to maintain sinus rhythm. To improve successful PVI, contact force–sensing (CF) catheters became routinely available. Previous studies did not clearly show superior clinical efficacy in comparison with non-CF catheters. Methods We investigated consecutive patients, who underwent index PVI for AF at our hospital between 2012 and 2018. Three hundred and fifty-four patients were ablated without CF. After availability of CF catheters in 2016, 317 patients were ablated using CF. In case of crossover between the groups, follow-up was censored. The primary endpoint was any documented atrial tachycardia (AT) or atrial fibrillation > 30 s after a 3-month blanking period. Secondary endpoints were procedural characteristics and periprocedural complications. Results There was no significant difference between the groups at baseline except hyperlipidemia. After 365 days of follow-up, 67% of patients in the CF group remained free from AF/AT recurrence compared to 59% in non-CF group (P = 0.038). In multivariable Cox regression analysis, non-CF ablation was an independent risk factor for AF recurrence besides age and persistent AF. Total fluoroscopy time (15 ± 7.6 vs. 28 ± 15.9 min) and total procedure time (114 ± 29.6 vs. 136 ± 38.5 min) were significantly lower for CF-guided PVI (P P = 0.661). Conclusions In our study, the AT/AF recurrence rate and pulmonary vein reconnection rate is lower after CF PVI with a similar complication rate but lower total procedure time and total fluoroscopy time compared to non-CF PVI.

Myocardial scarring from infarction or nonischemic fibrosis forms an arrhythmogenic substrate. The Selvester QRS score has been developed to estimate myocardial scar from the 12-lead electrocardiogram.; We aimed to assess the value of an automated version of the Selvester QRS score for the prediction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy and death in patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation.; Unselected patients undergoing primary prevention ICD implantation were included in this retrospective, observational, multicenter study. The QRS score was calculated automatically from a digital standard preimplantation 12-lead electrocardiogram and was correlated to the occurrence of death and appropriate and inappropriate shocks during follow-up. Analyses were performed in groups defined by QRS duration < 130 ms vs ≥ 130 ms.; Overall, 1047 patients (872 [83%] men; median age 64 years IQR [55-71]) with ischemic (648, 62%) or nonischemic (399, 38%) cardiomyopathy were included. The median QRS duration was 123 ms (interquartile range [IQR] 111-157 ms), and the median QRS score was 5 (IQR 2-8). The QRS duration was

Aims The clinical effectiveness of primary prevention implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy is under debate. The EUropean Comparative Effectiveness Research to Assess the Use of Primary ProphylacTic Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillators (EU-CERT-ICD) aims to assess its current clinical value. Methods and results The EU-CERT-ICD is a prospective investigator-initiated non-randomized, controlled, multicentre observational cohort study performed in 44 centres across 15 European Union countries. We will recruit 2250 patients with ischaemic or dilated cardiomyopathy and a guideline indication for primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This sample will include 1500 patients at their first ICD implantation and 750 patients who did not receive a primary prevention ICD despite having an indication for it (non-randomized control group). The primary endpoint is all-cause mortality; the co-primary endpoint in ICD patients is time to first appropriate shock. Secondary endpoints include sudden cardiac death, first inappropriate shock, any ICD shock, arrhythmogenic syncope, revision procedures, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. At baseline (and prior to ICD implantation if applicable), all patients undergo 12-lead electrocardiogram (ECG) and Holter ECG analysis using multiple advanced methods for risk stratification as well as detailed documentation of clinical characteristics and laboratory values. Genetic biobanking is also organized. As of August 2018, baseline data of 2265 patients are complete. All subjects will be followed for up to 4.5 years. Conclusions The EU-CERT-ICD study will provide a necessary update about clinical effectiveness of primary prophylactic ICD implantation. This study also aims for improved risk stratification and patient selection using clinical and ECG risk markers.