Search

Background: The mechanism of typical slow‐fast atrioventricular nodal re‐entrant tachycardia (AVNRT) and its anatomical and electrophysiological circuit inside the right atrium (RA) and Koch's Triangle (KT) are not well known. Objective: To identify the potentials of the compact AV node and inferior extensions and to perform accurate mapping of the RA and KT in sinus rhythm (SR) and during AVNRT, to define the tachycardia circuit. Methods: Consecutive patients with typical AVNRT were enrolled in 12 Italian centers and underwent mapping and ablation by means of a basket catheter with small electrode spacing for ultrahigh‐density mapping and a modified signal‐filtering toolset to record the potentials of the AV nodal structures. Results: Forty‐five consecutive cases of successful ablation of typical slow‐fast AVNRT were included. The mean SR cycle length (CL) was 784.1 ± 6 ms and the mean tachycardia CL was 361.2 ± 54 ms. The AV node potential had a significantly shorter duration and higher amplitude in sinus rhythm than during tachycardia (60 ± 40 ms vs. 160 ± 40 ms, p <.001 and 0.3 ± 0.2 mV vs. 0.09 ± 0.12 mV, p <.001, respectively). The nodal potential duration extension was 169.4 ± 31 ms, resulting in a time‐window coverage of 47.6 ± 9%. The recording of AV nodal structure potentials enabled us to obtain 100% coverage of the tachycardia CL during slow‐fast AVNRT. Conclusion: Detailed recording of the potentials of nodal structures is possible by means of multipolar catheters for ultrahigh‐density mapping, allowing 100% of the AVNRT CL to be covered. These results also have clinical implications for the ablation of right‐septal and para‐septal arrhythmias. [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]

Introduction: Remote monitoring (RM) has significantly transformed the standard of care for patients with cardiac electronic implantable devices. It provides easy access to valuable information, such as arrhythmic events, acute decompensation manifestations and device‐related issues, without the need of in‐person visits. Methods: Starting March 1st, 332 patients were introduced to an RM program during the Italian lockdown to limit the risk of in‐hospital exposure to severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus‐2. Patients were categorized into two groups based on the modality of RM delivery (home [n = 229] vs. office [n = 103] delivered). The study aimed at assessing the efficacy of the new follow‐up protocol, assessed as mean RM activation time (AT), and the need for technical support. In addition, patients' acceptance and anxiety status were quantified via the Home Monitoring Acceptance and Satisfaction Questionnaire and the Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7‐item scale. Results: AT time was less than 48 h in 93% of patients and 7% of them required further technical support. Despite a higher number of trans‐telephonic technical support in the home‐delivered RM group, mean AT was similar between groups (1.33 ± 0.83 days in home‐delivered vs 1.28 ± 0.81 days in office‐delivered patients; p =.60). A total of 28 (2.5%) urgent/emergent in‐person examinations were required. A high degree of patient satisfaction was reached in both groups whereas anxiety status was higher in the office‐delivered group. Conclusions: The adoption of RM resulted in high patient satisfaction, regardless of the modality of modem delivery; nonetheless, in‐office modem delivery was associated with a higher prevalence of anxiety symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]