Search

Background: High-power-short-duration (HPSD) radiofrequency (RF) ablation is a viable alternative to low-power-long-duration (LPLD) RF for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI). Nevertheless, trials showed conflicting results regarding atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrences and few data concerning complications. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing HPSD versus LPLD., Methods: We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to March 31, 2023 focusing on HPSD versus LPLD. The study endpoints were AF recurrence, procedural times and overall complications., Results: Five studies enrolling 424 patients met the inclusion criteria (mean age 61.1 years; 54.3% paroxysmal AF; mean LVEF 58.2%). Compared to LPLD, HPSD showed a significantly lower AF recurrence rate [16.3% vs. 30,1%; RR: 0.54 (95% CI: 0.38-0.79); p = 0.001] at a mean 10.9 months follow-up. Moreover, HPSD led to a significant reduction in total procedural time [MD: -26.25 min (95%CI: -42.89 to -9.61); p = 0.002], PVI time [MD: -26.44 min (95%CI: -38.32 to -14.55); p < 0.0001], RF application time [MD: -8.69 min (95%CI: -11.37 to -6.01); p < 0.00001] and RF lesion number [MD: -7.60 (95%CI: -10.15 to -5.05); p < 0.00001]. No difference was found in either right [80.4% vs. 78.2%; RR: 1.04 (95% CI: 0.81-1.32); p = 0.77] or left [92.3% vs. 90.2%; RR: 1.02 (95% CI: 0.94-1.11); p = 0.58] first-pass isolation and overall complications [6% vs. 3.7%; RR: 1.45 (95%CI: 0.53-3.99); p = 0.47] between groups., Conclusion: In our metanalysis of randomized trials, HPSD ablation appeared to be associated to a significantly improved freedom from AF and shorter procedures, without increasing the risk of complications., (© 2023 The Authors. Pacing and Clinical Electrophysiology published by Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) are both recommended for transvenous implantation of leads for cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). Nonetheless, it is still debated which of the two techniques has a better safety and efficacy profile., Methods: We systematically searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane electronic databases up to September 5, 2022, for studies that evaluated the efficacy and safety of AVP and CVC reporting at least one clinical outcome of interest. The primary endpoints were acute procedural success and overall complications. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as risk ratio (RR) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI)., Results: Overall, seven studies were included, which enrolled 1771 and 3067 transvenous leads (65.6% [n = 1162] males, average age 73.4 ± 14.3 years). Compared to CVC, AVP showed a significant increase in the primary endpoint (95.7 % vs. 76.1 %; RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.09-1.40; p = .001) (Figure 1). Total procedural time (mean difference [MD]: -8.25 min; 95% CI: -10.23 to -6.27; p < .0001; I 2  = 0%) and venous access time (MD: -6.24 min; 95% CI: -7.01 to -5.47; p < .0001; I 2  = 0%) were significantly shorter with AVP compared to CVC. No differences were found between AVP and CVC for incidence overall complications (RR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.28-1.10; p = .09), pneumothorax (RR: 0.72; 95% CI: 0.13-4.0; p = .71), lead failure (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.23-1.48; p = .26), pocket hematoma/bleeding (RR: 0.58; 95% CI: 0.15-2.23; p = .43), device infection (RR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.14-6.60; p = .96) and fluoroscopy time (MD: -0.24 min; 95% CI: -0.75 to 0.28; p = .36)., Conclusion: Our meta-analysis suggests that AVP may improve procedural success and reduce total procedural time and venous access time compared to CVC., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) reduces heart failure (HF) hospitalization and all-cause mortality in HF patients with left bundle branch block (LBBB). Biventricular pacing (BVP) is the gold standard for achieving CRT, but about 30%-40% of patients do not respond to BVP-CRT. Recent studies showed that left bundle branch pacing (LBBP) provided remarkable results in CRT. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis aiming to compare LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients., Methods: We systematically searched the electronic databases for studies published from inception to December 29, 2022 and focusing on LBBP-CRT versus BVP-CRT in HF patients. The primary endpoint was HF hospitalization. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as Risk Ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD)., Results: Ten studies enrolling 1063 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared to BVP-CRT, LBBP-CRT led to significant reduction in HF hospitalization [7.9% vs.14.5%; RR: 0.60 (95%CI: 0.39-0.93); p = .02], QRSd [MD: 30.26 ms (95%CI: 26.68-33.84); p < .00001] and pacing threshold [MD: -0.60 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.48); p < .00001] at follow up. Furthermore, LBBP-CRT improved LVEF [MD: 5.78% (95%CI: 4.78-6.77); p < .00001], the rate of responder [88.5% vs.72.5%; RR: 1.19 (95%CI: 1.07-1.32); p = .002] and super-responder [60.8% vs. 36.5%; RR: 1.56 (95%CI: 1.27-1.91); p < .0001] patients and the NYHA class [MD: -0.42 (95%CI: -0.71 to -0.14); p < .00001] compared to BVP-CRT., Conclusion: In HF patients, LBBP-CRT was superior to BVP-CRT in reducing HF hospitalization. Further significant benefits occurred within the LBBP-CRT group in terms of QRSd, LVEF, pacing thresholds, NYHA class and the rate of responder and super-responder patients., (© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Introduction: The implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) has been demonstrated to successfully prevent sudden cardiac death (SCD) in children and young adults. A wide range of device-related complications/malfunctions have been described, which depend on the intrinsic design of the defibrillation system (transvenous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [TV-ICD] vs. subcutaneous-implantable cardioverter defibrillator [S-ICD])., Objective: To compare the device-related complications and inappropriate shocks with TV-ICD versus S-ICD., Methods and Results: Electronic databases were queried for studies focusing on the prevention of SCD in children and young adults with TV-ICD or S-ICD. The effect size was estimated using a random-effect model as odds ratio (OR) and relative 95% confidence interval (CI). The primary endpoint was a composite of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks. We identified a total of five studies including 236 patients (Group S-ICD: 76 patients; Group TV-ICD: 160 patients) with a mean follow-up time of 54.2 ± 24.9 months. S-ICD implantation contributed to a significant reduction in the risk of the primary endpoint of any device-related complications and inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.73; p = .02). S-ICD was also associated with a significantly lower incidence of inappropriate shocks (OR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.11-0.74; p = .01) and lead-related complications (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.05-0.66; p = .01). A trend toward a higher risk of pocket complications (OR: 5.91; 95% CI: 0.98-35.63; p = .05) was recorded in patients with S-ICD., Conclusion: Children and young adults undergoing S-ICD implantation may have a lower risk of a composite of device-related complications and inappropriate shocks, compared to TV-ICD patients., (© 2022 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)