Search

To target posterior wall isolation (PWI) in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation, diffuse ablation theoretically confers a lower risk of conduction recovery compared to box set. We sought to assess the safety and efficacy of diffuse PWI with low-flow, medium-power, and short-duration (LF-MPSD) ablation, and evaluate the durability of pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and PWI among patients undergoing repeat ablations.We retrospectively studied patients undergoing LF-MPSD ablation for AF (PVI + diffuse PWI) between August 2017 and December 2019. Clinical characteristics were collected. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed to study AF/atrial flutter (AFL) recurrence. Ablation data were analyzed in patients who underwent a repeat AF/AFL ablation.Of the 463 patients undergoing LF-MPSD AF ablation (PVI alone, or PVI + diffuse PWI), 137 patients had PVI + diffuse PWI. Acute PWI with complete electrocardiogram elimination was achieved in 134 (97.8%) patients. Among the 126 patients with consistent follow-up, 38 (30.2%) patients had AF/AFL recurrence during a median duration of 14 months. Eighteen patients underwent a repeat AF/AFL ablation after PVI + diffuse PWI, and 16 (88.9%) patients had durable PVI, in contrast to 10 of 45 (23.9%) patients who had redo ablation after LF-MPSD PVI alone. Seven patients (38.9%) had durable PWI, while 11 patients had partial electrical recovery at the posterior wall. The median percentage of area without electrical activity at the posterior wall was 70.7%. Conduction block across the posterior wall was maintained in 16 (88.9%) patients.There was a high rate of PVI durability in patients undergoing diffuse PWI and PVI. Partial posterior wall electrical recovery was common but conduction block across the posterior wall was maintained in most patients.

Endocarditis and cardiovascular implantable electronic device (CIED) infection are rare presentations of disseminated gonococcal infection (DGI). We report a case of gonococcal endocarditis with a large vegetation adherent to the tricuspid valve and CIED leads. Surgical intervention was able to be avoided through the use of transcatheter vegetation debulking and CIED extraction.

This study aimed to review the utility of quinidine in patients presenting with recurrent sustained ventricular arrhythmia (VA) and limited antiarrhythmic drug (AAD) options.Therapeutic options are often limited in patients with structural heart disease and recurrent VAs. Quinidine has an established role in rare arrhythmic syndromes, but its potential use in other difficult VAs has not been assessed in the present era.We performed a retrospective analysis of 37 patients who had in-hospital quinidine initiation after multiple other therapies failed for VA suppression at our tertiary referral center. Clinical data and outcomes were obtained from the medical record.Of 30 patients with in-hospital quantifiable VA episodes, quinidine reduced acute VA from a median of 3 episodes (interquartile range [IQR]: 2 to 7.5) to 0 (IQR: 0 to 0.5) during medians of 3 days before and 4 days after quinidine initiation (p 0.001). VA events decreased from a median of 10.5 episodes per day (IQR: 5 to 15) to 0.5 episodes (IQR: 0 to 4) after quinidine initiation in the 12 patients presenting with electrical storm (p = 0.004). Among the 24 patients discharged on quinidine, 13 (54.2%) had VA recurrence during a median of 138 days. Adverse effects in 9 of the 37 patients (24.3%) led to drug discontinuation, most commonly gastrointestinal intolerance.In patients with recurrent VAs and structural heart disease who have limited treatment options, quinidine can be useful, particularly as a short-term therapy.

Efficacy of Bio-Absorbable Antibacterial Envelope Introduction Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are potentially preventable complications associated with high morbidity, mortality, and cost. A recently developed bio-absorbable antibacterial envelope (TYRX™-A) might prevent CIED infections in high-risk subjects. However, data regarding safety and efficacy have not been published. Methods and Results In a single-center retrospective cohort study, we compared the prevalence of CIED infections among subjects with ≥2 risk factors treated with the TYRX™-A envelope (N = 135), the nonabsorbable TYRX™ envelope (N = 353), and controls who did not receive an envelope (N = 636). Infection was ascertained by individual chart review. The mean (95% confidence interval) number of risk factors was 3.08 (2.84–3.32) for TYRX™-A, 3.20 (3.07–3.34) for TYRX™, and 3.09 (2.99–3.20) for controls, P = 0.3. After a minimum 300 days follow-up, the prevalence of CIED infection was 0 (0%) for TYRX™-A, 1 (0.3%) for TYRX™, and 20 (3.1%) for controls (P = 1 for TYRX™-A vs. TYRX™, P = 0.03 for TYRX™-A vs. controls, and P = 0.002 for TYRX™ vs. controls). In a propensity score-matched cohort of 316 recipients of either envelope and 316 controls, the prevalence of infection was 0 (0%) and 9 (2.8%), respectively, P = 0.004. When limited to 122 TYRX™-A recipients and 122 propensity-matched controls, the prevalence of CIED infections was 0 (0%) and 5 (4.1%), respectively, P = 0.024. Conclusions Among high-risk subjects, the TYRX™-A bio-absorbable envelope was associated with a very low prevalence of CIED related infections that was comparable to that seen with the nonabsorbable envelope.

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections are potentially preventable complications associated with high morbidity, mortality, and cost. A recently developed bio-absorbable antibacterial envelope (TYRX™-A) might prevent CIED infections in high-risk subjects. However, data regarding safety and efficacy have not been published.In a single-center retrospective cohort study, we compared the prevalence of CIED infections among subjects with ≥2 risk factors treated with the TYRX™-A envelope (N = 135), the nonabsorbable TYRX™ envelope (N = 353), and controls who did not receive an envelope (N = 636). Infection was ascertained by individual chart review. The mean (95% confidence interval) number of risk factors was 3.08 (2.84-3.32) for TYRX™-A, 3.20 (3.07-3.34) for TYRX™, and 3.09 (2.99-3.20) for controls, P = 0.3. After a minimum 300 days follow-up, the prevalence of CIED infection was 0 (0%) for TYRX™-A, 1 (0.3%) for TYRX™, and 20 (3.1%) for controls (P = 1 for TYRX™-A vs. TYRX™, P = 0.03 for TYRX™-A vs. controls, and P = 0.002 for TYRX™ vs. controls). In a propensity score-matched cohort of 316 recipients of either envelope and 316 controls, the prevalence of infection was 0 (0%) and 9 (2.8%), respectively, P = 0.004. When limited to 122 TYRX™-A recipients and 122 propensity-matched controls, the prevalence of CIED infections was 0 (0%) and 5 (4.1%), respectively, P = 0.024.Among high-risk subjects, the TYRX™-A bio-absorbable envelope was associated with a very low prevalence of CIED related infections that was comparable to that seen with the nonabsorbable envelope.