Search

Visually Guided PV Isolation Introduction Visually guided laser balloon (VGLB) ablation is unique in that the operator delivers ablative energy under direct visual guidance. In this multicenter study, we sought to determine the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of performing pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using this VGLB. Methods Patients with symptomatic, drug-refractory paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) underwent PVI using the VGLB with the majority of operators conducting their first-ever clinical VGLB cases. The primary effectiveness endpoint was defined as freedom from treatment failure that included: Occurrence of symptomatic AF episodes ≥1 minutes beyond the 90-day blanking, the inability to isolate 1 superior and 2 total PVs, occurrence of left atrial flutter or atrial tachycardia, or left atrial ablation/surgery during follow-up. Results A total of 86 patients (mean age 56 ± 10 years, 67% male) were treated with the VGLB at 10 US centers. Mean fluoroscopy, ablation, and procedure times were 39.8 ± 24.3 minutes, 205.2 ± 61.7 minutes, and 253.5 ± 71.3 minutes, respectively. Acute PVI was achieved in 314/323 (97.2%) of targeted PVs. Of 84 patients completing follow-up, the primary effectiveness endpoint was achieved in 50 (60%) patients. Freedom from symptomatic or asymptomatic AF was 61%. The primary adverse event rate was 16.3% (8.1% pericarditis, phrenic nerve injury 5.8%, and cardiac tamponade 3.5%). There were no cerebrovascular events, atrioesophageal fistulas, or significant PV stenosis. Conclusions This multicenter study of operators in the early stage of the learning curve demonstrates that PVI can be achieved with the VGLB with a reasonable safety profile and an efficacy similar to radiofrequency ablation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pacemakers and ICDs in Myotonic Dystrophy. Introduction: We assessed implant rates, indications, characteristics, and outcomes in patients with the neuromuscular disease, myotonic dystrophy type 1 (DM1) receiving a pacemaker or an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). Methods and Results: Device use was evaluated in a prospective, multicenter registry of 406 genetically confirmed adult patients followed for 9.5 ± 3.2 years. Forty-six (11.3%) had or received a pacemaker and 21 (5.2%) received an ICD. Devices were primarily implanted for asymptomatic conduction abnormalities and left ventricular (LV) systolic dysfunction. However, 7 (15.2%) pacemakers were implanted for third-degree atrioventricular block and 6 (28.6%) ICDs were implanted for ventricular tachyarrhythmias (ventricular tachycardia [VT] or fibrillation [VF]). Patients receiving devices were older and more frequently had heart failure, LV systolic dysfunction, atrial tachyarrhythmias, and ECG conduction abnormalities compared to nondevice patients. Five (10.9%) pacemaker patients underwent upgrade to an ICD, 3 for LV systolic dysfunction, 1 for VT/VF, and 1 for progressive conduction disease. Seventeen (27.4%) of the 62 patients with devices were pacemaker-dependent at last follow-up. Three (14.3%) ICD patients had appropriate therapies. Twenty-four (52.2%) pacemaker patients died including 13 of respiratory failure and 7 of sudden death. Seven (33.3%) ICD patients died including 2 of respiratory failure and 3 of sudden death. The patients with ICDs and sudden death all had LV systolic dysfunction and 1 death was documented due to inappropriate therapies. Conclusions: DM1 patients commonly receive antiarrhythmia devices. The risk of VT/VF and sudden death suggests that ICDs rather than pacemakers should be considered for these patients. (J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol, Vol. 22, pp. 1369-1375, December 2011) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]