Search

Background: Large-scale studies evaluating long-term recurrence rates in both idiopathic and non-idiopathic PVC catheter ablation (CA) patients have not been reported. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of idiopathic and non-idiopathic PVC CA, investigating the predictors of acute and long-term efficacy. Methods: This retrospective multicentric study included 439 patients who underwent PVC CA at three institutions from April-2015 to December-2021. Clinical success at 6 months’ follow-up, defined as a reduction of at least 80% of the pre-procedural PVC burden, was deemed the primary outcome. The secondary aims of the study were: clinical success at the last available follow-up, predictors of arrhythmic recurrences at long-term follow-up, and safety outcomes. Results: The median age was 51 years, with 24.9% patients being affected suffering from structural heart disease. The median pre-procedural PVC burden was 20.1%. PVCs originating from the RVOT were the most common index PVC observed (29.1%), followed by coronary cusp (CC) and non-outflow tract (OT) LV PVCs (23.1% and 19.0%). The primary outcome at 6 months was reached in 85.1% cases, with a significant reduction in the 24 h% PVC burden (−91.4% [−83.4; −96.7], p < 0.001); long-term efficacy was observed in 82.1% of cases at almost 3-year follow-up. The presence of underlying structural heart disease and non-OT LV region origin (aHR 1.77 [1.07−2.93], p = 0.027 and aHR = 1.96 [1.22−3.14], p = 0.005) was independently associated with recurrences. Conclusion: CA of both idiopathic and non-idiopathic PVCs showed a very good acute and long-term procedural success rate, with an overall low complication. Predictors of arrhythmic recurrence at follow-up were underlying structural heart disease and non-OT LV origin.

Background: The number of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) receiving radiotherapy (RT) is increasing. The management of CIED-carriers undergoing RT is challenging and requires a collaborative multidisciplinary approach., Aim: The aim of the study is to report the real-world, ten-year experience of a tertiary multidisciplinary teaching hospital., Methods: We conducted an observational, real-world, retrospective, single-center study, enrolling all CIED-carriers who underwent RT at the San Raffaele University Hospital, between June 2010 and December 2021. All devices were MRI-conditional. The devices were programmed to an asynchronous pacing mode for patients who had an intrinsic heart rate of less than 40 beats per minute. An inhibited pacing mode was used for all other patients. All tachyarrhythmia device functions were temporarily disabled. After each RT session, the CIED were reprogrammed to the original settings. Outcomes included adverse events and changes in the variables that indicate lead and device functions., Results: Between June 2010 and December 2021, 107 patients were enrolled, among which 63 (58.9%) were pacemaker carriers and 44 (41.1%) were ICD carriers. Patients were subjected to a mean of 16.4 (±10.7) RT sessions. The most represented tumors in our cohort were prostate cancer (12; 11%), breast cancer (10; 9%) and lung cancer (28; 26%). No statistically significant changes in device parameters were recorded before and after radiotherapy. Generator failures, power-on resets, changes in pacing threshold or sensing requiring system revision or programming changes, battery depletions, pacing inhibitions and inappropriate therapies did not occur in our cohort of patients during a ten-year time span period. Atrial arrhythmias were recorded during RT session in 14 patients (13.1%) and ventricular arrhythmias were observed at device interrogation in 10 patients (9.9%)., Conclusions: Changes in device parameters and arrhythmia occurrence were infrequent, and none resulted in a clinically significant adverse event.

Background: after transvenous lead extraction (TLE) of cardiac implantable electric devices (CIEDs), some patients may not benefit from device reimplantation. This study sought to analyse predictors and long-term outcome of patients after TLE with vs. without reimplantation in a high-volume centre., Methods: all patients undergoing TLE at our centre between January 2010 and November 2015 were included into this analysis., Results: a total of 223 patients (median age 70 years, 22.0% female) were included into the study. Cardiac resynchronization therapy-defibrillator (CRT-D) was the most common device (40.4%) followed by pacemaker (PM) (31.4%), implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) (26.9%), and cardiac resynchronization therapy-PM (CRT-P) (1.4%). TLE was performed due to infection (55.6%), malfunction (35.9%), system upgrade (6.7%) or other causes (1.8%). In 14.8%, no reimplantation was performed after TLE. At a median follow-up of 41 months, no preventable arrhythmia-related events were documented in the no-reimplantation group, but 11.8% received a new CIED after 17-84 months. While there was no difference in short-term survival, five-year survival was significantly lower in the no-reimplantation group (78.3% vs. 94.7%, p = 0.014)., Conclusions: in patients undergoing TLE, a re-evaluation of the indication for reimplantation is safe and effective. Reimplantation was not related to preventable arrhythmia events, but all-cause survival was lower.