Search

Aims: Battery electric vehicle (BEV) sales and use are rapidly expanding. Battery electric vehicles, along with their charging stations, are a potential source of electromagnetic interference (EMI) for patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs). The new 'high-power' charging stations have the potential to create strong electromagnetic fields and induce EMI in CIEDs, and their safety has not been evaluated., Methods and Results: A total of 130 CIED patients performed 561 charges of four BEVs and a test vehicle (350 kW charge capacity) using high-power charging stations under continuous 6-lead electrocardiogram monitoring. The charging cable was placed directly over the CIED, and devices were programmed to maximize the chance of EMI detection. Cardiac implantable electronic devices were re-interrogated after patients charged all BEVs and the test vehicle for evidence of EMI. There were no incidences of EMI, specifically no over-sensing, pacing inhibition, inappropriate tachycardia detection, mode switching, or spontaneous reprogramming. The risk of EMI on a patient-based analysis is 0/130 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0%-2%], and the risk of EMI on a charge-based analysis is 0/561 (95% CI 0%-0.6%). The effective magnetic field along the charging cable was 38.65 µT and at the charging station was 77.9 µT., Conclusions: The use of electric cars with high-power chargers by patients with cardiac devices appears to be safe with no evidence of clinically relevant EMI. Reasonable caution, by minimizing the time spent in close proximity with the charging cables, is still advised as the occurrence of very rare events cannot be excluded from our results., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: C.L. has received travel and/or lecture honorary support from Biotronik. P.B. has received travel and/or lecture honorary support from Abbott Medical and Biotronik. C.K. has received travel support and/or lecture honorary from Biotronik, Microport, has participated in clinical studies supported by Abbott Medical, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Mircoport and has served as advisor to Microport. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare., (© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: This retrospective study sought to compare complication rates and efficacy of power-controlled very high-power short-duration (vHPSD) and conventional catheter ablation in a large cohort of patients with atrial fibrillation (AF)., Methods and Results: We analyzed 1115 consecutive patients with AF (38.7% paroxysmal, 61.3% persistent) who received first-time catheter ablation at our centre from 2015 to 2021. Circumferential pulmonary vein isolation ± additional substrate ablation using an irrigated-tip catheter was performed with vHPSD (70 W/5-7 s or 60 W/7-10 s) in 574 patients and with conventional power (30-35 W/15-30 s) in 541 patients. Baseline characteristics were well-balanced between groups (mean age 65.1 ± 11.2 years, 63.4% male). The 30-day incidence of cardiac tamponade [2/574 (0.35%) vs. 1/541 (0.18%), P = 0.598], pericardial effusion ≥ 10 mm [2/574 (0.35%) vs. 1/541 (0.18%), P = 0.598] and transient ischaemic attack [1/574 (0.17%) vs. 2/541 (0.37%), P = 0.529] was not significantly different between vHPSD and conventional ablation. No stroke, atrio-esophageal fistula, cardiac arrest or death occurred. Procedure (122.2 ± 46.8 min vs. 155.0 ± 50.5 min, P < 0.001), radiofrequency (22.4 ± 19.3 min vs. 52.9 ± 22.0 min, P < 0.001), and fluoroscopy (8.1 ± 7.2 vs. 9.2 ± 7.4, P = 0.016) duration were significantly shorter in the vHPSD group. At 12 months follow-up, freedom of any atrial arrhythmia was 44.1% vs. 34.2% (P = 0.010) in persistent AF and 78.1% vs. 70.2% in paroxysmal AF (P = 0.068)., Conclusion: vHPSD ablation is as safe as conventional ablation and is associated with an improved long-term efficacy in persistent AF., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Remote monitoring (RM) is the standard of care for follow up of patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices. The aim of this study was to compare smartphone-based RM (SM-RM) using patient applications (myMerlinPulse™ app) with traditional bedside monitor RM (BM-RM)., Methods and Results: The retrospective study included de-identified US patients who received either SM-RM or BM-RM capable of implantable cardioverter defibrillators or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators (Abbott, USA). Patients in SM-RM and BM-RM groups were propensity-score matched on age and gender, device type, implant year, and month. Compliance with RM was quantified as the proportion of patients enrolling in the RM system (Merlin.net™) and transmitting data at least once. Connectivity was measured by the median number of days between consecutive transmissions per patient. Of the initial 9714 patients with SM-RM and 26 679 patients with BM-RM, 9397 patients from each group were matched. Remote monitoring compliance was higher in SM-RM; significantly more patients with SM-RM were enrolled in RM compared with BM-RM (94.4 vs. 85.0%, P < 0.001), similar number of patients in the SM-RM group paired their device (95.1 vs. 95.0%, P = 0.77), but more SM-RM patients transmitted at least once (98.1 vs. 94.3%, P < 0.001). Connectivity was significantly higher in the SM-RM, with patients transmitting data every 1.2 (1.1, 1.7) vs. every 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) days with BM-RM ( P < 0.001) and remained better over time. Significantly more SM-RM patients utilized patient-initiated transmissions compared with BM-RM (55.6 vs. 28.1%, P < 0.001)., Conclusion: In this large real-world study, patients with SM-RM demonstrated improved compliance and connectivity compared with BM-RM., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: H.M.: consultant for Abbott. H.B.: speaker fees, institutional fellowship support or research grants from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic and Microport. R.C.-A.: speaker fees of small amount from Abbott, Johnson and Johnson. N.V.: research/PI/SC member/consultant for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, EP Solutions, Medtronic, Impulse Dynamics, Implicity, Pacemate, Cardiologs. C.L.: speaker fees from Bayer, AstraZeneca. D.K.: consultant for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Medtronic. Speaker fees of small amount from Abbott and Medtronic. G.C.-W.: research funding and speaker fees from Pfizer Medtronic BMS and Abbott. K.K., I.R., Y.N.- employment and stock, Abbott. G.B.: speaker fees of small amount from Bayer, Boehringer, Boston, Daiichi., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology.)

Aims: Pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) using radiofrequency ablation (RFA) in patients with paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (PAF) is effective but hampered by pulmonary vein reconnection due to insufficient ablation lesions. High-power delivery over a short period of time (HPSD) in RFA is stated to create more efficient lesions. The aim of this study was to compare intraprocedural safety and outcome of HPSD ablation to conventional power settings in patients undergoing PVI for PAF., Methods and Results: We included 197 patients with PAF that were scheduled for PVI. An ablation protocol with 70 W and a duration cut-off of 7 s at the anterior left atrium (LA) and 5 s at the posterior LA (HPSD group; n = 97) was compared to a conventional power protocol with 30-40 W for 20-40 s (standard group; n = 100) in terms of periprocedural complications and a 1-year outcome. The HPSD group showed significantly less arrhythmia recurrence during 1-year follow-up with 83.1% of patients free from atrial fibrillation compared to 65.1% in the standard group (P < 0.013). No pericardial tamponade, periprocedural thromboembolic complications, or atrio-oesophageal fistula occurred in either group. Mean radiofrequency time (12.4 ± 3.4 min vs. 35.6 ± 12.1 min) and procedural time (89.5 ± 23.9 min vs. 111.15 ± 27.9 min) were significantly shorter in the HPSD group compared to the standard group (both P < 0.001)., Conclusion: High-power short-duration ablation demonstrated a comparable safety profile to conventional ablation. High-power short-duration ablation using 70 W for 5-7 s leads to significantly less arrhythmia recurrences after 1 year. Radiofrequency and procedural time were significantly shortened., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Post-operative atrial fibrillation (POAF) occurs in 20-50% of patients amid post-operative stay after Cardiac Surgery. We intend to determine whether colchicine therapy in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is a cost-effective strategy for prevention of POAF. To undertake cost utility analysis and calculate incremental cost utility ratio (ICUR) for colchicine therapy in these subgroup of patients., Methods and Results Design: Decision tree model to calculate the ICUR comparing two treatment strategies in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. One wherein patients received colchicine along with usual care and second where they received placebo or just usual care. Cost utility analysis was undertaken using relevant data from the systematic review and meta-analysis of the available randomized controlled trials till June 2016 and mean cost calculations from validated available sources across various jurisdictions., Results: Colchicine treatment based on mean costs for life expectancy calculated at 10 years' post-surgery using recommended discounting rates of 3.5% was € 17544.80 cheaper per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. The incremental cost is negative and the incremental effect (QALY) is positive (South East quadrant), Hence the intervention of colchicine treatment is unequivocally cost-effective, meaning it is dominant and achieves better outcomes at a lower cost., Conclusion: Our findings provide a benchmark for current and future analyses relating to effectiveness of colchicine on POAF events after cardiac surgery. Currently, there are few reports that provide cutting edge estimates of the higher expenses associated with POAF. Future analyses should likewise explore the impact of added costs from using pharmacologic efforts to prevent and treat POAF after cardiac surgery.

Aims: This study presents and evaluates the impact of a new lowest-dose fluoroscopy protocol (Siemens AG), especially designed for electrophysiology (EP) procedures, on X-ray dose levels., Methods and Results: From October 2014 to March 2015, 140 patients underwent an EP study on an Artis zee angiography system. The standard low-dose protocol was operated at 23 nGy (fluoroscopy) and at 120 nGy (cine-loop), the new lowest-dose protocol was operated at 8 nGy (fluoroscopy) and at 36 nGy (cine-loop). Procedural data, X-ray times, and doses were analysed in 100 complex left atrial and in 40 standard EP procedures. The resulting dose-area products were 877.9 ± 624.7 µGym² (n = 50 complex procedures, standard low dose), 199 ± 159.6 µGym² (n = 50 complex procedures, lowest dose), 387.7 ± 36.0 µGym² (n = 20 standard procedures, standard low dose), and 90.7 ± 62.3 µGym² (n = 20 standard procedures, lowest dose), P < 0.01. In the low-dose and lowest-dose groups, procedure times were 132.6 ± 35.7 vs. 126.7 ± 34.7 min (P = 0.40, complex procedures) and 72.3 ± 20.9 vs. 85.2 ± 44.1 min (P = 0.24, standard procedures), radiofrequency (RF) times were 53.8 ± 26.1 vs. 50.4 ± 29.4 min (P = 0.54, complex procedures) and 10.1 ± 9.9 vs. 12.2 ± 14.7 min (P = 0.60, standard procedures). One complication occurred in the standard low-dose and lowest-dose groups (P = 1.0)., Conclusion: The new lowest-dose imaging protocol reduces X-ray dose levels by 77% compared with the currently available standard low-dose protocol. From an operator standpoint, lowest X-ray dose levels create a different, reduced image quality. The new image quality did not significantly affect procedure or RF times and did not result in higher complication rates. Regarding radiological protection, operating at lowest-dose settings should become standard in EP procedures., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Aims: Right ventricular (RV) septum is a non-apical site targeted during lead implantation. Electrocardiographic (ECG) recognition of mid-septal lead location is challenging. The aim of the study is to determine ECG correlates of RV mid-septal pacing., Methods and Results: The present study is a pre-specified analysis of a prospective, multicenter study, which randomized recipients of an implantable cardioverter defibrillator to an apical vs. mid-septal RV lead positioning. Following implantation, a 12-lead ECG was recorded during intrinsic rhythm and RV pacing. In total, 227 patients, 121 in the apical group (76.9% males, 67.1 ± 11.3 years) and 106 in the mid-septal group (82.1% males, age 64.7 ± 12.7 years) were included. Apically as compared with septally paced patients had significantly longer paced QRS duration (177.0 ± 25.0 vs. 170.4 ± 21.7, respectively, P = 0.03) and significantly more leftward paced QRS axis (-71.6 ± 33.3° vs. 9.4 ± 86.5°, respectively, P < 0.001). A significantly higher proportion of patients in the mid-septal as compared with the apical group displayed predominantly positive QRS in lead V6 (62.3 vs. 4.1%, P < 0.001), predominantly positive QRS in any of the inferior leads (53.8 vs. 4.1%, P < 0.001), and a QR pattern in lead aVL (53.3 vs. 3.3%, P < 0.001). These ECG correlates were incorporated in a stepwise algorithm with total sensitivity of 87% and specificity of 90% for the identification of a mid-septal lead location., Conclusion: A mid-septal lead location may be identified using a simple stepwise algorithm, based on the presence of positive QRS in lead V6, positive QRS in any of the inferior leads, and a QR pattern in lead aVL., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2015. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)