Search

Aims: Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common in heart failure (HF) and negatively impacts outcomes. The role of ablation-based rhythm control in patients with AF and HF with preserved (HFpEF) or mildly reduced ejection fraction (HFmrEF) is not known. The CABA-HFPEF-DZHK27 (CAtheter-Based Ablation of atrial fibrillation compared to conventional treatment in patients with Heart Failure with Preserved Ejection Fraction) trial will determine whether early catheter ablation for AF can prevent adverse cardiovascular outcomes in patients with HFpEF or HFmrEF., Methods: CABA-HFPEF-DZHK27 (NCT05508256) is an investigator-initiated, prospective, randomized, open, interventional multicentre strategy trial with blinded outcome assessment. Approximately 1548 patients with paroxysmal or persistent AF diagnosed within 24 months prior to enrolment and HFpEF or HFmrEF will be randomized to early catheter ablation within 4 weeks after randomization or to usual care. All patients receive anticoagulation, rate control, and HF management according to current guideline recommendations. Usual care can include rhythm control in symptomatic patients. Patients will be followed until the end of the trial for the primary outcome, a composite of cardiovascular death, stroke, and total unplanned hospitalizations for HF or acute coronary syndrome. The safety outcome comprises complications of catheter ablation and death. The trial is powered for a rate ratio of 0.75 (two-sided alpha = 0.05, 1-beta = 0.8)., Conclusion: CABA-HFPEF-DZHK27 will define the role of systematic and early catheter ablation in patients with AF and HFpEF or HFmrEF., (© 2024 The Author(s). European Journal of Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Purpose of Review: Heart failure (HF) is a major public health problem worldwide, affecting more than 64 million people [1]. The complex and severe nature of HF presents challenges in providing cost-effective care as patients often require multiple hospitalizations and treatments. This review of relevant studies with focus on the last 10 years summarizes the health and economic implications of various HF treatment options in Europe and beyond. Although the main cost drivers in HF treatment are clinical (re)admission and decompensation of HF, an assessment of the economic impacts of various other device therapy options for HF care are included in this review. This includes: cardiovascular implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) such as cardiac-resynchronisation-therapy devices that include pacemaking (CRT-P), cardiac-resynchronisation-therapy devices that include defibrillation (CRT-D), implantable cardioverter/defibrillators (ICDs) and various types of pacemakers. The impact of (semi)automated (tele)monitoring as a relevant factor for increasing both the quality and economic impact of care is also taken into consideration. Quality of life adjusted life years (QALYs) are used in the overall context as a composite metric reflecting quantity and quality of life as a standardized measurement of incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) of different device-based HF interventions., Recent Findings: In terms of the total cost of different devices, CRT-Ds were found in several studies to be more expensive than all other devices in regards to runtime and maintenance costs including (re)implantation. In the case of CRT combined with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (CRT-D) versus ICD alone, CRT-D was found to be the most cost-effective treatment in research work over the past 10 years. Further comparison between CRT-D vs. CRT-P does not show an economic advantage of CRT-D as a minority of patients require shock therapy. Furthermore, a positive health economic effect and higher survival rate is seen in CRT-P full ventricular stimulation vs. right heart only stimulation. Telemedical care has been found to provide a positive health economic impact for selected patient groups-even reducing patient mortality. For heart failure both in ICD and CRT-D subgroups the given telemonitoring benefit seems to be greater in higher-risk populations with a worse HF prognosis. In patients with HF, all CIED therapies are in the range of commonly accepted cost-effectiveness. QALY and ICER calculations provide a more nuanced understanding of the economic impact these therapies create in the healthcare landscape. For severe cases of HF, CRT-D with telemedical care seems to be the better option from a health economic standpoint, as therapy is more expensive, but costs per QALY range below the commonly accepted threshold., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) are an increasingly used strategy for the management of patients with advanced heart failure (HF). Subcutaneous implantable cardioverter defibrillator (S-ICD) might be a viable alternative to conventional ICDs with a lower risk of short- and long-term of device-related complications and infections.The aim of this multicenter study was to evaluate the outcomes and management of S-ICD recipients who underwent LVAD implantation., Methods: The study population included patients with a preexisting S-ICD who underwent LVAD implantation for advanced HF despite optimal medical therapy., Results: The study population included 30 patients (25 male; median age 45 [38-52] years).The HeartMate III was the most common LVAD type. Median follow-up in the setting of concomitant use of S-ICDs and LVADs was 7 months (1-20).There were no reports of inability to interrogate S-ICD systems in this population. Electromagnetic interference (EMI) occurred in 21 (70%) patients. The primary sensing vector was the one most significantly involved in determining EMI. Twenty-seven patients (90%) remained eligible for S-ICD implantation with at least one optimal sensing vector. The remaining 3 patients (10%) were ineligible for S-ICD after attempts of reprogramming of sensing vectors. Six patients (20%) experienced inappropriate shocks (IS) due to EMI. Six patients (20%) experienced appropriate shocks. No S-ICD extraction because of need for antitachycardia pacing, ineffective therapy or infection was reported., Conclusions: Concomitant use of LVAD and S-ICD is feasible in most patients. However, the potential risk of EMI oversensing, IS and undersensing in the post-operative period following LVAD implantation should be considered. Careful screening for EMI should be performed in all sensing vectors after LVAD implantation., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest This was an independent study. No external funding was received for this project. CT is a member of Boston Scientific advisory board; FM scientific consultant for Boston Scientific and Cook Medical. RT is a consultant for BostonScientific and received speaker's honoraria from Boston Scientific. Other authors do no report disclosures regarding this article., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The new European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines on cardiac pacing and cardiac resynchronization therapy were presented together with the new ESC heart failure guidelines at the ESC congress in September. The new document includes detailed sections on patient evaluation and clinical assessment, implantation, minimizing complications and patient follow-up. The guidelines have been updated and expanded particularly on the approach to reflex syncope, the indications after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and the perioperative management. The indications for cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) are now in line with the simultaneously published ESC heart failure guidelines. New physiological forms of stimulation and leadless pacing are now included in the guidelines., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Aims: To evaluate outcomes of percutaneous left atrial appendage closure (LAAC) in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF) and non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) in a consecutive, industry-independent registry associated with periprocedural success and complications during long-term follow-up., Methods and Results: For this analysis, we included patients who underwent transcatheter LAAC from January 2014 to December 2019 at the University Heart Center in Lübeck, Germany, and compared patients with presence of CHF defined as patients with a reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF ≤ 40%), patients with a mid-range LVEF (LVEF 41-49%), patients with diastolic dysfunction and preserved LVEF (LVEF ≥ 50%), and patients with right-sided heart failure and impaired right ventricular function (tricuspid annular plane systolic excursion < 17) to patients undergoing LAAC with no CHF. Primary endpoints were defined as periprocedural complications, and complications during long-term follow-up presented as major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). A total of 300 consecutive patients underwent LAAC. Of these, 96 patients in the CHF group were compared with 204 patients in the non-CHF group. Implantation success was lower in CHF group in comparison with non-CHF group (99.5% vs. 96%, P = 0.038); otherwise, there were no differences in periprocedural complications between groups. Patients with CHF showed a significantly higher incidence of MACCE rate (31.9% vs. 15.1%, P = 0.002) and more deaths (24.2% vs. 7%, P ≤ 0.001) during long-term follow-up. In Cox multivariable regression analysis, CHF was an independent predictor of mortality after LAAC implantation at long-term follow-up (hazard ratio 3.23, 95% confidence intervals 1.52-6.86, P = 0.002)., Conclusions: Implantation of LAAC devices in patients with non-valvular AF and CHF is safe. The increased mortality in patients with CHF compared with patients without CHF during the long-term follow-up is mainly attributed to comorbidities associated with CHF., (© 2021 The Authors. ESC Heart Failure published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Society of Cardiology.)

Heart failure (HF) will be one of the biggest medical challenges in the coming years, with increasing prevalence in an aging society. It is associated with a poor prognosis and impaired quality of life-despite steadily improving medical therapy which has resulted in a steady decrease in mortality and an increase in quality of life. In medically refractory patients with impaired left ventricular (LV) function, left bundle branch block and wide QRS complex (≥130 ms) cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) in addition to medical therapy has become the gold standard. Additionally, other therapeutic modalities such as vagal stimulation are being clinically tested but as yet have no general therapeutic recommendation. Overall, CRT patients represent only one-third of all HF patients and about 25% are "non-responders" who do not benefit from CRT.In HF patients with an LVEF between 25 and 45% and a QRS duration <130 ms who are not suitable for CRT, cardiac contractility modulation (CCM) is currently a therapeutic option that has been shown in several randomized trials to be efficacious and safe. It reduces the frequency of HF hospitalizations and improves HF symptoms, functional capacity, and quality of life. The goal of this article is to present mechanisms of action, major clinical studies, current indications, and recent developments of CCM for the treatment of patients with chronic HF., (© 2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Atrial fibrillation and heart failure with preserved left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction (HFpEF) are of high importance in cardiology due to the increasing number of cases. Both diseases can mutually affect each other and important cardiovascular risk factors, e.g. arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus, obesity and chronic renal insufficiency can be observed with increasing frequency. Currently proven treatment concepts for patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) do not appear to have a comparable prognostic or symptomatic benefit for patients with HFpEF. In addition, there are indications that de novo manifestation of atrial fibrillation in HFpEF patients has been linked to reduced survival. Also, heart and kidney function are negatively affected by atrial fibrillation. Retrospective analyses of patients with HFpEF and atrial fibrillation who had been treated by pulmonary vein isolation could show that interventional treatment of the atrial fibrillation led to an improvement in the New York Heart Association (NYHA) stage and diastolic function. Currently running prospective randomized clinical trials, such as the AMPERE study including patients with HFpEF and atrial fibrillation undergoing pulmonary vein isolation, will hopefully provide reliable prospective randomized data and possibly show an improved symptom control and perhaps also prognostically relevant treatment for HFpEF patients with atrial fibrillation., (© 2021. Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

Background: Optimal treatment of patients with persistent atrial fibrillation (AF) and heart failure (HF) with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and an indication for internal defibrillator therapy is controversial., Methods: Patients with persistent/longstanding persistent AF and LVEF ≤35% were randomly allocated to catheter ablation of AF or best medical therapy (BMT). The primary study end point was the absolute increase in LVEF from baseline at 1 year. Secondary end points included 6-minute walk test, quality-of-life, and NT-proBNP (N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide). Pulmonary vein isolation was the primary ablation approach; BMT comprised rate or rhythm control. All patients were discharged after index hospitalization with a cardioverter-defibrillator or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillator implanted. The study was terminated early for futility., Results: Of 140 patients (65±8 years, 126 [90%] men) available for the end point analysis, 68 and 72 patients were assigned to ablation and BMT, respectively. At 1 year, LVEF had increased in ablation patients by 8.8% (95% CI, 5.8%-11.9%) and in BMT patients by 7.3% (4.3%-10.3%; P =0.36). Sinus rhythm was recorded on 12-lead electrocardiograms at 1 year in 61/83 ablation patients (73.5%) and 42/84 BMT patients (50%). Device-recorded AF burden at 1 year was 0% or maximally 5% of the time in 28/39 ablation patients (72%) and 16/36 BMT patients (44%). There was no difference in secondary end point outcome between ablation patients and BMT patients., Conclusions: The AMICA trial (Atrial Fibrillation Management in Congestive Heart Failure With Ablation) did not reveal any benefit of catheter ablation in patients with AF and advanced HF. This was mainly because of the fact that at 1 year, LVEF increased in ablation patients to a similar extent as in BMT patients. The effect of catheter ablation of AF in patients with HF may be affected by the extent of HF at baseline, with a rather limited ablation benefit in patients with seriously advanced HF., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00652522.

Aims: Patients with heart failure and severe mitral regurgitation (MR) have a poor prognosis and carry an increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias. The present study evaluates the impact of transcatheter mitral valve repair using the MitraClip on the potential reduction of ventricular arrhythmias., Methods and Results: Patients undergoing MitraClip implantation were prospectively enrolled into the present study and received 24 h Holter ECG assessment prior to and 6 months after the procedure. In addition, left ventricular dimensions and function were assessed at baseline and follow-up. A total of 50 patients with mainly functional MR (82%) were included. Non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia (nsVT and/or sVT) occurred in 32% of patients and was reduced to 14% at follow-up (P = 0.01). Also, premature ventricular complex (PVC) burden ≥5% decreased from 16% to 4% (P = 0.04). Patients with persistent (n = 6) or new (n = 1) nsVT and/or sVT at follow-up showed a significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction from 38% (interquartile range 26-45%) to 33% (interquartile range 22-44%; P = 0.03)., Conclusions: In this prospective study, transcatheter mitral valve repair using MitraClip was associated with a reduced prevalence of ventricular arrhythmias. The subset of patients with persistent or new ventricular arrhythmias after MitraClip implantation showed progression of left ventricular dysfunction., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author(s) 2019. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Second-generation cryoballoon (CB2)-based pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has demonstrated encouraging results in the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF). This study sought to assess data on the safety, efficacy and clinical success of CB2-based PVI in patients with heart failure (HF) and reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)., Methods and results: CB2-based PVI was performed in 551 consecutive patients in 3 highly experienced EP centers. Patients with HF and LVEF ≤40% were included (HFrEF group, n=50/551, 9.1%). Data were compared with propensity score-matched patients without HF and preserved left ventricular EF (LVEF) (n=50, control group). The median LVEF was HFrEF: 37% (35, 40) and control: 55% (55, 55), P<0.0001. Major periprocedural complications were registered in 4/50 (8%, HFrEF group) and 3/50 (6%, control group), P=0.695. The 12-month freedom from AF recurrence was 73.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 61-88, HFrEF group) and 72.6% (95% CI: 61-87, control group), P=0.25. NYHA class decreased from 2.4±0.8 (baseline) to 1.7±0.8 at 12-month follow-up (P<0.0001). LVEF improved from a median of 37% (35, 40) prior to ablation to a median of 55% (40, 55), P<0.0001., Conclusions: CB2-based PVI in patients with HFrEF appeared to be safe, was associated with comparable periprocedural complications and showed promising clinical success rates equal to those for patients with preserved LVEF. NYHA class and LVEF significantly improved at 12-month follow-up.

Background: Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) often coexist, but data on the prognostic value of differing ablation strategies according to left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are rare., Methods and Results: From January 2007 until January 2010, 728 patients with HF were enrolled in the multi-center German ablation registry prior to AF catheter ablation. Patients were divided into three groups according to LVEF: HF with preserved LVEF (≥ 50%, HFpEF, n = 333), mid-range LVEF (40-49%, HFmrEF, n = 207), and reduced LVEF (< 40%, HFrEF, n = 188). Ablation strategies differed significantly between the three groups with the majority of patients with HFpEF (83.4%) and HFmrEF (78.4%) undergoing circumferential pulmonary vein isolation vs. 48.9% of patients with HFrEF. The latter underwent ablation of the atrioventricular (AV) node in 47.3%. Major complications did not differ between the groups. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated a significant mortality increase in patients with HFrEF (6.1% in HFrEF vs. 1.5% in HFmrEF vs. 1.9% in HFpEF, p = 0.009) that was limited to patients undergoing ablation of the AV node., Conclusions: Catheter ablation strategies differ significantly in patients with HFpEF, HFmrEF, and HFrEF. In almost 50% of patients with HFrEF AV-node ablation was performed, going along with a significant increase in mortality rate. These results should raise efforts to further evaluate the prognostic effect of ablation strategies in HF patients.

Objective: The prognostic impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) in patients with acute decompensated heart failure (ADHF) has not been fully elucidated yet. Aim of the present study was thus to investigate the association of AF with all-cause mortality in patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF)., Methods: We performed a retrospective single center study and analyzed data of 1286 patients admitted for ADHF. Patients were grouped according to AF status (i.e., "never AF", "history of AF", or "AF on admission") and type of heart failure. Patient and treatment characteristics were extracted by chart review. The primary outcome of all-cause mortality within 3 years following index hospitalization was determined by death registry linkage., Results: In total, 529 (41.1%), 215 (16.7%), and 542 (42.1%) patients were grouped as "never AF", "history of AF", and "AF on admission", respectively. With regard to type of heart failure, 558 (43.4%) and 728 (56.6%) had HFrEF and HFpEF, respectively. Compared to "never AF", "AF on admission" was associated with increased all-cause mortality in an adjusted Cox regression model [hazard ratio, 1.64 (95% confidence interval 1.32-2.04); P < 0.001]. However, this association remained significant only for patients with HFpEF [2.16 (1.58-2.95)], but not for patients with HFrEF [1.18 (0.85-1.63)] in a subgroup analysis (P for effect modification = 0.020)., Conclusions: AF is common in the setting of ADHF and is associated with increased all-cause mortality. However, this association remained significant only in patients with HFpEF, but not in patients with HFrEF.

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the standard of care for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in high-risk patients. For primary prevention of SCD, in patients with ischaemic heart disease, there is more robust data on the effect of ICD therapy compared with patients with non-ischaemic heart disease, but current real-life practice may differ substantially. The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association survey was to evaluate the clinical practice regarding implantation of ICD for primary prevention among European countries in patients with non-ischaemic and ischaemic heart disease. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate the impact of the results of the recently published DANISH trial on clinical practice among European countries. In total, 48 centres from 17 different countries responded to the questionnaire. The majority did not implant ICD for primary prevention on a regular basis in patients with non-ischaemic heart disease despite current guidelines. Also, centres have changed their indications after the recent report on the efficacy of ICD in these patients. In patients with ischaemic heart disease, the guidelines for primary prevention ICD were followed on a regular basis, and no relevant change in indications were reported., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2017. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Management of patients with cardiac arrhythmias is increasingly complex because of continuous technological advance and multifaceted clinical conditions associated with ageing of the population, the presence of co-morbidities and the need for polypharmacy. The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Initiatives Committee survey was to provide an insight into the role of the Arrhythmia Team, an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to management of patients with cardiac arrhythmias. Forty-eight centres from 18 European countries replied to the Web-based questionnaire. The presence of an Arrhythmia Team was reported by 44% of the respondents, whereas 17% were not familiar with this term. Apart from the electrophysiologist, health professionals who should belong to such teams, according to the majority of the respondents, include a clinical cardiologist, a nurse, a cardiac surgeon, a heart failure specialist, a geneticist, and a geriatrician. Its main activity should be dedicated to the management of patients with complex clinical conditions or refractory or inherited forms of arrhythmias. When present, the Arrhythmia Team was considered helpful by 95% of respondents; the majority of centres (79%) agreed that it should be implemented. The Arrhythmia Team seems to be connected to important expectations in the management of cardiac arrhythmias. The efficacy of such an integrated and multidisciplinary approach should be encouraged and tested in clinical practice., (Published on behalf of the European Society of Cardiology. All rights reserved. © The Author 2016. For permissions please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Copyright of Herz is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Catheter ablation for ventricular tachycardia (VT) reduces the recurrence of VT in patients with implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). The appropriate timing of VT ablation and its effects on mortality and heart failure progression remain a matter of debate. In patients with life-threatening arrhythmias necessitating ICD implantation, we compared outcomes of preventive VT ablation (undertaken before ICD implantation to prevent ICD shocks for VT) and deferred ablation after 3 ICD shocks for VT.Methods: The BERLIN VT study (Preventive Ablation of Ventricular Tachycardia in Patients With Myocardial Infarction) was a prospective, open, parallel, randomized trial performed at 26 centers. Patients with stable ischemic cardiomyopathy, a left ventricular ejection fraction between 30% and 50%, and documented VT were randomly assigned 1:1 to a preventive or deferred ablation strategy. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death and unplanned hospitalization for either symptomatic ventricular arrhythmia or worsening heart failure. Secondary outcomes included sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia and appropriate ICD therapy. We hypothesized that preventive ablation strategy would be superior to deferred ablation strategy in the intention-to-treat population.Results: During a mean follow-up of 396±284 days, the primary end point occurred in 25 (32.9%) of 76 patients in the preventive ablation group and 23 (27.7%) of 83 patients in the deferred ablation group (hazard ratio, 1.09 [95% CI, 0.62-1.92]; P=0.77). On the basis of prespecified criteria for interim analyses, the study was terminated early for futility. In the preventive versus deferred ablation group, 6 versus 2 patients died (7.9% versus 2.4%; P=0.18), 8 versus 2 patients were admitted for worsening heart failure (10.4% versus 2.3%; P=0.062), and 15 versus 21 patients were hospitalized for symptomatic ventricular arrhythmia (19.5% versus 25.3%; P=0.27). Among secondary outcomes, the proportions of patients with sustained ventricular tachyarrhythmia (39.7% versus 48.2%; P=0.050) and appropriate ICD therapy (34.2% versus 47.0%; P=0.020) were numerically reduced in the preventive ablation group.Conclusions: Preventive VT ablation before ICD implantation did not reduce mortality or hospitalization for arrhythmia or worsening heart failure during 1 year of follow-up compared with the deferred ablation strategy. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT02501005. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Patients with heart failure and severe mitral regurgitation (MR) have a poor prognosis and carry an increased risk for ventricular arrhythmias. The present study evaluates the impact of transcatheter mitral valve repair using the MitraClip on the potential reduction of ventricular arrhythmias.Methods and Results: Patients undergoing MitraClip implantation were prospectively enrolled into the present study and received 24 h Holter ECG assessment prior to and 6 months after the procedure. In addition, left ventricular dimensions and function were assessed at baseline and follow-up. A total of 50 patients with mainly functional MR (82%) were included. Non-sustained or sustained ventricular tachycardia (nsVT and/or sVT) occurred in 32% of patients and was reduced to 14% at follow-up (P = 0.01). Also, premature ventricular complex (PVC) burden ≥5% decreased from 16% to 4% (P = 0.04). Patients with persistent (n = 6) or new (n = 1) nsVT and/or sVT at follow-up showed a significant decrease in left ventricular ejection fraction from 38% (interquartile range 26-45%) to 33% (interquartile range 22-44%; P = 0.03).Conclusions: In this prospective study, transcatheter mitral valve repair using MitraClip was associated with a reduced prevalence of ventricular arrhythmias. The subset of patients with persistent or new ventricular arrhythmias after MitraClip implantation showed progression of left ventricular dysfunction. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) is the standard of care for prevention of sudden cardiac death (SCD) in high-risk patients. For primary prevention of SCD, in patients with ischaemic heart disease, there is more robust data on the effect of ICD therapy compared with patients with non-ischaemic heart disease, but current real-life practice may differ substantially. The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association survey was to evaluate the clinical practice regarding implantation of ICD for primary prevention among European countries in patients with non-ischaemic and ischaemic heart disease. Furthermore, we wanted to investigate the impact of the results of the recently published DANISH trial on clinical practice among European countries. In total, 48 centres from 17 different countries responded to the questionnaire. The majority did not implant ICD for primary prevention on a regular basis in patients with non-ischaemic heart disease despite current guidelines. Also, centres have changed their indications after the recent report on the efficacy of ICD in these patients. In patients with ischaemic heart disease, the guidelines for primary prevention ICD were followed on a regular basis, and no relevant change in indications were reported. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Management of patients with cardiac arrhythmias is increasingly complex because of continuous technological advance and multifaceted clinical conditions associated with ageing of the population, the presence of co-morbidities and the need for polypharmacy. The aim of this European Heart Rhythm Association Scientific Initiatives Committee survey was to provide an insight into the role of the Arrhythmia Team, an integrated, multidisciplinary approach to management of patients with cardiac arrhythmias. Forty-eight centres from 18 European countries replied to the Web-based questionnaire. The presence of an Arrhythmia Team was reported by 44% of the respondents, whereas 17% were not familiar with this term. Apart from the electrophysiologist, health professionals who should belong to such teams, according to the majority of the respondents, include a clinical cardiologist, a nurse, a cardiac surgeon, a heart failure specialist, a geneticist, and a geriatrician. Its main activity should be dedicated to the management of patients with complex clinical conditions or refractory or inherited forms of arrhythmias. When present, the Arrhythmia Team was considered helpful by 95% of respondents; the majority of centres (79%) agreed that it should be implemented. The Arrhythmia Team seems to be connected to important expectations in the management of cardiac arrhythmias. The efficacy of such an integrated and multidisciplinary approach should be encouraged and tested in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AF Ablation in Patients With Impaired LVEF Introduction Long-term data after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) in patients with impaired systolic left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) are sparse. This study assessed the outcomes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF) and reduced LVEF treated with PVI after a median follow-up period of 6 years. Methods and Results Eighty-one patients with an LVEF≤45% were evaluated; however, 1 patient was lost to follow-up. In the remaining 80 patients (male: n = 68 (85%), median age 61.6 (54.8-67.5) years) with paroxysmal (n = 16, 20%), persistent (n = 37, 46.2%), and longstanding-persistent AF (LS-AF), catheter ablation of AF using radiofrequency and 3D mapping was performed. Follow-up included Holter monitoring or pacemaker/ICD interrogation to assess for arrhythmia recurrence and echocardiography to assess LVEF. Median follow-up was 72 (67-75) months. Death occurred in 21 patients. Single-procedure success rate was 35.1% and multiple-procedure success rate was 56.8% in the overall group. Baseline median LVEF (35% [28.5-40%]) significantly increased at 6-year follow-up (56.5% [40.0-60.0%], P < 0.01). In patients with single- or multiple-procedure ablation success, there was a higher improvement of LVEF (single procedure: 25% [15.0-35] vs. 10.0% [-1.0-20.0], P < 0.01; multiple procedures: 20.0% [15-34] vs. 5.0% [5.00-15.0]; P < 0.01). The single (43.8% vs. 40%, P = 0.96) and multiple procedure success rates (62.5% vs. 60%, P = 0.47) were comparable between patients with PAF and persistent AF and lowest in patients with LS-AF (single procedure success: 23.1%, multiple-procedure success: 47.8%). Conclusion Single-procedure success rates after PVI during 6 years of follow-up were low. In patients with single- or multiple-procedure ablation success, a higher improvement of LVEF was observed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Radiofrequency Ablation in Restrictive Cardiomyopathy Myofibrillar myopathy is characterized by nonhyaline and hyaline lesions due to mutations in nuclear genes encoding for extra-myofibrillar or myofibrillar proteins. Cardiac involvement in myofibrillar myopathy may be phenotypically expressed as dilated, hypertrophic, or restrictive cardiomyopathy. Radiofrequency ablation of atrial fibrillation and flutter has so far not been reported in myofibrillar myopathy. We report the case of a young female with myofibrillar myopathy and deteriorating heart failure due to restrictive cardiomyopathy and recurrent atrial fibrillation and atrial tachycardias intolerant to pharmacotherapy. Cardiac arrhythmias were successfully treated with repeat radiofrequency ablations and resulted in regression of heart failure, thus postponing the necessity for cardiac transplantation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]