Search

BACKGROUND: Medical treatment of inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) remains suboptimal. Radiofrequency sinus node (RF-SN) ablation has poor success and higher complication rates. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare clinical outcomes of the novel SN sparing hybrid ablation technique with those of RF-SN modification for IST management. METHODS: This is a multicenter prospective registry comparing the SN sparing hybrid ablation strategy with RF-SN modification. The hybrid procedure was performed using an RF bipolar clamp, isolating superior vena cava/inferior vena cava with the creation of a lateral line across the crista terminalis while sparing the SN region (identified by endocardial 3-dimensional mapping). RF-SN modification was performed by endocardial and/or epicardial mapping and ablation at the site of earliest atrial activation. RESULTS: Of the 100 patients (hybrid ablation group, n = 50; RF-SN group, n = 50), 82% were women, and the mean age was 22.8 years. Normal sinus rhythm and rate were restored in all patients in the hybrid group (vs 84% in the RF-SN group; P = .006). Hybrid ablation was associated with significantly better improvement in mean daily heart rate and peak 6-minute walk heart rate compared with RF-SN ablation. The RF-SN group had a significantly higher rate of redo procedures (100% vs 8%; P < .001), phrenic nerve injury (14% vs 0%; P = .012), lower acute pericarditis (48% vs 92%; P < .0001), permanent pacemaker implantation (50% vs 4%; P < .0001) than did the hybrid ablation group. CONCLUSION: The novel sinus node sparing hybrid ablation procedure appears to be more efficacious and safer in patients with symptomatic drug-resistant IST with long-term durability than RF-SN ablation.

Objectives This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation. Background Minimally invasive transvenous access is a fundamental step during implantation of CIEDs. However, the preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate, and the decision depends on patient characteristics and operator experience. Methods A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian vein puncture (SVP) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) versus cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and various scientific conferences from inception to July 1, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CIs). Results Twenty-three studies were eligible that included 35,722 patients (SVP, 18,009 patients; AVP, 409 patients; and CVC, 17,304 patients). Compared with CVC, SVP was associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax (RR: 4.88; 95% CI: 2.95 to 8.06) and device/lead failure (RR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.09), whereas there was no significant difference in these outcomes compared with AVP. Acute procedural success was significantly higher with SVP compared with CVC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.53). There was no significant difference in other complications such as pocket hematoma/bleeding, device infection, or pericardial effusion between SVP or AVP compared with CVC. Conclusions CVC was associated with a lower risk of pneumothorax and lead failure compared with SVP. AVP and CVC are both effective approaches for CIED lead implantation and offer the potential to avoid the complications usually observed with traditional SVP.

BACKGROUND Pacing at sites of late intraventricular activation (QLV) or long interventricular conduction (right ventricle [RV]-left ventricular [LV]) have been associated with improved cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes. Quadripolar leads improve CRT outcomes by allowing for electrical repositioning to optimize pacing sites. However, little is known regarding the effect of such repositioning on electrical delay. OBJECTIVE Determine the relationship between different electrical bipoles from a quadripolar lead and measures of electrical delay. METHODS Forty-six patients underwent CRT with a quadripolar lead. The RV-LV and QLV intervals were measured for both the proximal and distal bipoles and the difference (Δ) between bipoles for each measure were calculated. Multivariate analyses were performed to identify predictors of electrical delays. RESULTS This was a typical CRT population with a mean age of 65 years and ejection fraction of 27%, with left bundle branch block (LBBB) present in 70%. The regression model for ΔQLV was significant (p = .05), with both gender (p = .008) and LBBB status (p = .020) significant predictors. The overall regression model for ΔRV-LV was not significant. ΔQLV and ΔRV-LV were significant among LBBB patients. Among non-LBBB, only ΔRV-LV was significant (mean: 7.2 ms, p = .006). ΔRV-LV versus ΔQLV were strongly correlated in LBBB (R2 = .92) but not non-LBBB (R2 = .06). CONCLUSION In LBBB, ΔRV-LV and ΔQLV are closely correlated suggesting that the proximal bipole and thus basal LV pacing sites should be selected when feasible. Greater variation in activation pattern is present in non-LBBB, so pacing sites should be individualized.

BACKGROUND Atrial arrhythmias (AA), including atrial fibrillation (AF), have been reported in patients after cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation for typical atrial flutter (AFL). Several studies have examined the effect of performing concomitant pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) with CTI on recurrent AA. These studies were analyzed to determine the overall effect of this approach on recurrent AA. METHODS PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for randomized trials comparing the incidence of AA after CTI versus CTI + PVI until June 2018. Only patients without prior history of AF were included in the recurrent AA analysis. All patients were included in the analyses of other clinical outcomes. RESULTS Four randomized control trials were included in the meta-analysis. In the recurrent AA analysis, a total of 314 patients were randomized in the studies (n = 158 CTI, n = 156 CTI + PVI). Freedom from AA at 1 year was significantly higher in the CTI + PVI group versus CTI alone (odds ratio [OR] 0.25 [0.14, 0.44] 95% confidence interval [CI], P

AIM To evaluate the safety and efficacy of surgical left atrial appendage occlusion (s-LAAO) during concomitant cardiac surgery. METHODS We performed a comprehensive literature search through May 31st 2018 for all eligible studies comparing s-LAAO vs no occlusion in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Clinical outcomes during follow-up included: embolic events, stroke, all-cause mortality, atrial fibrillation (AF), reoperation for bleeding and postoperative complications. We further stratified the analysis based on propensity matched studies and AF predominance. RESULTS Twelve studies (n = 40107) met the inclusion criteria. s-LAAO was associated with lower risk of embolic events (OR: 0.63, 95%CI: 0.53-0.76; P < 0.001) and stroke (OR: 0.68, 95%CI: 0.57-0.82; P < 0.0001). Stratified analysis demonstrated this association was more prominent in the AF predominant strata. There was no significant difference in the incidence risk of all-cause mortality, AF, and reoperation for bleeding and postoperative complications. CONCLUSION Concomitant s-LAAO during cardiac surgery was associated with lower risk of follow-up thromboembolic events and stroke, especially in those with AF without significant increase in adverse events. Further randomized trials to evaluate long-term benefits of s-LAAO are warranted.

Introduction: The role of remote magnetic navigation (RMN) for ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation is not well established. In this meta- analysis, we aim to evaluate the safety and efficacy of RMN vs manual navigation (MAN) for VT ablation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search in PubMed, Google Scholar and Cochrane Review from inception till November 9th, 2019 was performed. Studies reporting clinical outcomes comparing MAN vs RMN were included. Two investigators independently extracted the data and individual quality assessment was performed. Results were expressed as odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results: Eight studies including a total of 861 patients (475 in RMN arm and 386 in MAN arm) were included in the final analysis. VT recurrence was significantly lower with RMN compared with MAN (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.88, p= 0.005). Acute procedural success was significantly higher with RMN (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.51-3.23, p < 0.0001). Total procedure time [MD -8.83, 95% CI -17.72- 0.05, p=0.05], fluoroscopy time [MD -10.24, 95% CI -12.28- -8.19, p= 0.00001), and complications [OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18- 0.72, p= 0.003] were significantly lower in RMN compared to MAN. Conclusion: Results of our meta-analysis indicate that RMN is safer and more effective than MAN in patients with VT undergoing ablation. Further, randomized studies are needed to validate these findings.

Background: Medical treatment for inappropriate sinus tachycardia (IST) remains suboptimal. Radiofrequency Sinus node Modification (RFSM) has been used for managing drug-refractory symptomatic IST. Although, acute success is reasonable, it is faced with high complications and recurrence rates. A novel Sinus Node sparing surgical thoracoscopic hybrid ablation (SUSRUTA) has been recently proposed. Objective: To report outcomes of SUSRUTA for IST patients from a prospective multicenter registry. Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective registry of patients who received SUSRUTA which is SN sparing hybrid ablation using surgical thoracoscopic video-assisted epicardial ablation comprised of a RF bipolar clamp which was used for sparing the SN region (identified by endocardial 3D mapping) and isolation of superior and inferior vena cava with creation of a lateral line across the crista terminalis during IST with isoproterenol challenge. Gaps in the epicardial lesion set are filled in by endocardial RFA. Patients were treated with post op Colchicine and were enrolled in cardiac rehabilitation program. Results: Of the 139 patients, mean age was 26±4 yrs, 91% women and mean duration of IST was 40±21.5 months. 90% were on ivabradine, 86% on beta-blocker, 77% on calcium channel blocker and 77% were on class IC antiarrhythmic agent. Heart rate post-procedure was significantly lower when compared with pre-procedure (110±10 vs. 64±11 bpm, p required a permanent pacemaker. Hospital length of stay was 4.5±0.8 days. At 1041±541 days follow up 94.5% (131/139) were free of symptoms after a single procedure and the 8 patients required a redo-RF catheter ablation.95% patients are off all preprocedural rate controlling medications Conclusion: SUSRUTA appears to be efficacious and safe for the treatment of symptomatic drug resistant IST.

Background: The Amulet IDE trial is an ongoing, randomized, worldwide trial, enrolled but following patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) at high risk of stroke. The study is comparing the safety and effectiveness of the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ left atrial appendage (LAA) Occluder to the Watchman device. At US sites, the implanting physicians only had experience with the Watchman device; therefore, up to three roll-in subjects with Amplatzer Amulet device implantation were permitted prior to randomization. The purpose of this analysis is to describe the peri-procedural outcomes for the roll-in cohort. Methods: Roll-in subjects met the same eligibility criteria and have the same data collection requirements as randomized subjects. Adverse events were adjudicated by an independent clinical events committee and LAA occlusion was assessed by an independent core laboratory based on the 45-day TEE. Major adverse events included all cause death, ischemic stroke, systemic embolism or device-/procedure-related events requiring open cardiac surgery or major endovascular intervention within 7 days post implant or hospital discharge, whichever is later. Results: From August 2016 to November 2018, 201 patients with non-valvular AF at high risk of stroke and bleeding were enrolled at 82 sites as roll-in subjects. Mean age was 74.2 ± 7.5 years and 62% of subjects were male. The Amplatzer Amulet device was successfully deployed in 99% of subjects. Major adverse events within 7 days or hospital discharge occurred in 2.5% of patients and included death (n=3), ischemic stroke (n=1) and vascular access site bleeding (n=1). The majority (79%) of patients were discharged on antiplatelet therapy only or no anti-thrombotic medication. TEE follow-up at the 45-day visit revealed adequate (≤ 5 mm jet) occlusion of the appendage in 98.9% (178/180) of patients. Device-related thrombus (DRT) was identified by the core laboratory in 6 patients (3%); no patient experienced a thrombo-embolic event. Conclusions: In the roll-in cohort, with implanting physicians having no prior experience using the Amplatzer™ Amulet™ device, there was a low rate of procedural complications and high rates of both implant success and adequate LAA sealing at follow up.

Background No comparative study of outcomes in Riata and Sprint Fidelis leads undergoing lead extraction (LE), lead abandonment (LA), and generator change only (GC) has been published. Objectives Determine outcomes (major complications [MC]; death, extended hospitalization, or rehospitalization within 60 days [RH]; lead malfunction) of LE, LA, and GC for recalled leads. Methods Retrospective, multicenter, comparative study. Results A total of 298 LE, 85 LA, and 310 GC were performed. In the clinical setting of a lead intervention, there was no difference in a composite of MC, death, RH, lead revision, inappropriate shocks, or device infection between LE and LA groups (15% vs 22%, P = .140). In the clinical setting of a device at elective replacement interval (ERI), there were significantly more acute events at 60 days (MC, death, and RH) in the LE and LA groups at 15.4% (4) and 15.4% (4), and this was significantly (P = .017) higher than the GC group at 5.1% (16). There was no difference (P = 1.000) in the composite of MC, death, RH, lead malfunction, lead revisions, device infections, or inappropriate shocks between LE, LA, and GC groups at 15.4% (4), 15.4% (4), and 17.4% (54), respectively. Following generator change, 14 of 175 Fidelis leads and 3 of 135 Riata leads failed over a total of 12,714 months of follow-up. Conclusions The failure rate of recalled leads was substantially lower compared to previous reports. It may be prudent to perform generator change only when the device is at ERI, especially when the recalled lead has historical performance that likely outweighs the risks of extraction/abandonment.

Background Single-chamber leadless pacemakers (LPs) have been shown to be an effective alternative to conventional transvenous pacemakers (CTPs), but their benefit in the context of cardioinhibitory vasovagal syncope (CI-VVS) is unknown. Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of LP compared with dual-chamber CTP for CI-VVS. Methods We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study comparing patients who received LP or dual-chamber CTP for drug-refractory CI-VVS. CI-VVS was diagnosed clinically and supported by cardiac monitoring and head-up tilt table testing. The primary efficacy endpoint was freedom from syncope during follow-up. Secondary endpoints included device efficacy and safety estimated by device-related major and minor adverse events (AEs). Results Seventy-two patients (24 LP, 48 CTP; age 32 ± 5.5 years; 90% female; syncope frequency 7.6 ± 3.4 per year) were included. At 1 year, 91% of patients (22/24) in the LP group and 94% of patients (43/48) in the CTP group met the primary efficacy endpoint (P = .7). Device efficacy endpoint was met in 92% of the LP group and 98% of the CTP group (P = .2). Early major AEs occurred in 2 of 24 in the LP group and 3 of 48 in the CTP group (P = .4). Late major AEs occurred in 0 of 24 in the LP group and 2 of 48 in the CTP group (P = 1). Conclusion In patients with CI-VVS, single-chamber LP demonstrated equivalent efficacy in reducing syncopal events compared to dual-chamber CTP, with a similar safety profile.

There is a lack of compelling data regarding the benefit of percutaneous ventricular assist devices (PVAD) in patients undergoing ventricular tachycardia (VT) ablation. The study aims to conduct a meta-analysis comparing the safety and efficacy of PVAD versus no-PVAD (N-PVAD) during VT ablation. Studies meeting criteria were systematically reviewed. Baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were extracted and analyzed. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) and mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analysis included five retrospective, observational studies consisting of 2026 patients (PVAD group—284 patients versus N-PVAD group—1742 patients). The PVAD group was sicker with significantly higher VT storm, lower LVEF and greater proportion of NYHA class ≥ III than N-PVAD (p

INTRODUCTION The rates of cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infections have risen over the past decade and are associated with increased hospitalizations and mortality. A number of preventative strategies have been developed including an antibiotic coated envelope, but it has yet to gain widespread use. METHODS A meta-analysis was performed on controlled studies of the antibiotic envelope. PubMed and Google Scholar were searched for studies comparing infection rates with and without the use of an antibiotic envelope. Studies including both new implants and pulse generator replacements were included in the analysis. RESULTS Five studies were included in the meta-analysis. A total of 4,490 patients underwent CIED implantation, 1,798 with an antibiotic envelope and 2,692 without an envelope. In the pooled cohort, the envelope was associated with a 69% relative risk reduction in CIED infection (0.31 [0.17, 0.58] 95% CI, P = 0.0002). Propensity matched data from three studies were analyzed to ensure accurate comparison. In the risk-matched cohort, infections were significantly lower in the envelope group (3 vs. 26, P

This study sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of venous access techniques for cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) implantation.Minimally invasive transvenous access is a fundamental step during implantation of CIEDs. However, the preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate, and the decision depends on patient characteristics and operator experience.A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian vein puncture (SVP) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) versus cephalic vein cutdown (CVC) for CIED implantation was performed in PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, SCOPUS, ClinicalTrials.gov, and various scientific conferences from inception to July 1, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed by using a random effects model to calculate risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences with 95% confidence interval (CIs).Twenty-three studies were eligible that included 35,722 patients (SVP, n = 18,009; AVP, n = 409; and CVC, n = 17,304). Compared with CVC, SVP was associated with a higher risk of pneumothorax (RR: 4.88; 95% CI: 2.95 to 8.06) and device/lead failure (RR: 2.09; 95% CI: 1.07 to 4.09), whereas there was no significant difference in these outcomes compared with AVP. Acute procedural success was significantly higher with SVP compared with CVC (RR: 1.24; 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.53). There was no significant difference in other complications such as pocket hematoma/bleeding, device infection, or pericardial effusion between SVP or AVP compared with CVC.CVC was associated with a lower risk of pneumothorax and lead failure compared with SVP. AVP and CVC are both effective approaches for CIED lead implantation and offer the potential to avoid the complications usually observed with traditional SVP.

BACKGROUND Selection of an appropriate antithrombotic regimen in patients requiring oral anticoagulation (OAC) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) still remains a challenge. An ideal 9-2regimen should balance the risk of bleeding against ischemic benefit. METHODS A comprehensive literature search for studies comparing triple antithrombotic therapy (TAT) vs double antithrombotic therapy (DAT) in patients requiring OAC undergoing PCI was performed in clinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO Services, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, and various scientific conference sessions from inception to May 1st, 2019. A meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model to calculate risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS Fifteen studies were eligible and included 13 967 patients, of which 7349 received TAT and 6618 received DAT. Compared with DAT, TAT was associated with lower risk of myocardial infarction (RR, 0.82; 95%CI, 0.69-0.98; P = .03) and stent thrombosis (RR, 0.66; 95%CI, 0.46-0.96; P = .03). There was no difference in risk of trial defined major adverse cardiac events, all-cause mortality, and stroke between two groups. Compared with DAT, TAT was associated with higher risk of trial defined major bleeding (RR, 1.67; 95%CI, 1.38-2.01; P

Heparin dosing of patients anticoagulated with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) undergoing atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation can be challenging as they require more heparin than those on warfarin therapy. We sought to compare periprocedural activated clotting times (ACTs) of patients on warfarin vs. DOAC and determine an optimal weight-based heparin dosage strategy. Patients who underwent AF ablation over 28 months were reviewed for type of anticoagulation, intraprocedural heparin dosing, ACTs, and adverse outcomes. A heparin dosing strategy was then tested in a prospective validation cohort. There were 89 patients in the DOAC group and 43 in the warfarin group. Demographics, comorbidities, and complication rates were similar. Mean ACT and percentage of therapeutic ACTs were lower in the DOAC group, most significantly in those with a weight > 90 kg. In DOAC patients, a higher initial heparin bolus ≥ 150 units/kg yielded a higher percentage of therapeutic intraprocedural ACTs (49% ± 10 vs. 29% ± 7, p = 0.0008). In a prospective validation cohort of 25 patients administered an initial heparin bolus ≥ 150 units/kg, the mean ACT was 295 ± 33 and 49% of the ACTs collected were therapeutic, similar to findings of our high-dose retrospective subgroup. Patients on DOACs require more heparin during AF ablation to achieve therapeutic ACT. We suggest an initial heparin dose of at least 150 units/kg in this subset of patients, particularly in those with a weight > 90 kg.

Cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) have shown survival benefit in certain patient populations and as these devices continue to gain popularity, complications remain a concern, in particular CIED infection. An absorbable mesh envelope (TYRX, Medtronic), coated with absorbable polymer mixed

Transvenous access is fundamental step during cardiac implantable electronic device implantation. The preferred venous access is still subject to ongoing debate. A comprehensive search for studies comparing subclavian vein puncture (SVP) and axillary vein puncture (AVP) vs cephalic vein cutdown (

Device infection is a serious complication of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED). Ensuring complete pocket closure can be time consuming, but remains vital to prevent infection. The Zip® Surgical Skin Closure (ZIP) is a noninvasive adhesive device applied to the skin as an alternative to subcuticular sutures for skin closure. We hypothesized that using this device would decrease pocket closure times without increasing the risk of pocket infections. This is a single center, retrospective cohort study to compare pocket closure times and infection rates between ZIP and standard suture for CIED pocket closure. Two separate groups of consecutive new intravenous implants, upgrades, and pulse generator replacements from October 2015 to April 2017 were included. A total of 175 patients were included, using either ZIP (n = 80) or suture (n = 95). Total procedure time (local anesthetic to dressing application) and pocket closure time (fascial suture to dressing application) were compared. Pocket infections were defined as infections leading to CIED extraction or wound dehiscence requiring repeat procedure. Statistical analysis was performed using chi square test and Student’s t test. Pocket closure time and procedure time were significantly shorter for the ZIP group (14.9 ± 6.8 vs 20.1 ± 11.09 min, p = 0.0003) and (65.02 ± 30.4 vs 83.83 ± 40.3 min, p = 0.0008), respectively. No pocket infections occurred in the Zip group, while the suture group had 2:1 wound dehiscence and 1 pocket infection. The ZIP device resulted in significantly shorter pocket closure and procedure times without increasing device pocket infections.

Catheter ablation is proven to be an effective strategy for drug refractory ventricular tachycardia (VT) in ischemic cardiomyopathy. However, the appropriate timing of VT ablation and identifying the group of patients that may receive the greatest benefit remains uncertain. There is limited data on the effect on prophylactic catheter ablation (PCA) in the prevention of implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) therapy, electrical storm, and mortality. We performed a comprehensive literature search through November 1, 2017, for all eligible studies comparing PCA + ICD versus ICD only in eligible patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. Clinical outcomes included all ICD therapies including ICD shocks and electrical storm. Additional outcomes included all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and complications. Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (N = 346) met inclusion criteria. PCA was associated with a significantly lower ICD therapies (OR 0.49; CI 0.28 to 0.87; p = 0.01) including ICD shocks [OR 0.38; CI 0.22 to 0.64; p = 0.0003) and electrical storm (OR 0.55; CI 0.30 to 1.01; p = 0.05) when compared with ICD only. There was no significant difference in all-cause mortality (OR 0.77; CI 0.41 to 1.46; p = 0.42), cardiovascular mortality (OR 0.49; CI 0.16 to 1.50; p = 0.21), and major adverse events (OR 1.45; CI 0.52 to 4.01; p = 0.47) between two groups. These results suggest prophylactic catheter ablation decreases ICD therapies, including shocks and electrical storm with no improvement in overall mortality. There is a need for future carefully designed randomized clinical trials.

Background: Epicardial access (EA) is increasingly used in various electrophysiological procedures with wide variation in EA success and complications. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, EBSCO and Google Scholar databases for studies reporting success and complications with EA. Meta-analysis was done using MedCalc software with random effects-model. Procedural success was defined as successful pericardial access. Pericardial tamponade was defined as pericardial effusion requiring drainage. Success and complications were adjusted and calculated per 100 procedures. Results: A total of 6 studies [retrospective - 5, prospective - 1] including 1,122 patients [large bore (LB) - 878, micropuncture (MP) - 219 and EpiAcces- 25 patients] undergoing EA for ventricular tachycardia ablation and Lariat procedure. Table 1,2 demonstrates rates of procedural success and complications of EA. Acute procedural success was 94.9% [95% CI (93.1 - 96.1)]. Pericardial tamponade, pericardial effusion, emergency heart surgery and RV puncture were seen in 1.7%, 2.8%, 0.7% and 6.5% respectively. Conclusion: EA is feasible with a 95% procedural success and acceptable rate of major complications. Use of MP needle and advancement in other EA technology will further improve procedure safety.

The number of institutions performing ablation procedures has increased significantly over the past 10 years. There are no standards for the utilization of anesthesiology services (AN) for ablation procedures. To quantify the use of AN in ablations in the US, an online survey was sent to US

Standards and regulatory policies for anesthesia coverage for electrophysiology (EP) procedures have changed in the last several years. However, quantification of anesthesia involvement in EP is lacking. An online survey was sent to US electrophysiologists and cardiac anesthesiologists as approved

Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection rates have continued to increase and are associated with increased hospitalizations and mortality. A number of preventative strategies have been developed including an antibiotic coated envelope, but this approach has yet to gain widespread use