AFib ablation in clinical practice is mostly performed in symptomatic, relatively young and otherwise healthy patients. Overall success rate is satisfactory, but complication rate remains considerable and a significant portion of patients remain on AADs. Monitoring after ablation shows wide variations. Antithrombotic treatment after ablation shows insufficient guideline-adherence.

First-line endoepicardial VT substrate ablation achieves good long-term results in AC. Left-dominant AC is associated with an increased risk of recurrence. The Bi/Uni-LVA ratio identifies patients with limited epicardial arrhythmogenic substrate in whom the indication of epicardial approach should be more cautiously assessed.

BackgroundThis study sought to assess payer costs following cryoballoon or radiofrequency current (RFC) catheter ablation of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation in the randomized FIRE AND ICE trial.Methods and ResultsA trial period analysis of healthcare costs evaluated the impact of ablation modality (cryoballoon versus RFC) on differences in resource use and associated payer costs. Analyses were based on repeat interventions, rehospitalizations, and cardioversions during the trial, with unit costs based on 3 national healthcare systems (Germany [€], the United Kingdom [£], and the United States [normal$]). Total payer costs were calculated by applying standard unit costs to hospital stays, using International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision diagnoses and procedure codes that were mapped to country‐specific diagnosis‐related groups. Patients (N=750) randomized 1:1 to cryoballoon (n=374) or RFC (n=376) ablation were followed for a mean of 1.5 years. Resource use was lower in the cryoballoon than the RFC group (205 hospitalizations and/or interventions in 122 patients versus 268 events in 154 patients). The cost differences per patient in mean total payer costs during follow‐up were €640, £364, and normal$925 in favor of cryoballoon ablation (P=0.012, 0.013, and 0.016, respectively). This resulted in trial period total cost savings of €245 000, £140 000, and normal$355 000.ConclusionsWhen compared with RFC ablation, cryoballoon ablation was associated with a reduction in resource use and payer costs. In all 3 national healthcare systems analyzed, this reduction resulted in substantial trial period cost savings, primarily attributable to fewer repeat ablations and a reduction in cardiovascular rehospitalizations with cryoballoon ablation.Clinical Trial RegistrationURL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Identifier: NCT01490814.

CRT can reduce moderate or severe baseline MR to non-significant in one-third of patients. However, its persistence was associated with worse clinical evolution, greater incidence of arrhythmic events, and less reverse remodelling.