Introduction: Noninvasive ablative radiotherapy of cardiac arrhythmias (stereotactic ablative body radiation) has shown promising initial results. Precise targeting of the arrhythmogenic substrate is paramount to limit adverse effects to healthy myocardium, organs at risk, and cardiac implantable electronic devices. Using electroanatomic maps for treatment planning is technically challenging. Methods and Results: Using the free open-source 3D Slicer software platform we established a workflow for high-precision target definition based on electroanatomic maps. An import plug-in for 3D Slicer has been designed that reads electroanatomic maps generated with three mapping systems in widespread clinical use. Using our proposed workflow in a real-world patient case we were able to align the map to the computed tomography (CT) with a mean distance of 3.1 mm. Thus, points defined on the map were translated into CT space with high accuracy and a radiotherapy treatment volume was defined in CT space based on these mapderived points. Conclusion: We describe a novel high-precision target definition method for stereotactic ablation of cardiac arrhythmias. Multimodal integration of the electroanatomic map with the planning CT allows for highly accurate localization of previously identified electrophysiological features in CT space. It remains to be shown whether this novel planning workflow leads to superior ablation outcomes when compared with other approaches.
Aim The wearable cardioverter‐defibrillator (WCD) is used for temporary protection from sudden cardiac death (SCD) in patients with newly diagnosed heart failure with reduced ejection fraction before considering an implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD). However, the prognostic significance of the WCD remains controversial due to conflicting evidence. The aim of the present study was to evaluate prognosis of patients receiving life‐saving WCD shocks. Methods and results All patients receiving a WCD at Hannover Medical School for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction between 2012 and 2017 were included. Data were acquired at baseline, at 3 months and at last available follow‐up (FU). Three hundred and fifty‐three patients were included (69% male; age 56 ± 15 years; left ventricular ejection fraction 25 ± 8%). FU after the WCD was 2.8 ± 1.5 years with a maximum of 6.8 years. Daily WCD wear time was 22 ± 4 h. Fourteen patients (4%) received appropriate WCD shocks. Two patients (0.6%) died during the WCD period. Thirty patients (9%) died during extended FU. Mean estimated survival after the WCD was similar between patients with and without WCD shocks. Patients without an ICD recommendation after WCD prescription did not experience SCD during FU. Conclusions Patients with WCD shocks showed a favourable survival. Patients without an ICD recommendation after WCD prescription had no SCD during FU. These findings support the practice of careful risk stratification before considering an ICD and the use of the WCD for temporary protection from SCD.
Purpose The subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) could be a promising alternative to the conventional transvenous ICD in patients with LVAD due to its reduced risk of infection. However, surface ECG is altered following LVAD implantation and, since S-ICD detection is based on surface ECG, S-ICD could be potentially affected. The aim of the present study was to analyze S-ICD eligibility in patients with LVAD. Methods Seventy-five patients implanted with an LVAD were included in this prospective single-center study. The ECG-based screening test and the automated screening test were performed in all patients. Results Fifty-five (73.3%) patients had either a positive ECG-based or automated screening test. Out of these, 28 (37.3%) patients were found eligible for S-ICD implantation with both screening tests performed. ECG-based screening test was positive in 50 (66.6%) patients; automated screening test was positive in 33 (44.0%) patients. Three ECG-based screening tests could not be evaluated due to artifacts. With the automated screening test, in 9 (12.0%) patients, the test yielded no result. Conclusions Patients implanted with an LVAD showed lower S-ICD eligibility rates compared with patients without LVAD. With an S-ICD eligibility rate of maximal 73.3%, S-ICD therapy may be a feasible option in these patients. Nevertheless, S-ICD implantation should be carefully weighed against potential device-device interference. Prospective studies regarding S-ICD eligibility before and after LVAD implantation are required to further elucidate the role of S-ICD therapy in this population.
Introduction: In patients with a left ventricular assist device (LVAD), the subcutaneous implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (S-ICD) can be an alternative to transvenous ICD systems due to reduced risk of systemic infection, which could lead to extraction of the ICD as well as the LVAD. S-ICD eligibility is lower in patients with LVAD than in patients with end-stage heart failure without LVAD. Several reports have shown inappropriate S-ICD therapy in the coexistence of LVAD and S-ICD. The aim of the present study was to evaluate S-ICD eligibility in patients with LVAD using the established electrocardiogram (ECG)-based screening test as well as a novel device-based screening test to identify potentially inappropriate S-ICD sensing in this specific patient cohort. Methods and Results: The present study included 115 patients implanted with an LVAD. The standard ECG-based screening test and a novel device-based screening test were performed in all patients. Eighty patients (70%) were eligible for S-ICD therapy with the standard ECG-based screening test. Performance of the novel device-based screening test identified device-device interference in 14 of these 80 patients (12%). Conclusion: Using a novel extended device-based S-ICD screening method, a small number of patients with LVAD deemed eligible for S-ICD with the standard ECG-based screening test exhibit device-device interference. Careful S-ICD screening should be performed in patients with LVAD, who are candidates for S-ICD therapy, to prevent inappropriate sensing or ICD therapy.
Aims Patients with adult congenital heart disease (ACHD) carry an increased risk for sudden cardiac death. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) therapy may be challenging in these patients due to anatomical barriers, repeated cardiac surgery, or complicated transvenous access. Thus, the subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD) can be a promising alternative in this patient population. Patients with ACHD show significant electrocardiogram (ECG) abnormalities, which could affect S-ICD sensing because it depends on surface ECG. Methods and results One hundred patients with ACHD were screened for S-ICD eligibility. Standard ECG-based screening test and automated S-ICD screening test were performed in all patients. Sixty-six patients (66%) were male. Underlying congenital heart disease (CHD) was mainly CHD of great complexity (71%) and moderate complexity (29%), including repaired tetralogy of Fallot (20%), which was the most common entity. Thirty-seven patients (37%) already had a pacemaker (23%) or ICD (14%) implanted. Automated screening test identified 83 patients (83%) eligible for S-ICD implantation in either left parasternal position (78%) or right parasternal position (75%). Absence of sinus rhythm, QRS duration, and a paced QRS complex were associated with S-ICD screening failure in univariate analysis. Receiver operating characteristic curve and multivariate analysis revealed a QRS duration ≥148 ms as the only independent predictor for S-ICD screening failure. Conclusions Patients with ACHD show satisfactory eligibility rates (83%) for S-ICD implantation utilizing the automated screening test, including patients with CHD of high complexity. S-ICD therapy should be considered with caution in ACHD patients with a QRS duration ≥148 ms and/or need for ventricular pacing.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.