Aims This study aimed to identify factors for attention leading to future pacing device implantation (PDI) and reveal the necessity of prophylactic PDI or implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantation in transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) patients. Methods and results This retrospective single-center observational study included consecutive 114 wild-type ATTR-CM (ATTRwt-CM) and 50 hereditary ATTR-CM (ATTRv-CM) patients, neither implanted with a pacing device nor fulfilling indications for PDI at diagnosis. As a study outcome, patient backgrounds were compared with and without future PDI, and the incidence of PDI in each conduction disturbance was examined. Furthermore, appropriate ICD therapies were investigated in all 19 patients with ICD implantation. PR-interval ≥220 msec, interventricular septum (IVS) thickness ≥16.9 mm, and bifascicular block were significantly associated with future PDI in ATTRwt-CM patients, and brain natriuretic peptide ≥35.7 pg/mL, IVS thickness ≥11.3 mm, and bifascicular block in ATTRv-CM patients. The incidence of subsequent PDI in patients with bifascicular block at diagnosis was significantly higher than that of normal atrioventricular (AV) conduction in both ATTRwt-CM [hazard ratio (HR): 13.70, P = 0.019] and ATTRv-CM (HR: 12.94, P = 0.002), whereas that of patients with first-degree AV block was neither (ATTRwt-CM: HR: 2.14, P = 0.511, ATTRv-CM: HR: 1.57, P = 0.701). Regarding ICD, only 2 of 16 ATTRwt-CM and 1 of 3 ATTRv-CM patients received appropriate anti-tachycardia pacing or shock therapy, under the number of intervals to detect for ventricular tachycardia of 16–32. Conclusions According to our retrospective single-center observational study, prophylactic PDI did not require first-degree AV block in both ATTRwt-CM and ATTRv-CM patients, and prophylactic ICD implantation was also controversial in both ATTR-CM. Larger prospective, multi-center studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) ablation is an important treatment strategy for CTI-dependent atrial flutter (AFL). The location of the catheter contact area is confirmed by the contact vector direction (CVD) through three-dimensional mapping during the procedure. However, the relationship between CVD during radiofrequency ablation and its efficacy in achieving CTI block has not been clarified. This study aimed to investigate the relationship between CVD and efficacy in achieving CTI block. CVDs during radiofrequency ablation were divided into proximal vectors against the distal tip (P-vector) and other vectors (normal-vector). In 39 patients who underwent CTI linear ablation, the CTIs were divided into two segments: the tricuspid valve area (anterior) and inferior vena cava area (posterior). The frequency of the residual conduction gap was compared between segments in which the P- and normal-vectors were observed. P-vectors were observed in 13 of the 78 segments. The median ablation index was not significantly different between segments in which the P-vector and normal-vector were observed (398.2 [384.2–402.2] vs. 393.3 [378.3–400.1], p = 0.15). However, residual conduction gaps were significantly more frequently observed in the segment in which the P-vector was observed than those in which only the normal-vector was observed (6/13, 46.2% vs. 3/65, 4.6%; p < 0.01). During a 6-month follow-up, two patients required a second session of ablation due to AFL recurrence. A residual conduction gap was observed in one patient at the site where the P-vector was observed in the first session. Avoiding the P-vector might be an important factor in improving CTI block and reducing AFL recurrence.

Background A three‐dimensional (3D) mapping system is essential to reduce radiation exposure during catheter ablation. When using the CARTO 3D mapping system, only the catheter with magnetic sensor can visualize its location. However, once target chamber matrix is created using the catheter, even the catheters without magnetic sensors (CWMS) can enable visualization. We aimed to investigate the feasibility and safety of placing a CWMS in the coronary sinus (CS) without fluoroscopic guidance. Methods The study group comprised 88 consecutive patients who underwent catheter ablation. CWMS placement was performed without fluoroscopic guidance in 47 patients and with fluoroscopic guidance in 41 patients. Placement without fluoroscopic guidance was performed after creating a visualization matrix of the CS, right atrium, and superior vena cava using a catheter with a magnetic sensor. Feasibility and safety were compared between the two groups. Results Successful catheter placement was achieved in all patients without fluoroscopic guidance, with no inter‐group difference in the median procedure time: with guidance, 120.0 [96.0–135.0] min, and without guidance, 110.0 [97.5–125.0] min; p = .22. However, radiation exposure was significantly shorter, and the effective dose was lower without fluoroscopic guidance (0 [0–17.5] s and 0 [0–0.004] mSv, respectively) than with fluoroscopic guidance (420.0 [270.0–644.0] s and 0.73 mSv [0.36–1.26], respectively); both p < .001. Conclusions CWMS placement without fluoroscopic guidance is feasible, safe to perform, and does not involve complications. Our technique provides an option to decrease radiation exposure during catheter ablation and electrophysiological testing.