Introduction
One cause of cerebral infarction during cryoballoon ablation is the entry of air into a sheath due to the use of inappropriate catheters. It is known that the left atrial pressure of patients with obstructive sleep apnea syndrome can be negative. However, the effects of catheter selection and negative pressure changes in the sheath on air intrusion are not yet well understood. The aim of this study was to evaluate how catheter selection and negative pressure changes affect air intrusion and to perform countermeasures for air intrusion.
Methods and Results
This experiment used siphon principle to create negative pressure in the sheath. Noncryoablation catheters (not designed exclusively for cryoballoon ablation) and cryoballoon catheters were investigated. Catheters were inserted into the sheath and then removed. Thereafter, the amount of air in the sheath was measured. For catheters producing significantly larger amounts of air intrusion, the catheters were inserted via a long sheath in the sheath (sheath‐in‐sheath technique) and the same procedures were repeated. We found that the amount of air intrusion through most of the noncryoablation catheters was significantly larger than that through cryoablation catheters. An increase in the magnitude of negative pressure in the sheath resulted in a proportional increase in air intrusion, but the sheath‐in‐sheath technique significantly reduced air intrusion.
Conclusion
The amount of air intrusion increased when using catheters with complicated tip shapes and thin outer diameters and when the magnitude of negative pressure in the sheath increased. The sheath‐in‐sheath technique may be an effective countermeasure.
Background:The displacement of cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIEDs) toward the caudal side during standing after CIED implantation could cause lead dislodgement. This study investigated the relationship between supine pocket position and standing CIEDs' displacement distance after the implantation.
Methods:After CIED surgeries performed at 2 hospitals between 2012 and 2020, 134 patients underwent postoperative chest x-rays in the supine and standing positions during hospitalization. To measure the displacement distance of CIEDs from the supine to the standing position, we identified the first thoracic vertebrae (Th1) in the supine position using the first rib as an index, drew a horizontal line at the lower edge of the Th1, and calculated the distance from that point to the upper edge of the CIED. The difference between measures for the two positions was compared. At the position of the pocket in the thorax in the supine position, the ratio of the distance between the thorax and the device is defined as the device thorax ratio (DTR). We examined the relationship between DTR and CIED displacement distance.
Results:In this study, we included 134 patients (53% men; median age, 79 years, body mass index, 22.3 ± 3.4; pacemaker 93%, left implantation 96%). We found that the more lateral the position of the CIED pocket, the more the CIED fell when standing (confidence interval = 0.34-0.60, P < .001).
Conclusions:The farther the CIED was implanted outside the thorax in the supine position, the more significantly the CIED was displaced in the standing position.
An 82-year-old woman received pacemaker implantation for sick sinus syndrome. Two days after the implantation, electrocardiography showed 2:1 atrial pacing failure, followed by a bradycardia-dependent increase in the atrial pacing threshold during a pacemaker examination. However, transient 1:1 atrial pacing capture recovered by adenosine triphosphate (ATP) administration, which was performed to evaluate the bradycardia-dependent pacing failure mechanism. We considered this phenomenon to be caused by Phase 4 depolarization and avoided replacing this atrial lead. Three weeks later, the atrial pacing threshold had improved. We report the potential role of Phase 4 depolarization in a bradycardia-dependent increase in pacing threshold by using ATP.
Background
An implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) is the most reliable therapeutic device for preventing sudden cardiac death in patients with sustained ventricular tachycardia (VT). Regarding its effectiveness, targeted VT is defined based on the tachyarrhythmia cycle length. However, variations in RR interval variability of VTs may occur. Few studies have reported on VT characteristics and effects of ICD therapy according to the RR interval variability. We aimed to identify the clinical characteristics of VTs and ICD therapy effects according to the RR interval variability.
Methods
We analyzed 821 VT episodes in 69 patients with ICDs or cardiac resynchronization therapy defibrillators. VTs were classified as irregular when the difference between two successive beats was >20 ms in at least one of 10 RR intervals; otherwise, they were classified as regular. We evaluated successful termination using anti‐tachycardia pacing (ATP)/shock therapy, spontaneous termination, and acceleration between regular and irregular VTs. The RR interval variability reproducibility rates were evaluated.
Results
Regular VT was significantly more successfully terminated than irregular VT by ATP. No significant difference was found in shock therapy or VT acceleration between the regular and irregular VTs. Spontaneous termination occurred significantly more often in irregular than in regular VT cases. The reproducibility rates of RR interval variability in each episode and in all episodes were 89% and 73%, respectively.
Conclusions
ATP therapy showed greater effectiveness for regular than for irregular VT. Spontaneous termination was more common in irregular than in regular VT. RR interval variability of VTs seems to be reproducible.
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.