No abstract

PVI alone is insufficient in the treatment of persistent AF. However, additional left linear lesions increase the success rate significantly. Early AF-relapses are associated with a negative outcome after PVI alone but not following additional SM.

AimsTo collect information on the use of the Reveal implantable loop recorder (ILR) in the patient care pathway and to investigate its effectiveness in the diagnosis of unexplained recurrent syncope in everyday clinical practice.Methods and resultsProspective, multicentre, observational study conducted in 2006–2009 in 10 European countries and Israel. Eligible patients had recurrent unexplained syncope or pre-syncope. Subjects received a Reveal Plus, DX or XT. Follow up was until the first recurrence of a syncopal event leading to a diagnosis or for ≥1 year. In the course of the study, patients were evaluated by an average of three different specialists for management of their syncope and underwent a median of 13 tests (range 9–20). Significant physical trauma had been experienced in association with a syncopal episode by 36% of patients. Average follow-up time after ILR implant was 10 ± 6 months. Follow-up visit data were available for 570 subjects. The percentages of patients with recurrence of syncope were 19, 26, and 36% after 3, 6, and 12 months, respectively. Of 218 events within the study, ILR-guided diagnosis was obtained in 170 cases (78%), of which 128 (75%) were cardiac.ConclusionA large number of diagnostic tests were undertaken in patients with unexplained syncope without providing conclusive data. In contrast, the ILR revealed or contributed to establishing the mechanism of syncope in the vast majority of patients. The findings support the recommendation in current guidelines that an ILR should be implanted early rather than late in the evaluation of unexplained syncope.

Background— The implantable cardioverter–defibrillator (ICD) is the standard therapy to prevent sudden cardiac death in patients with coronary artery disease and unstable ventricular tachyarrhythmias. The prospective multinational SMS (Substrate Modification Study) was designed to assess whether prophylactic ablation of the arrhythmogenic substrate reduces or prevents the recurrence of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation in such patients. Methods and Results— Of 111 patients included in an intention-to-treat analysis, 54 were randomly assigned catheter ablation plus ICD implantation (ablation group: 68±8 years; 47 men), whereas 57 were assigned ICD implantation without catheter ablation (ICD-only group: 66±8 years; 46 men). Primary study end point was the time to first recurrence of ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation. ICD episodes were assessed and verified by an independent board. Patients were followed up for 2.3±1.1 years. The primary end point was reached by 25 ablation patients and 26 ICD-only patients. Two-year event-free survival was estimated at 49.0% (95% confidence interval, 33.3%–62.9%) in the former and 52.4% (36.7%–65.9%) in the latter groups. Comparison of episode incidence revealed no significant difference in the primary end point ( P =0.84). In an Andersen–Gill regression model with multiple end point recurrences, the difference between the study arms significantly favored catheter ablation for both the primary end point and all but one of the predefined subgroups of detected arrhythmia events. Conclusions— SMS failed to meet the primary end point of time to first ventricular tachycardia/ventricular fibrillation recurrence. However, catheter ablation did reduce the total number of ICD interventions during the duration of follow-up. Clinical Trial Registration— https://clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT00170287.