No abstract

Background There are limited data on the comparative analyses of TightRail rotating dilator sheath (Philips) and laser sheath for lead extraction. Objective To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the TightRail sheath as a primary or secondary tool for transvenous lead extraction (TLE). Methods Retrospective cohort analysis of 202 consecutive patients who underwent TLE using either TightRail sheath and/or GlideLight laser sheath (Philips) in our hospital. The study population was divided into three groups: Group A underwent TLE with laser sheath only (N = 157), Group B with TightRail sheath only (N = 22), and Group C with both sheaths (N = 23). Results During this period, 375 leads in 202 patients were extracted, including 297 leads extracted by laser sheath alone, 45 leads by TightRail sheath alone, and 33 by both TightRail sheath and laser sheaths. The most common indications included device infection (44.6%) and lead‐related complications (44.1%). The median age of leads was 8.9 years. TightRail sheath (Group B) achieved similar efficacy as a primary extraction tool compared with laser sheath (Group A), with complete procedure success rate of 93.3% (vs. 96.6%, P = .263) and clinical success rate of 100.0% (vs. 98.1%, P = .513). Among 32 leads in which Tightrail was used after laser had failed (Group C), the complete procedure success rate was 75.8%. No significant difference in procedural adverse events was observed. Conclusion Our single‐center experience confirms that the TightRail system is an effective first‐line and second‐line method for TLE. Further investigation is required to guide the selection of mechanical and laser sheaths in lead extraction cases.

Background Optimal management of asymptomatic Brugada syndrome (BrS) with spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern is uncertain. Methods and Results We developed an individual‐level simulation comprising 2 000 000 average‐risk individuals with asymptomatic BrS and spontaneous type I electrocardiographic pattern. We compared (1) observation, (2) electrophysiologic study (EPS)‐guided implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (ICD), and (3) upfront ICD, each using either subcutaneous or transvenous ICD, resulting in 6 strategies tested. The primary outcome was quality‐adjusted life years (QALYs), with cardiac deaths (arrest or procedural‐related) as a secondary outcome. We varied BrS diagnosis age and underlying arrest rate. We assessed cost‐effectiveness at $100 000/QALY. Compared with observation, EPS‐guided subcutaneous ICD resulted in 0.35 QALY gain/individual and 4130 cardiac deaths avoided/100 000 individuals, and EPS‐guided transvenous ICD resulted in 0.26 QALY gain and 3390 cardiac deaths avoided. Compared with observation, upfront ICD reduced cardiac deaths by a greater margin (subcutaneous ICD, 8950; transvenous ICD, 6050), but only subcutaneous ICD improved QALYs (subcutaneous ICD, 0.25 QALY gain; transvenous ICD, 0.01 QALY loss), and complications were higher. ICD‐based strategies were more effective at younger ages and higher arrest rates (eg, using subcutaneous devices, upfront ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 20–39.4 years and arrest rates >1.37%/year; EPS‐guided ICD was the most effective strategy at ages 39.5–51.3 years and arrest rates 0.47%–1.37%/year, and observation was the most effective strategy at ages >51.3 years and arrest rates <0.47%/year). EPS‐guided subcutaneous ICD was cost‐effective ($80 508/QALY). Conclusions Device‐based approaches (with or without EPS risk stratification) can be more effective than observation among selected patients with asymptomatic BrS. BrS management should be tailored to patient characteristics.

Our data suggest that LAAO is a reasonable option for stroke prophylaxis in AF when anticoagulation is not an option, and the risk for stroke outweighs the risk of procedural complications. Data were limited with the use of most available devices. To better establish the risk and benefit of LAAO in comparison with standard therapy, more randomized controlled trials are necessary.

Aims Ablation of outflow tract ventricular arrhythmias may be limited by a deep intramural location of the arrhythmogenic source. This study evaluates the acute and long-term outcomes of patients undergoing ablation of intramural outflow tract premature ventricular complexes (PVCs). Methods and results This multicenter series included patients with structurally normal heart or nonischemic cardiomyopathy and intramural outflow tract PVCs defined by: (a) ≥ 2 of the following criteria: (1) earliest endocardial or epicardial activation &lt; 20ms pre-QRS; (2) Similar activation in different chambers; (3) no/transient PVC suppression with ablation at earliest endocardial/epicardial site; or (b) earliest ventricular activation recorded in a septal coronary vein. Ninety-two patients were included, with a mean PVC burden of 21.5±10.9%. Twenty-six patients had had previous ablations. All PVCs had inferior axis, with LBBB pattern in 68%. In 29 patients (32%) direct mapping of the intramural septum was performed using an insulated wire or multielectrode catheter, and in 13 of these cases the earliest activation was recorded within a septal vein. Most patients required special ablation techniques (one or more), including sequential unipolar ablation in 73%, low-ionic irrigation in 26%, bipolar ablation in 15% and ethanol ablation in 1%. Acute PVC suppression was achieved in 75% of patients. Following the procedure, the PVC burden was reduced to 5.8±8.4%. The mean follow-up was 15±14 months and 16 patients underwent a repeat ablation. Conclusion Ablation of intramural PVCs is challenging; acute arrhythmia elimination is achieved in 3/4 patients, and non-conventional approaches are often necessary for success.