Relationship between Exercise Test Parameters, Device-Delivered Electric Shock and Adverse Clinical Events in Patients with an Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator for Primary Prevention.

(1) Background: Receiving the first internal electric shock is a turning point for patients with an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) for primary prevention. However, no study has investigated whether patients who receive a first device-delivered electric shock have a poor prognosis even at the time of ICD implantation. (2) Methods: We retrospectively identified 55 patients with ischemic (n = 31) or dilated (n = 24) cardiomyopathy who underwent ICD implantation for primary prevention with exercise test at the time of implantation. We recorded baseline characteristics, exercise test parameters, and clinical events. (3) Results: After a median follow-up of 5 years, we observed an association between an appropriate device-delivered electric shock, the occurrence of death or heart transplant, and the occurrence of the composite endpoint. There was also a significant relation between a VE/VCO2 slope >35 and the occurrence of the composite endpoint. Conversely, there was no significant association between negative outcomes on the exercise test and the occurrence of a device-delivered electric shock. (4) Conclusions: The exercise test performed at the time of ICD implantation do not predict the occurrence of device-delivered electric shock. The exercise test and the first electric shock are two independent markers of poor prognosis.

Transseptal versus retrograde approach for ablation of left-sided accessory pathways: impact on radiation exposure.

Management of left-sided accessory pathways (APs) is based on catheter ablation through an antegrade or retrograde approach. Both are safe and effective but are associated with exposure to x-rays; however, recipients of ablation are generally young. We sought to evaluate the impact of the approach chosen on dose-area product (DAP). A total of 95 patients who underwent radiofrequency ablation of a left-sided AP between January 2011 and January 2020 were included. The primary endpoint was the radiation dose received by the patient. Secondary endpoints were procedural success and complication and recurrence rates. The mean age of the study population was 34.3 ± 16.6 years. The antegrade transseptal approach was used in 63.5% of cases. By multivariate analysis, the antegrade transseptal approach was associated with a 53% reduction in DAP (p< 0.001). The radiation dose received was also significantly associated with body mass index and total fluoroscopy time (p< 0.001). There was no significant difference in other secondary endpoints between approaches. The use of an antegrade transseptal approach is associated with a significant reduction in DAP compared with the retrograde approach, and procedural success and complication and recurrence rates are similar.

Physicians' exposure to radiation during electrophysiology procedures.

PURPOSE: Cardiologists are among the health professionals that are most exposed to ionizing radiation, but there is no study comparing the level of exposure of physicians during different electrophysiology procedures. We aimed to measure and compare cardiologists' exposure to radiation during different electrophysiology procedures. METHODS: The study population comprised all electrophysiology procedures performed over a 6-month period in a large referral centre. The endpoint was operator radiation exposure, assessed using a personal electronic dosimeter located on the operator's left arm. RESULTS: In total, 150 electrophysiology procedures were analyzed. Compared with electrophysiology studies (reference category), physician radiation exposure was 3-fold greater during ablation of atrial fibrillation, 9-fold greater during ablation of atrioventricular nodal reentrant tachycardia (AVNRT)/atrioventricular reentrant tachycardia (AVNT), and 10-fold greater during ablation of atrial flutter (p < 0.001). Physician exposure was mainly related to X-ray time (R2 = 0.28). CONCLUSIONS: Our study showed significant differences in cardiologists' exposure to ionizing radiation depending on the type of electrophysiology procedure. Atrial flutter and AVNRT/AVNT ablations are the procedures in which operators are most exposed to ionizing radiation.

Impact of cardiac resynchronisation therapy on cardiologists' exposure to radiation during implantation of pacemakers and implantable cardioverter-defibrillators.

Cardiologists are among the health professionals that are most exposed to ionizing radiation, but there is no recent study quantifying overexposure of physicians during cardiac resynchronisation therapy (CRT) procedures compared to 'classical' implantation of pacemakers (PMs) or implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). We aimed to measure and compare operator exposure to radiation during implantation of PM and ICD with or without CRT. The study population comprised all PMs and ICDs implanted in a large referral centre over a six months period. The endpoint was operator radiation exposure, assessed using a personal electronic dosimeter located on operator's chest. In total, 169 PM/ICD implantations were analysed, 19 of which included CRT. Compared with 'classical' implantation, cardiologist radiation exposure was 9-fold greater during CRT procedures (p < 0.001). Physician exposure was related to dose-area product (R2 = 0.21 during 'classical' implantations and R2 = 0.57 during CRT procedures). Our study shows that cardiologists' exposure to radiation during CRT implantation was 9-fold greater than during procedures without CRT.

Risk factors for infection of implantable cardiac devices: data from a registry of 2496 patients.

AIMS: The increased use of implantable cardiac devices has been accompanied by an increase in infection. However, risk factors for infection of implanted devices are poorly documented. We aimed to identify risk factors in patients with long-term follow-up after implantation of cardiac devices. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with first implantation of a cardiac device in our centre between October 1996 and July 2007 were entered in a registry. Each confirmed infection of the implanted device was matched to two controls for age, sex, and implantation year. We recorded cardiovascular risk factors (hypertension, diabetes), previous history of heart disease, renal failure, antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy, as well as pre- and post-procedural characteristics (antibiotic prophylaxis, hyperthermia, number of leads, associated interventions, and early complications). During the study period, 2496 patients underwent implantation of a cardiac device; 35 infections were diagnosed (1.2%). Among these, 75% occurred during the first year after implantation. Early non-infectious complication requiring surgical intervention was observed only in patients with infection (9 of 35, P < 0.001). Factors independently associated with infection were diabetes [odds ratio (OR) 3.5, 95% confidence interval (CI) [1.03, 12.97]], underlying heart disease (OR 3.12, 95% CI [1.13; 8.69]), and use of >1 lead (OR 4.07, 95% CI [1.23, 13.47]). These latter two risk factors were also independently associated with occurrence of infection within 1 year of implantation. CONCLUSION: Our data show that the presence of diabetes and underlying heart disease are independent risk factors for infection after cardiac device implantation. As regards procedural characteristics, the use of several leads and early re-intervention are associated with a higher infection rate.