Feasibility, Efficacy, and Safety of Fluoroless Ablation of VT in Patients With Structural Heart Disease.

BACKGROUND: Catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia (VT) typically requires radiation exposure with its potential adverse health effects. A completely fluoroless ablation approach is achievable using a combination of electroanatomical mapping and intracardiac echocardiography. Nonetheless, data in patients undergoing VT ablation are limited. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the feasibility, efficacy, and safety of VT ablation in patients with structural heart disease using a zero-fluoroscopy approach. METHODS: This multicenter study included consecutive patients with ischemic and nonischemic cardiomyopathy undergoing fluoroless VT ablation. Patients requiring epicardial access or coronary angiography were excluded. RESULTS: Between 2017 and 2023 a total of 198 patients (aged 66.4 ± 13.4 years, 76% male, 48% ischemic) were included. Most patients (95.4%) underwent left ventricular (LV) mapping and/or ablation, which was conducted via transseptal route in 54.5% (n = 103), via retrograde aortic route in 43.4% (n = 82), and using a combined approach in 2.1% (n = 4). Two-thirds of patients had a cardiac device, including a biventricular device in 15%; 2 patients had a LV assist device, and 1 patient had a mechanical aortic valve prosthesis. The mean total procedural time was 211 ± 70 minutes, and the total radiofrequency time was 30 ± 22 minutes. During a follow-up period of 22 ± 18 months, the freedom from VT recurrence was 80%, and 7.6% of patients underwent a repeated ablation. Procedural-related complications occurred in 6 patients (3.0%). CONCLUSIONS: Fluoroless ablation of VT in structural heart disease is feasible, effective, and safe when epicardial mapping/ablation is not required.

Adherent skin barrier drape use is associated with a reduced risk of cardiac implantable device infection: Results from a prospective study of 14,225 procedures.

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) infection is a costly and highly morbid complication. Perioperative interventions, including the use of antibiotic pouches and intensified perioperative antibiotic regimens, have demonstrated marginal efficacy at reducing CIED infection. Additional research is needed to identify additional interventions to reduce infection risk. Objective: We sought to evaluate whether adherent skin barrier drape use is associated with a reduction in CIED infection. Methods: A prospective registry of all CIED implantation procedures was established at our institution in January 2007. The registry was established in collaboration with our hospital infection prevention team with a specific focus on prospectively identifying all potential CIED infections. All potential CIED infections were independently adjudicated by 2 physicians blinded to the use of an adherent skin barrier drape. Results: Over a 13-year period, 14,225 procedures were completed (mean age 72 ± 14 years; female 4,918 (35%); new implants 10,005 (70%); pulse generator changes 2585 (18%); upgrades 1635 (11%). Of those, 2469 procedures (17.4%) were performed using an adherent skin barrier drape. There were 103 adjudicated device infections (0.73%). The infection rate in patients in the barrier use groups was 8 of 2469 (0.32%) as compared with 95 of 11,756 (0.8%) in the nonuse group (P = .0084). In multivariable analysis, the use of an adherent skin barrier drape was independently associated with a reduction in infection (odds ratio 0.32; 95% confidence interval 0.154-0.665; P = .002). Conclusion: The use of an adherent skin barrier drape at the time of cardiac device surgery is associated with a lower risk of subsequent infection.

Do barrier dressings reduce cardiac implantable device infection: Protocol for a randomized controlled trial (BARRIER-PROTECT).

Background: Cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) procedures can be associated with serious complications, including infection with significant mortality and morbidity, necessitating removal of the device and prolonged hospitalization. One potential pathophysiological mechanism is pocket contamination at the time of device implantation. Therefore, steps taken to prevent contamination at this stage can potentially reduce CIED infections.The barrier dressing, an adhesive material applied to the skin, has the potential to reduce the colonization of the surgical site with host flora that can predispose to infection. There are a limited number of randomized prospective studies on barrier dressing use during various surgeries, but it has never been systematically studied in CIED implantation. Objectives: Do Barrier Dressings Reduce Cardiac Implantable Device Infection? (BARRIER-PROTECT trial; NCT04591366) is a single-centre, prospective, double-armed, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial designed to evaluate the use of an intra-operative adhesive barrier dressing to reduce the risk of end-of-procedure pocket swab positivity. We hypothesize that adhesive draping during implant procedures will reduce the risk of contamination from the skin flora. Also, we aim to investigate if the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity can be used as a potential surrogate marker of CIED infection. Methods and Design: Patients undergoing a second or later procedure on the same device pocket (pulse generator change, lead/pocket revision or upgrade) will be enrolled. Eligible and consenting patients will be equally randomized to the use of barrier dressing or not using an automated web-based system. Patients, but not the operator, will be blinded to the arm. The person performing the pocket swabs will also be blinded. The primary endpoint is the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. The main secondary endpoint is the CIED infection rate. Discussion: This is the first randomized controlled trial to assess the effectiveness of using a barrier adhesive draping on reducing the end-of-procedure pocket swab culture positivity. In this study, we are exploring a low-cost intervention that may significantly reduce CIED infection. Also, having a valid surrogate marker for CIED infection at the time of implant will facilitate design of future clinical trials.

Catheter ablation of intramural outflow tract premature ventricular complexes: a multicentre study.

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 < 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.

Standard vs Augmented Ablation of Paroxysmal Atrial Fibrillation for Reduction of Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence: The AWARE Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Recurrent atrial fibrillation (AF) commonly occurs after catheter ablation and is associated with patient morbidity and health care costs. Objective: To evaluate the superiority of an augmented double wide-area circumferential ablation (WACA) compared with a standard single WACA in preventing recurrent atrial arrhythmias (AA) (atrial tachycardia, atrial flutter, or atrial fibrillation [AF]) in patients with paroxysmal AF. Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a pragmatic, multicenter, prospective, randomized, open, blinded end point superiority clinical trial conducted at 10 university-affiliated centers in Canada. The trial enrolled patients 18 years and older with symptomatic paroxysmal AF from March 2015 to May 2017. Analysis took place between January and April 2022. Analyses were intention to treat. Interventions: Patients were randomized (1:1) to receive radiofrequency catheter ablation for pulmonary vein isolation with either a standard single WACA or an augmented double WACA. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was AA recurrence between 91 and 365 days postablation. Patients underwent 42 days of ambulatory electrocardiography monitoring after ablation. Secondary outcomes included need for repeated catheter ablation and procedural and safety variables. Results: Of 398 patients, 195 were randomized to the single WACA (control) arm (mean [SD] age, 60.6 [9.3] years; 65 [33.3%] female) and 203 to the double WACA (experimental) arm (mean [SD] age, 61.5 [9.3] years; 66 [32.5%] female). Overall, 52 patients (26.7%) in the single WACA arm and 50 patients (24.6%) in the double WACA arm had recurrent AA at 1 year (relative risk, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.66-1.29; P = .64). Twenty patients (10.3%) in the single WACA arm and 15 patients (7.4%) in the double WACA arm underwent repeated catheter ablation (relative risk, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.38-1.36). Adjudicated serious adverse events occurred in 13 patients (6.7%) in the single WACA arm and 14 patients (6.9%) in the double WACA arm. Conclusions and Relevance: In this randomized clinical trial of patients with paroxysmal AF, additional ablation by performing a double ablation lesion set did not result in improved freedom from recurrent AA compared with a standard single ablation set. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02150902.

Fluoroless catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation: a step-by-step workflow.

Catheter ablation is an important therapeutic strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). While some critical steps of the procedure have traditionally relied on fluoroscopy, advances in electroanatomic mapping and the growing use of intracardiac echocardiography have made non-fluoroscopic AF ablation a reality. This hands-on review provides an overview on how to perform radiofrequency ablation of AF without the use of fluoroscopy, focusing on technical aspects, new technologies, and troubleshooting.

A Randomized Trial of Lenient Versus Strict Arm Instruction Post Cardiac Device Surgery (LENIENT).

BACKGROUND: Arm restriction after cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) placement is common practice despite minimal supporting evidence. Patients receive a range of restriction recommendations of variable durations with the goal of reducing complications such as wound dehiscence, infection, lead dislodgement, or hematoma formation. These movement limitations can lead to emotional stress and anxiety, complications such as frozen shoulder, and upper extremity venous thrombosis due to immobilization. There are no published clinical trials assessing the benefits and risks of arm restrictions post-CIED implant. OBJECTIVES: The randomized trial of lenient vs strict arm and activity instruction post-CIED surgery (LENIENT trial; NCT04915261) is a single center nonblinded randomized prospective study designed to evaluate lenient compared to restrictive post-CIED care instructions. We hypothesize that there will be no significant difference in complications between the arms. METHODS/DESIGN: All patients receiving a de novo CIED or those with upgrades and revisions requiring a new lead implant will be enrolled. Subjects are enrolled in a nonblinded randomized prospective trial with 6 randomly assigned 8-month periods, during which either a lenient or restrictive postoperative activity instructions will be given to all patients. Postoperative instructions are given at the time of discharge and further reinforced by recurrent interactive voice recognition (IVR) phone calls, text messages and emails. The requirement for individual consent has been waived. The primary end point is a composite of (1) lead dislodgement, (2) frozen shoulder, (3) upper extremity venous thrombosis, (4) clinically significant hematoma, and (5) infection occurring within 52 weeks of index surgery. The study is a noninferiority trial with a sample size of 1,250 per group. DISCUSSION: This is the first large randomized clinical trial designed to establish an evidence-based postoperative standard of care for patients undergoing CIED implantation. This will improve the quality of care provided to patients and help guide implanting physicians providing postoperative care instructions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04915261.

Perioperative Safety and Early Patient and Device Outcomes Among Subcutaneous Versus Transvenous Implantable Cardioverter Defibrillator Implantations : A Randomized, Multicenter Trial.

BACKGROUND: Implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) improve survival in patients at risk for cardiac arrest, but are associated with intravascular lead-related complications. The subcutaneous ICD (S-ICD), with no intravascular components, was developed to minimize lead-related complications. OBJECTIVE: To assess key ICD performance measures related to delivery of ICD therapy, including inappropriate ICD shocks (delivered in absence of life-threatening arrhythmia) and failed ICD shocks (which did not terminate ventricular arrhythmia). DESIGN: Randomized, multicenter trial. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02881255). SETTING: The ATLAS trial. PATIENTS: 544 eligible patients (141 female) with a primary or secondary prevention indication for an ICD who were younger than age 60 years, had a cardiogenetic phenotype, or had prespecified risk factors for lead complications were electrocardiographically screened and 503 randomly assigned to S-ICD (251 patients) or transvenous ICD (TV-ICD) (252 patients). Mean follow-up was 2.5 years (SD, 1.1). Mean age was 49.0 years (SD, 11.5). MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was perioperative major lead-related complications. RESULTS: There was a statistically significant reduction in perioperative, lead-related complications, which occurred in 1 patient (0.4%) with an S-ICD and in 12 patients (4.8%) with TV-ICD (-4.4%; 95% CI, -6.9 to -1.9; P = 0.001). There was a trend for more inappropriate shocks with the S-ICD (hazard ratio [HR], 2.37; 95% CI, 0.98 to 5.77), but no increase in failed appropriate ICD shocks (HR, 0.61 (0.15 to 2.57). Patients in the S-ICD group had more ICD site pain, measured on a 10-point numeric rating scale, on the day of implant (4.2 ± 2.8 vs. 2.9 ± 2.2; P < 0.001) and 1 month later (1.3 ± 1.8 vs. 0.9 ± 1.5; P = 0.035). LIMITATION: At present, the ATLAS trial is underpowered to detect differences in clinical shock outcomes; however, extended follow-up is ongoing. CONCLUSION: The S-ICD reduces perioperative, lead-related complications without significantly compromising the effectiveness of ICD shocks, but with more early postoperative pain and a trend for more inappropriate shocks. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Boston Scientific.

Impact of atrial fibrillation on the risk of major adverse cardiac events following coronary revascularisation.

OBJECTIVE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a highly prevalent arrhythmia with significant burden on morbidity and mortality. The impact of AF in the revascularised population remains incompletely described. Given the high prevalence of AF in the revascularised population, we sought to evaluate the incidence and prognosis in patients with pre-existing and new-onset AF following revascularisation. METHODS: We used the University of Ottawa Heart Institute Revascularisation Registry to identify patients who underwent revascularisation between August 2015 and March 2020, who were prospectively followed for an average of one year. We conducted a retrospective cohort study analysing the association between AF and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome of interest was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularisation and cerebrovascular accidents. Moreover, secondary outcomes include the individual components of MACE and bleeding. RESULTS: A total of 6704 patients underwent revascularisation and completed 1-year clinical follow-up. Median time to follow-up was 12.8 (IQR 11.2-15.9) months. One-year MACE occurred in 166 (21.8%) and 683 (11.5%) patients in AF and non-AF groups, respectively (adjusted HR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.01; p<0.0001). AF was independently predictive of 1-year mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularisation, cerebrovascular accident and bleeding. Within 1 year, 299 (4.5%) episodes of new-onset AF was observed. New-onset AF following revascularisation was also associated with 1-year MACE, mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident and unplanned revascularisation. CONCLUSIONS: Preprocedural and new-onset AF following revascularisation remains highly predictive 1-year MACE. AF should be considered in addition to traditional risk factors for adverse outcomes following revascularisation.

Is Maintenance of Sinus Rhythm of Value in Patients with Atrial Fibrillation and Heart Failure?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Heart failure (HF) and atrial fibrillation (AF) frequently co-exist, with the prevalence of AF increasing in patients with more advanced HF symptoms. When present, AF increases morbidity and mortality in patients with HF. The purpose of this review is to examine emerging evidence addressing the value of restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm in patients with HF. RECENT FINDINGS: Earlier trials comparing a rhythm control strategy with antiarrhythmic drugs have failed to demonstrate benefit in patients with HF and reduced ejection fraction. More recent trials, including the recently published RAFT-AF, utilizing catheter ablation for rhythm control, have shown greater promise, possibly due to reduced medication-related side effects and higher efficacy in maintaining sinus rhythm. A strategy of sinus rhythm maintenance with catheter ablation appears to improve mortality, reduce HF events and improve quality of life in patients with AF and HF.

Rhythm-Monitoring Strategy and Arrhythmia Recurrence in Atrial Fibrillation Ablation Trials: A Systematic Review.

Background: : The rhythm-monitoring strategy after catheter ablation (CA) for atrial fibrillation (AF) impacts the detection of atrial arrhythmia recurrence and is not well characterized. We performed a systematic review and meta-regression analysis to determine whether the duration and mode of rhythm monitoring after CA affects detection of atrial arrhythmia recurrence. Methods: Databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials of adult patients undergoing first CA for AF from 2007 to 2021. Duration and strategy of rhythm monitoring were extracted. Meta-regression was used to identify any association between duration of monitoring and detection of atrial arrhythmia recurrence. The primary measure of outcome was single-procedure recurrence of atrial arrhythmia. Results: The search strategy yielded 57 trial arms from 56 randomized controlled trials comprising 5322 patients: 36 arms of patients with paroxysmal AF (PAF), and 21 arms of patients with persistent AF (PeAF) or both PAF/PeAF. Intermittent monitoring was associated with detection of significantly less atrial arrhythmia recurrence than continuous monitoring in PAF arms (31.2% vs 46.9%, P = 0.001), but not in PeAF/PAF-PeAF combined arms (43.3% vs 63.6%, P = 0.12). No significant relationship was seen between the duration of intermittent rhythm monitoring and atrial arrhythmia recurrence detection in either the PAF (P = 0.93) or PeAF/PAF-PeAF combined arms (P = 0.20). Conclusions: Continuous rhythm monitoring detected higher atrial arrhythmia recurrence rates, compared to intermittent rhythm monitoring, in patients with PAF. The duration of intermittent monitoring did not show a statistically significant relationship to the yield of arrhythmia detection, in near identical cohorts of trial subjects undergoing similar interventions, with clinical and research implications.

Contexte: La stratégie qui consiste à surveiller le rythme cardiaque après une ablation par cathéter dans le traitement de la fibrillation auriculaire (FA) a un effet sur la détection de récidive de l'arythmie auriculaire, mais elle n'est pas bien définie. Nous avons mené une revue systématique et une méta-régression pour déterminer si le mode employé pour surveiller le rythme après une ablation par cathéter et la durée de cette surveillance ont un effet sur la détection de récidive de l'arythmie auriculaire. Méthodologie: Des bases de données ont été systématiquement épluchées à la recherche d'essais contrôlés randomisés menés auprès d'adultes subissant leur première ablation par cathéter pour une FA entre 2007 et 2021. La durée et la stratégie utilisées dans la surveillance du rythme ont été recensées. La méta-régression a été utilisée pour déceler tout lien entre la durée de la surveillance et la détection d'une récidive de l'arythmie auriculaire. Le paramètre d'évaluation principal était la récidive de l'arythmie auriculaire avec une seule intervention. Résultats: La stratégie de recherche a fait ressortir 57 groupes de 56 essais contrôlés randomisés comprenant 5 322 patients : 36 groupes de patients présentant une FA paroxystique et 21 groupes de patients présentant une FA persistante ou ces deux types de FA (paroxystique et persistante). La surveillance intermittente a été associée à une moins grande détection de cas d'arythmie auriculaire récidivante, comparativement à la surveillance constante (31,2 % vs 46,9 %, p = 0,001), ce qui n'a pas été le cas dans les groupes où les types de FA (persistante ou paroxystique et persistante) étaient combinés (43,3 % vs 63,6 %, p = 0,12). Aucun lien notable n'a été observé entre la durée de la surveillance intermittente du rythme et la détection de l'arythmie auriculaire récidivante dans le groupe FA paroxystique (p = 0,93) ou dans le groupe des types de FA combinés (p = 0,20). Conclusions: Le taux de détection de l'arythmie auriculaire récidivante était plus élevé avec la surveillance constante qu'avec la surveillance intermittente chez les patients atteints de FA paroxystique. La durée de la surveillance intermittente n'a pas eu de lien statistiquement significatif avec le rendement de détection de l'arythmie, dans des cohortes presque identiques de participants aux essais subissant des interventions similaires, comportant des implications cliniques ou expérimentales.

Should they stay, or should they go: Do we need to remove the old cardiac implantable electronic device if a new system is required on the contralateral side?

Background: Ipsilateral approach in patients requiring cardiac implantable electronic device (CIED) revision or upgrade may not be feasible, primarily due to vascular occlusion. If a new CIED is implanted on the contralateral side, a common practice is to explant the old CIED to avoid device interaction. Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess a conservative approach of abandoning the old CIED after implanting a new contralateral device. Methods: We used an artificial intelligence algorithm to analyze postimplant chest radiographs to identify those with multiple CIEDs. Outcomes of interest included device interaction, abandoned CIED elective replacement indicator (ERI) behavior, subsequent programming changes, and explant of abandoned CIED. Theoretical risk of infection with removal of abandoned CIED was estimated using a validated scoring system. Results: Among 12,045 patients, we identified 40 patients with multiple CIEDs. Occluded veins were the most common indication for contralateral implantation (n = 27 [67.5%]). Fifteen abandoned CIEDs reached ERI, with 4 reverting to VVI 65. One patient underwent explant due to device interaction, and 2 required device reprogramming. Of 32 patients with an implantable cardioverter-defibrillator, 8 (25%) had treated ventricular arrhythmia. There were no failed or inappropriate therapies due to interaction. Eighteen patients (45%) had hypothetical >1% annual risk of hospitalization for device infection if the abandoned CIED had been explanted. Conclusion: In patients requiring new CIED implant on the contralateral side, abandoning the old device is feasible. This approach may reduce the risk of infection and concerns regarding abandoned leads and magnetic resonance imaging scans. Knowledge of ERI behavior is essential to avoid device interactions.

Outcomes of a comprehensive strategy during repeat atrial fibrillation ablation.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Atrial fibrillation (AF) recurs post-ablation in 30-40% of patients. The approach to a repeat ablation, beyond isolation of reconnected pulmonary veins (PVs), is not well established. We sought to prospectively assess outcomes and predictors of recurrence among consecutive patients who underwent repeat AF ablation with a standardized approach. METHODS: This was a single-center prospective study of consecutive patients who underwent repeat AF ablation. Our protocol consisted of six steps: PV re-isolation, ablation of left atrial low-voltage areas (LVAs), ablation of isoproterenol-induced non-PV triggers, electrophysiology study (EPS) and ablation of induced AVNRT/AVRT, ablation of induced clinical atrial flutters, and lastly empiric ablation as per operator discretion if no other ablation was performed. RESULTS: Among 725 AF ablations performed during the study period, 74 were repeat ablations. Of those undergoing repeat ablation, 53 (72%) had PV reconnection, 30 (41%) had LVAs, seven (10%) had non-PV triggers, five (7%) had AVNRT, and 15 (20%) had typical atrial flutter. Following repeat ablation, arrhythmia-free survival was 65% at 1 year. The absence of PV reconnection was the only factor independently associated with recurrence after repeat ablation (recurrence rate 71%, adjusted OR 7.91, 95% CI 2.31-27.16, p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: A comprehensive approach to repeat AF ablation including PV re-isolation, LVA ablation, non-PV trigger ablation, EPS, and flutter ablation was associated with a 65% 1-year arrhythmia-free survival. The absence of PV reconnection was the only independent predictor of arrhythmia recurrence. Further research is needed to identify therapies beyond PV isolation for patients undergoing repeat ablation.

Predictors of perforation during lead extraction: Results of the Canadian Lead ExtrAction Risk (CLEAR) study.

BACKGROUND: Transvenous lead extraction can have serious adverse events, such as cardiac or vascular perforation. Risk factors have not been well characterized. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to identify factors associated with perforation and death, and to characterize lead extraction in a large contemporary population. METHODS: We performed a retrospective multicenter study examining patients undergoing lead extraction at 8 Canadian institutions from 1996 through 2016. Demographic and clinical data were used to identify variables associated with perforation and mortality using logistic regression modeling. RESULTS: A total of 2325 consecutive patients (age 61.9 ±16.5 years) underwent extraction of 4527 leads. Perforation rate was 2.7% (63/2325) and 30-day mortality was 1.6% (38/2325), with mortality of 0.4% due to perforation (10/2325). Variables associated with perforation included no previous cardiac surgery (odds ratio [OR] 3.33; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.54-7.19; P = .002), female sex (OR 3.27; 95% CI 1.91-5.60; P <.001); left ventricular ejection fraction ≥40% (OR 2.81; 95% CI 1.28-6.14; P = .010); lead age >8 years (OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.52-4.60; P <.001); ≥2 leads extracted (OR 2.49; 95% CI 1.23-5.04; P = .011); and diabetes (OR 2.12; 95% CI 1.16-3.86; P = .014). Variables associated with death included infection as indication for extraction (OR 3.85; 95% CI 1.38-10.73; P = .010); anemia (OR 3.14; 95% CI 1.38-6.61; P = .003), and patient age (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.07; P = .012). CONCLUSION: Risk factors associated with perforation in lead extraction include no history of cardiac surgery, female sex, preserved left ventricular ejection fraction, lead age >8 years, ≥2 leads extracted, and diabetes.

Corticosteroid and Immunosuppressant Therapy for Cardiac Sarcoidosis: A Systematic Review.

Background Corticosteroid therapy for the treatment of clinically manifest cardiac sarcoidosis is generally recommended. Our group previously systematically reviewed the data in 2013; since then, there has been increasing quality and quantity of data and also interest in nonsteroid agents. Methods and Results Studies were identified from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov database. The quality of included articles was rated using Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network 50. Outcomes examined were atrioventricular conduction, left ventricular function, ventricular arrhythmias, and mortality. A total of 3527 references were retrieved, and 34 publications met the inclusion criteria. There were no randomized trials, and only 2 studies were rated good quality. In the 34 reports (total of 1297 patients), 1125 patients received corticosteroids, 235 received additional or other immunosuppressant therapy, and 97 patients received no therapy. There were 178 patients treated for atrioventricular conduction disease, with 76/178 (42.7%) improving. In contrast, 21 patients were not treated with corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressant therapy, and none of them improved. Therapy was associated with the prevention of deterioration in left ventricular function. A total of 8 publications reported on ventricular arrhythmia burden, and 19 reported on mortality; the data quality was too limited to draw conclusions for the latter 2 outcomes. Conclusions The best quality data relate to atrioventricular nodal conduction and left ventricular function recovery. In both situations, therapy with corticosteroids and/or immunosuppressant therapy were sometimes associated with positive outcomes. The data quality is too limited to draw conclusions for ventricular arrhythmias and mortality.