Intraoperative Defibrillation Testing of Subcutaneous Implantable Cardioverter‐Defibrillator Systems—A Simple Issue?

Background: The results of the recently published randomized SIMPLE trial question the role of routine intraoperative defibrillation testing. However, testing is still recommended during implantation of the entirely subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) system. To address the question of whether defibrillation testing in S‐ICD systems is still necessary, we analyzed the data of a large, standard‐of‐care prospective single‐center S‐ICD registry. // Methods and Results: In the present study, 102 consecutive patients received an S‐ICD for primary (n=50) or secondary prevention (n=52). Defibrillation testing was performed in all except 4 patients. In 74 (75%; 95% CI 0.66–0.83) of 98 patients, ventricular fibrillation was effectively terminated by the first programmed internal shock. In 24 (25%; 95% CI 0.22–0.44) of 98 patients, the first internal shock was ineffective and further internal or external shock deliveries were required. In these patients, programming to reversed shock polarity (n=14) or repositioning of the sensing lead (n=1) or the pulse generator (n=5) led to successful defibrillation. In 4 patients, a safety margin of <10 J was not attained. Nevertheless, in these 4 patients, ventricular arrhythmias were effectively terminated with an internal 80‐J shock. // Conclusions: Although it has been shown that defibrillation testing is not necessary in transvenous ICD systems, it seems particular important for S‐ICD systems, because in nearly 25% of the cases the primary intraoperative test was not successful. In most cases, a successful defibrillation could be achieved by changing shock polarity or by optimizing the shock vector caused by the pulse generator or lead repositioning.<br

Distinct Occurrence of Proarrhythmic Afterdepolarizations in Atrial Versus Ventricular Cardiomyocytes: Implications for Translational Research on Atrial Arrhythmia

Background: Principal mechanisms of arrhythmia have been derived from ventricular but not atrial cardiomyocytes of animal models despite higher prevalence of atrial arrhythmia (e.g., atrial fibrillation). Due to significant ultrastructural and functional differences, a simple transfer of ventricular proneness toward arrhythmia to atrial arrhythmia is critical. The use of murine models in arrhythmia research is widespread, despite known translational limitations. We here directly compare atrial and ventricular mechanisms of arrhythmia to identify critical differences that should be considered in murine models for development of antiarrhythmic strategies for atrial arrhythmia.Methods and Results: Isolated murine atrial and ventricular myocytes were analyzed by wide field microscopy and subjected to a proarrhythmic protocol during patch-clamp experiments. As expected, the spindle shaped atrial myocytes showed decreased cell area and membrane capacitance compared to the rectangular shaped ventricular myocytes. Though delayed afterdepolarizations (DADs) could be evoked in a similar fraction of both cell types (80% of cells each), these led significantly more often to the occurrence of spontaneous action potentials (sAPs) in ventricular myocytes. Interestingly, numerous early afterdepolarizations (EADs) were observed in the majority of ventricular myocytes, but there was no EAD in any atrial myocyte (EADs per cell; atrial myocytes: 0 ± 0; n = 25/12 animals; ventricular myocytes: 1.5 [0–43]; n = 20/12 animals; p &lt; 0.05). At the same time, the action potential duration to 90% decay (APD90) was unaltered and the APD50 even increased in atrial versus ventricular myocytes. However, the depolarizing L-type Ca2+ current (ICa) and Na+/Ca2+-exchanger inward current (INCX) were significantly smaller in atrial versus ventricular myocytes.Conclusion: In mice, atrial myocytes exhibit a substantially distinct occurrence of proarrhythmic afterdepolarizations compared to ventricular myocytes, since they are in a similar manner susceptible to DADs but interestingly seem to be protected against EADs and show less sAPs. Key factors in the generation of EADs like ICa and INCX were significantly reduced in atrial versus ventricular myocytes, which may offer a mechanistic explanation for the observed protection against EADs. These findings may be of relevance for current studies on atrial level in murine models to develop targeted strategies for the treatment of atrial arrhythmia

Safety of pulsed field ablation in more than 17,000 patients with atrial fibrillation in the MANIFEST-17K study

Pulsed field ablation (PFA) is an emerging technology for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF), for which pre-clinical and early-stage clinical data are suggestive of some degree of preferentiality to myocardial tissue ablation without damage to adjacent structures. Here in the MANIFEST-17K study we assessed the safety of PFA by studying the post-approval use of this treatment modality. Of the 116 centers performing post-approval PFA with a pentaspline catheter, data were received from 106 centers (91.4% participation) regarding 17,642 patients undergoing PFA (mean age 64, 34.7% female, 57.8% paroxysmal AF and 35.2% persistent AF). No esophageal complications, pulmonary vein stenosis or persistent phrenic palsy was reported (transient palsy was reported in 0.06% of patients; 11 of 17,642). Major complications, reported for ~1% of patients (173 of 17,642), were pericardial tamponade (0.36%; 63 of 17,642) and vascular events (0.30%; 53 of 17,642). Stroke was rare (0.12%; 22 of 17,642) and death was even rarer (0.03%; 5 of 17,642). Unexpected complications of PFA were coronary arterial spasm in 0.14% of patients (25 of 17,642) and hemolysis-related acute renal failure necessitating hemodialysis in 0.03% of patients (5 of 17,642). Taken together, these data indicate that PFA demonstrates a favorable safety profile by avoiding much of the collateral damage seen with conventional thermal ablation. PFA has the potential to be transformative for the management of patients with AF.Peer reviewe

Evidence-based treatment of atrial fibrillation around the globe: comparison of the latest ESC, AHA/ACC/HRS, and CCS guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation

Recent versions of evidence-based guidelines on the management of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been published by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) in collaboration with the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), the American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the Heart Rhythm Society (AHA/ACC/HRS), and the Canadian Cardiovascular Society/Canadian Heart Rhythm Society (CCS). As all societies refer to the same multicentric and usually multinational studies, the similarities undoubtedly outweigh the differences. Nonetheless, interesting differences can often be found in details, which are usually based on a different assessment of the same study, the availability of data in relation to the publication date and local preferences and availabilities of certain cardiovascular drugs. The following article aims at lining out these similarities and differences