8 research outputs found
Contemporary ICD Use in Patients with Heart Failure
Despite constant breakthroughs in heart failure (HF) therapy, the
population of HF patients resume to grow and is linked to increased
mortality and morbidity. Ventricular arrhythmias (VA) are one of the
leading causes of mortality in HF subjects. Implantable
cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs) are currently the gold standard in
treatment, preventing arrhythmic sudden cardiac death (SCD) episodes.
However, the death rates related to HF remain elevated, as not all HF
subjects benefit equally. Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) has
emerged as a novel approach for HF patients. These devices have been
thoroughly investigated in major randomized controlled studies but
continue to be underutilized in various countries. This review discusses
the use of ICD in HF populations on top of treatments
Pathology after combined epicardial and endocardial ablation for ventricular tachycardia in a postmortem heart with hypertrophic cardiomyopathy
Step by Step through the Years—High vs. Low Energy Lead Extraction Using Advanced Extraction Techniques
Background: Limited data is available about the outcome of TLE in patients with vs. without high energy leads in the last decade. Methods: This is an analysis of consecutive patients undergoing TLE at a high-volume TLE centre from 2001 to 2021 using the stepwise approach. Baseline characteristics, procedural details and outcome of patients with high energy lead (ICD group) vs. without high energy lead (non-ICD group) were compared. Results: Out of 667 extractions, 991 leads were extracted in 405 procedures (60.7%) in the ICD group and 439 leads in 262 procedures (39.3%) in the non-ICD group. ICD patients were significantly younger (median 67 vs. 74 years) and were significantly less often female (18.1% vs. 27.7%, p < 0.005 for both). Advanced extraction tools were used significantly more often in the ICD group (73.2% vs. 37.5%, p < 0.001), but there were no significant differences in the successful removal (98.8% vs. 99.2%) or complications (4.7% vs. 3.1%) between the groups (p > 0.2 for both). Discussion: Using the stepwise approach, overall procedural success was high and complication rate was low in a high-volume centre. In patients with a high energy lead, the TLE procedure was more complex, but outcome was similar to comparator patients