Design and characteristics of the prophylactic intra-operative ventricular arrhythmia ablation in high-risk LVAD candidates (PIVATAL) trial

BACKGROUND: The use of a Left Ventricular Assist Device (LVAD) in patients with advanced heart failure refractory to optimal medical management has progressed steadily over the past two decades. Data have demonstrated reduced LVAD efficacy, worse clinical outcome, and higher mortality for patients who experience significant ventricular tachyarrhythmia (VTA). We hypothesize that a novel prophylactic intra-operative VTA ablation protocol at the time of LVAD implantation may reduce the recurrent VTA and adverse events postimplant. METHODS: We designed a prospective, multicenter, open-label, randomized-controlled clinical trial enrolling 100 patients who are LVAD candidates with a history of VTA in the previous 5 years. Enrolled patients will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to intra-operative VTA ablation (n = 50) versus conventional medical management (n = 50) with LVAD implant. Arrhythmia outcomes data will be captured by an implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) to monitor VTA events, with a uniform ICD programming protocol. Patients will be followed prospectively over a mean of 18 months (with a minimum of 9 months) after LVAD implantation to evaluate recurrent VTA, adverse events, and procedural outcomes. Secondary endpoints include right heart function/hemodynamics, healthcare utilization, and quality of life. CONCLUSION: The primary aim of this first-ever randomized trial is to assess the efficacy of intra-operative ablation during LVAD surgery in reducing VTA recurrence and improving clinical outcomes for patients with a history of VTA

2019 HRS/EHRA/APHRS/LAHRS expert consensus statement on catheter ablation of ventricular arrhythmias: Executive summary

Ventricular arrhythmias are an important cause of morbidity and mortality and come in a variety of forms, from single premature ventricular complexes to sustained ventricular tachycardia and fibrillation. Rapid developments have taken place over the past decade in our understanding of these arrhythmias and in our ability to diagnose and treat them. The field of catheter ablation has progressed with the development of new methods and tools, and with the publication of large clinical trials. Therefore, global cardiac electrophysiology professional societies undertook to outline recommendations and best practices for these procedures in a document that will update and replace the 2009 EHRA/HRS Expert Consensus on Catheter Ablation of Ventricular Arrhythmias. An expert writing group, after reviewing and discussing the literature, including a systematic review and meta-analysis published in conjunction with this document, and drawing on their own experience, drafted and voted on recommendations and summarized current knowledge and practice in the field. Each recommendation is presented in knowledge byte format and is accompanied by supportive text and references. Further sections provide a practical synopsis of the various techniques and of the specific ventricular arrhythmia sites and substrates encountered in the electrophysiology lab. The purpose of this document is to help electrophysiologists around the world to appropriately select patients for catheter ablation, to perform procedures in a safe and efficacious manner, and to provide follow-up and adjunctive care in order to obtain the best possible outcomes for patients with ventricular arrhythmias

Long-term mortality in heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction: systematic review and meta-analysis

AIMS: Heart failure patients with mid‐range ejection fraction (HFmrEF) have overlapping clinical features, compared with patients with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) and preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). We aim to perform a meta‐analysis of studies reporting long‐term outcomes in HFmrEF compared with HFrEF and HFpEF. METHODS AND RESULTS: Data from 18 eligible large‐scale studies including 126 239 patients were pooled. Patients with HFmrEF had a lower risk of all‐cause death than those with HFrEF [risk ratio (RR) = 0.92; 95% CI = 0.85–0.98; P 50% of males had higher risk of deaths with HFrEF (RR = 1.15; 95% CI = 1.04–1.26; P = 0.006). When compared with HFpEF, patients with HFmrEF had comparable risk of all‐cause death (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.96–1.09; P = 0.53). Similarly, there were no differences in the 1, 2, and 3 year deaths; CV and non‐CV deaths were insignificant between HFmrEF and HFpEF. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study support that HFmrEF has better prognosis than HFrEF but similar prognosis when compared with HFpEF. Gender disparity between studies seems to influence the results between HFmrEF and HFrEF. Transition in left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), which could not be addressed in the study, may play a decisive role in determining outcomes. PROSPERO review registration number CRD42021277107