Management of pericardial tamponade in the electrophysiology laboratory: results from a national survey

Background Despite continued efforts to improve the safety of catheter ablation, pericardial tamponade remains one of its more frequent, potentially life-threatening complications. Management of cardiac tamponade is not standardized and uncertainties regarding acute treatment remain. Methods This survey sought to evaluate the management of cardiac tamponade in German EP centers via a standardized postal questionnaire. All 341 identified German EP centers were invited to return a questionnaire on their standards for the management of cardiac tamponade. Results A total of 189 German EP centers completed the questionnaire. Several precautions are followed to avoid pericardial tamponade: A minority of centers preclude very old patients (19%) or those with a high body mass index (30%) from ablation. Non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulants are briefly paused in most centers (88%) before procedures, while vitamin K antagonists are continued. Pericardial tamponade is usually treated using reversal of heparin by applying protamine (86%) and pericardiocentesis under both, fluoroscopic and echocardiographic guidance (62%). A pigtail catheter is mostly inserted (97%) and autotransfusion of aspirated blood is performed in 47% of centers. The decision for surgical repair depends on different clinical and infrastructural aspects. The timing of reinitiation of anticoagulation widely differs between the centers. Approximately 1/3 of centers prescribe nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents, colchicine or steroids after pericardiocentesis. Conclusion The present survey shows that the management of cardiac tamponade is still inhomogeneous in German ablation centers. However, multiple findings of this survey can be generalized and might guide especially less experienced operators and centers in their treatment and decision strategies

Long-term efficacy and safety of radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices and transvenous leads

Introduction Long-term efficacy and safety are uncertain in patients with cardiac implantable electronic devices (CIED) and transvenous leads (TVL) undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation (AF). Thus, we assessed the outcome of AF ablation in those patients during long-term follow-up using continuous atrial rhythm monitoring (CARM). Methods and Results A total of 190 patients (71.3 +/- 10.7 years; 108 (56.8% men) were included in this study. At index procedure 81 (42.6%) patients presented with paroxysmal AF and 109 (57.4%) with persistent AF. The ablation strategy included pulmonary vein isolation in all patients and biatrial ablation of complex fractionated electrograms with additional ablation lines, if appropriate. AF recurrences were assessed by CARM- and CIED-related complications by device follow-up. After a mean follow-up of 55.4 +/- 38.1 months, freedom of AF was found in 86 (61.4%) and clinical success defined as an AF burden less than or equal to 1% in 101 (72.1%) patients. Freedom of AF was reported in 74.6% and 51.9% (P = 0.006) and clinical success in 89.8% and 59.3% (P < 0.001) of patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF, respectively. In 3 of 408 (0.7%) ablation procedures, a TVL malfunction occurred within 90 days after catheter ablation. During long-term follow-up 9 (4.7%) patients showed lead dislodgement, 2 (1.1%) lead fracture, and 2 (1.1%) lead insulation defect not related to the ablation procedure. Conclusion Our findings using CARM demonstrate long-term efficacy and safety of radiofrequency catheter ablation of AF in patients with CIED and TVL

Analysis of Outcomes in Ischemic vs Nonischemic Cardiomyopathy in Patients With Atrial Fibrillation A Report From the GARFIELD-AF Registry

IMPORTANCE Congestive heart failure (CHF) is commonly associated with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (AF), and their combination may affect treatment strategies and outcomes