Background Subselection inner catheters (Inner‐Cath) are used adjunctively with outer guiding catheters (Outer‐Cath) during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation. This study aims to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of left ventricular lead placement (LV‐LP) guided by Inner‐Cath alone. Methods A total of 74 patients undergoing de novo CRT implantation were investigated. LV‐LP was initially guided by Inner‐Cath in 42 patients (Inner‐Cath group) and Outer‐Cath in 32 patients (Outer‐Cath group). In the Inner‐Cath group, a 7Fr Inner‐Cath was advanced to the coronary sinus through a 7 Fr sheath inserted in a subclavian vein. In the Outer‐Cath group, 9Fr or 10Fr Outer‐Caths were used. Success rate of LV‐LP, additional use of inner or outer catheters and procedure‐related complications were compared between groups. Results LV‐LP was successful in all patients in the Inner‐Cath group, while LV‐LP had to be abandoned in two patients (6.3%) of the Outer‐Cath group due to CS perforation caused by Outer‐Cath manipulation. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Inner‐Cath group (148 vs. 168 min; p = .024). Deployment of both an inner and outer cath became necessary less frequently for the Inner‐Cath group (4.8% vs. 56.3%; p < .001). Mechanical CS injuries due to guiding catheter manipulation were only observed in the Outer‐Cath group (0% vs. 15.6%, p = .013). Conclusion LV‐LP guided by Inner‐Cath alone was feasible in over 95% of the patients without severe complications. This methodology for LV‐LP may be preferable in CRT candidates with severe LV dysfunction in terms of shorter procedure time, smaller guiding sheath, and less procedure‐related complications.

Introduction: Subselection inner catheters (Inner-Cath) are used adjunctively with outer guiding catheters (Outer-Cath) during cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) device implantation. This study aims to investigate the feasibility and efficacy of left ventricular lead placement (LV-LP) guided by Inner-Cath alone. Methods: A total of 74 patients undergoing de novo CRT implantation were investigated. LV-LP was initially guided by Inner-Cath in 42 patients (Inner-Cath group) and Outer-Cath in 32 patients (Outer-Cath group). In the Inner-Cath group, a 7Fr Inner-Cath was advanced to the coronary sinus through a 7 Fr sheath inserted in a subclavian vein. In the Outer-Cath group , 9Fr or 10Fr Outer-Caths were used. Success rate of LV-LP, additional use of inner or outer catheters and procedure-related complications were compared between groups. Results: LV-LP was successful in all patients in the Inner-Cath group while LV-LP had to be abandoned in 2 patients of the Outer-Cath group due to CS perforation caused by Outer-Cath manipulation. Procedure time was significantly shorter in the Inner-Cath group (148 vs 168 min; P=0.024). Deployment of both an inner and outer cath became necessary less frequently for the Inner-Cath group (4.8% vs 56.3%; P<0.001). Mechanical CS injuries due to guiding catheter manipulation were only observed in the Outer-Cath group (0% vs 15.6%, P=0.013). Conclusion: LV-LP guided by Inner-Cath alone was feasible in over 95% of the patients without severe complications. This methodology for LV-LP may be preferable in CRT candidates with severe LV dysfunction in terms of shorter procedure time, smaller guiding sheath and less complications.

Backgrounds Catheter ablation for non‐paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (non‐PAF) remains challenging and more effective strategy has been required to reduce postoperative arrhythmia recurrences. This study aims to investigate the efficacy and safety of a novel extensive ablation strategy for non‐PAF, that is based on a combination of cryoballoon (CBA), radiofrequency (RFA), and Marshall‐vein ethanol ablations (EA‐VOM). Methods The study was a single‐center, retrospective observational study. We enrolled 171 consecutive patients who underwent de‐novo catheter ablation for non‐PAF under conscious sedation with a novel extensive ablation strategy that included CBA for pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) and left atrial roof ablation (LARA), RFA for mitral isthmus (MI) ablation, superior vena cava isolation, and other linear ablations and EA‐VOM. Recurrence of atrial arrhythmias over 1 year, procedure outcomes, and procedure‐related complications were investigated. Results A total of 139 (81.3%) patients remained in sinus rhythm during 1‐year follow‐up. Of the 139 patients, 51 patients (29.8%) received antiarrhythmic drugs. The mean procedure time was 204 ± 45 min. PVI and LARA ablation by CBA and MI block by RFA and EA‐VOM were completed in 171 (100%) and 166 (97.1%) patients, respectively. No serious procedure‐related complications were observed except for one case of delayed pericardial effusion. Conclusion Approximately 80% of the study patients were AF‐free during 1‐year follow‐up period after a single procedure based on the novel extensive ablation strategy combining CBA, RFA, and EA‐VOM. This strategy for non‐PAF may be preferred in terms of maintenance of sinus rhythm, safety even in high‐risk patients, and relatively short procedure time.

No abstract