High-grade AV block requiring PPM implantation is a common complication following TAVI and could be predicted by a deeper implantation of the prosthesis. Patients with preexisting RBBB also seem to be at risk for the development of high-grade AV block and subsequent pacemaker implantation.

One third of patients required PPM after TAVI and full recovery of advanced conduction abnormalities seems unlikely. Unfavorable aortic root orientation may hinder the deployment of the valve and contribute to the continued impairment of the conduction system. Porcelain aorta was a strong predictor of pacemaker dependency.

Aims Ablation index (AI) is a marker of lesion quality during catheter ablation that incorporates contact force, time, and power in a weighted formula. This index was originally developed for pulmonary vein isolation as well as other left atrial procedures. The aim of our study is to evaluate the feasibility and efficacy of the AI for the ablation of the cavotricuspid isthmus (CTI) in patients presenting with typical atrial flutter (AFL). Methods and results This prospective multicentre non-randomized study enrolled 412 consecutive patients with typical AFL undergoing AI-guided cavotricuspid isthmus ablation. The procedure was performed targeting an AI of 500 and an inter-lesion distance measurement of ≤6 mm. The primary endpoints were CTI ‘first-pass’ block and persistent block after a 20-min waiting time. Secondary endpoints included procedural and radiofrequency duration and fluoroscopic time. A total of 412 consecutive patients were enrolled in 31 centres (mean age 64.9 ± 9.8; 72.1% males and 27.7% with structural heart disease). The CTI bidirectional ‘first-pass’ block was reached in 355 patients (88.3%), whereas CTI block at the end of the waiting time was achieved in 405 patients (98.3%). Mean procedural, radiofrequency, and fluoroscopic time were 56.5 ± 28.1, 7.8 ± 4.8, and 1.9 ± 4.8 min, respectively. There were no major procedural complications. There was no significant inter-operator variability in the ability to achieve any of the primary endpoints. Conclusion AI-guided ablation with an inter-lesion distance ≤6 mm represents an effective, safe, and highly reproducible strategy to achieve bidirectional block in the treatment of typical AFL.

Purpose: Since the widespread availability of contact-force sensing catheters, the need for a waiting period after pulmonary vein isolation (PVI) has not been reassessed.We aim to evaluate whether a waiting period is still necessary after PVI guided by the ablation Index (AI).Methods: Prospective, multicenter, randomized study of consecutive patients referred for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation from May 2019 to February 2020. Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to PVI with versus without a waiting period of 20 min. Acute pulmonary vein (PV) reconnection after adenosine challenge was the primary endpoint. A per-protocol analysis was designed to determine whether a strategy of dismissing the waiting period after PVI was noninferior to waiting for 20 min for identifying acute PV reconnection. PVI was guided by tailored AI values and an interlesion distance ≤6 mm.Results: During the enrollment period, 167 patients (56% males, mean age of 57 ± 14 years) fulfilled the study inclusion criteria -84 patients (308 PV) in the waiting period group (Group A) and 83 patients (314 PV) in the group without a waiting period (Group B). Acute PV reconnection was identified in 3.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.7%-5.9%) of PVs in the study group B compared to 2.9% (95% CI, 1.0%-4.8%) of PVs in the Group A (p = .002 for non-inferiority). At 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference in arrhythmia recurrence between groups (9.5% in Group A vs. 9.6% in Group B, hazard ratio: 1.03 [95% CI, 0.39-2.73], p = .98). Conclusion:In paroxysmal AF patients submitted to ablation, a tailored PVI guided by the AI rendered a 20-min waiting period unnecessary.

Introduction and objectivesThe rate of implanted cardiac electronic devices is increasing as is the need to manage long-term complications. Lead removal is becoming an effective approach to treat such complications. We present our experience in lead removal using different approaches, analyzing the predictors of the use of mechanical extractors/surgical removal.MethodsRetrospective analysis of lead extractions in a series of 76 consecutive patients (mean age 70.4 ± 13.8 years, 73.7% men) between January 2009 and November 2015.ResultsOne hundred thirty-five leads from permanent pacemakers (single chamber 19.7%; dual-chamber 61.8%), implantable cardioverter defibrillators (5.3%), and cardiac resynchronization devices (CRT-P 2.6%; CRT-D 7.9%) were removed, 72.5 ± 73.2 months after implantation. A total of 45.9% were ventricular leads, 40.0% atrial leads, 8.9% defibrillator leads, and 5.2% leads in the coronary sinus; 64.4% had passive fixation. The most common indications for removal were pocket infection (77.8%), infective endocarditis (9.6%), and lead dislodgement (3.7%). A total of 76.3% of the leads were explanted, 20.0% were extracted, and 3.7% were surgically removed. Extraction of the entire lead was achieved in 96.3% of the procedures. After logistic regression (age adjusted), time since implantation was the sole predictor of the need of mechanical extractors/surgical removal. All patients were discharged without major complications. There were no deaths at 30 days.ConclusionOur experience in lead removal was effective and safe. Performing these procedures by experienced electrophysiologists with an adequate cardiothoracic surgery team on standby to cope with any complications is required. Referral of high-risk patients to a high-volume center is recommended to optimize clinical success and minimize procedural complications.