NCT02137187 (May 2018, date last accessed).

COVID-19 outbreak had a major impact on the organization of care in Italy, and a survey to evaluate provision of for arrhythmia during COVID-19 outbreak (March-April 2020) was launched. A total of 104 physicians from 84 Italian arrhythmia centres took part in the survey. The vast majority of participating centres (95.2%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective pacemaker implantations during the outbreak period compared to the corresponding two months of year 2019 (50.0% of centres reported a reduction of > 50%). Similarly, 92.9% of participating centres reported a significant reduction in the number of implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD) implantations for primary prevention, and 72.6% a significant reduction of ICD implantations for secondary prevention (> 50% in 65.5 and 44.0% of the centres, respectively). The majority of participating centres (77.4%) reported a significant reduction in the number of elective ablations (> 50% in 65.5% of the centres). Also the interventional procedures performed in an emergency setting, as well as acute management of atrial fibrillation had a marked reduction, thus leading to the conclusion that the impact of COVID-19 was disrupting the entire organization of health care, with a massive impact on the activities and procedures related to arrhythmia management in Italy.

No abstract

Background: Optimal timing for catheter ablation of ventricular tachycardia is an important unresolved issue. There are no randomized trials evaluating the benefit of ablation after the first implantable cardioverter defibrillator (ICD) shock. Methods: We conducted a 2-phase, prospective, multicenter, randomized clinical trial. Patients with ischemic or nonischemic dilated cardiomyopathy and primary or secondary prevention indication for ICD were enrolled in an initial observational phase until first appropriate shock (phase A). After reconsenting, patients were randomly assigned 1:1 in phase B to immediate ablation (within 2 months from shock delivery) or continuation of standard therapy. The primary end point was a composite of death from any cause or hospitalization for worsening heart failure. Amiodarone intake was not allowed except for documented atrial tachyarrhythmias. On July 23, 2021, phase B of the trial was interrupted as a result of the first interim analysis on the basis of the Bayesian adaptive design. Results: Of the 517 patients enrolled in phase A, 154 (30%) had ventricular tachycardia, 56 (11%) received an appropriate shock over a median follow-up of 2.4 years (interquartile range, 1.4-4.4), and 47 of 56 (84%) agreed to participate in phase B. After 24.2 (8.5-24.4) months, the primary end point occurred in 1 of 23 (4%) patients in the ablation group and 10 of 24 (42%) patients in the control group (hazard ratio, 0.11 [95% CI, 0.01-0.85]; P=0.034). The results met the prespecified termination criterion of >99% Bayesian posterior probability of superiority of treatment over standard therapy. No deaths were observed in the ablation group versus 8 deaths (33%) in the control group (P=0.004); there was 1 worsening heart failure hospitalization in the ablation group (4%) versus 4 in the control group (17%; P=0.159). ICD shocks were less frequent in the ablation group (9%) than in the control group (42%; P=0.039). Conclusions: Ventricular tachycardia ablation after first appropriate shock was associated with a reduced risk of the combined death or worsening heart failure hospitalization end point, lower mortality, and fewer ICD shocks. These findings provide support for considering ventricular tachycardia ablation after the first ICD shock.

Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has become one of the most common procedures in the electrophysiology lab with rapidly increasing volumes. Peri-procedural anaesthesia for AF ablation varies between centres, from general anaesthesia to deep or conscious sedation. The aim of this survey was to assess current sedation practices for AF ablation worldwide and its evolution over the last decade. Centres regularly performing AF ablation responded to an online survey. A total of 297 centres participated in the survey. Overall, the median (interquartile range) number of AF ablation procedures increased from 91 (43–200) to 200 (74–350) per year (P < 0.001) between 2010 and 2019. The proportion of cryoablation also increased from 17.0% to 33.2% (P < 0.001). In 2019, the most used sedation technique was general anaesthesia (40.5%), followed by conscious sedation (32.0%) and deep sedation (27.5%). Between 2010 and 2019, the proportion of procedures performed under general anaesthesia (+4.4%; P = 0.02) and deep sedation (+4.8%; P < 0.01) increased, whereas the use of conscious sedation decreased (−9.2%; P < 0.001). The most commonly used hypnotic drugs were propofol and midazolam, whereas the most commonly used opioid drugs were remifentanyl and fentanyl. This worldwide survey shows that the number of AF ablation procedures has more than doubled over the last decade and general anaesthesia remains most commonly used. Studies comparing outcomes between different sedation strategies are needed to guide optimal decision-making.