BackgroundTo prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) recurrence after catheter ablation, pulmonary venous isolation (PVI) at an antral level is more effective than segmental ostial ablation. Cryoablation around the pulmonary venous (PV) ostia for AF therapy is potentially safer compared to radiofrequency ablation (RFA). The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of a strategy using a large cryoablation balloon to perform antral cryoablation with ‘touch-up’ ostial cryoablation for PVI in patients with paroxysmal and persistent AF.MethodsParoxysmal and persistent AF patients undergoing their first left atrial ablation were recruited. After cryoballoon therapy, each PV was assessed for isolation and if necessary, treated with focal ostial cryoablation until PVI was achieved. Follow-up with Holter monitoring was performed. Clinical outcomes of the cryoablation protocol were compared, with consecutive patients undergoing PVI by RFA.Results124 consecutive patients underwent cryoablation. 77% of paroxysmal and 48% of persistent AF subjects were free from AF at 12 months after a single procedure. Over the same time period, 53 consecutive paroxysmal AF subjects underwent PVI with RFA and at 12 months, 72% were free from AF at 12 months (p=NS). There were too few persistent AF subjects (n=8) undergoing solely PVI by RFA as a comparison group. Procedural and fluoroscopic times during cryoablation were significantly shorter than RFA.ConclusionsPV isolation can be achieved in less than 2 h by a simple cryoablation protocol with excellent results after a single intervention, particularly for paroxysmal AF.

Background Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are increasingly used in clinical practice. Although there is robust evidence that AI innovations can improve patient care, reduce clinicians’ workload and increase efficiency, their impact on medical training and education remains unclear. Methods A survey of trainee doctors’ perceived impact of AI technologies on clinical training and education was conducted at UK NHS postgraduate centers in London between October and December 2020. Impact assessment mirrored domains in training curricula such as ‘clinical judgement’, ‘practical skills’ and ‘research and quality improvement skills’. Significance between Likert-type data was analysed using Fisher’s exact test. Response variations between clinical specialities were analysed using k-modes clustering. Free-text responses were analysed by thematic analysis. Results Two hundred ten doctors responded to the survey (response rate 72%). The majority (58%) perceived an overall positive impact of AI technologies on their training and education. Respondents agreed that AI would reduce clinical workload (62%) and improve research and audit training (68%). Trainees were skeptical that it would improve clinical judgement (46% agree, p = 0.12) and practical skills training (32% agree, p < 0.01). The majority reported insufficient AI training in their current curricula (92%), and supported having more formal AI training (81%). Conclusions Trainee doctors have an overall positive perception of AI technologies’ impact on clinical training. There is optimism that it will improve ‘research and quality improvement’ skills and facilitate ‘curriculum mapping’. There is skepticism that it may reduce educational opportunities to develop ‘clinical judgement’ and ‘practical skills’. Medical educators should be mindful that these domains are protected as AI develops. We recommend that ‘Applied AI’ topics are formalized in curricula and digital technologies leveraged to deliver clinical education.

Implantable cardiodefibrillators (ICDs) have proven benefit in preventing sudden cardiac death (SCD) in hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HC), making risk stratification essential. Data on the predictive accuracy on the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) risk scoring system have been conflicting. We independently evaluated the ESC risk scoring system in our cohort of patients with HC from a large tertiary center and compared this with previous guidance by the American College of Cardiology Foundation and Heart Association (ACCF/AHA). Risk factor profiles, 5-year SCD risk estimates, and ICD recommendations, as defined by the ACCF/AHA and ESC guidelines, were retrospectively ascertained for 288 HC patients with and without SCD or equivalent events at our center. In the SCD group (n = 14), a significantly higher proportion of patients would not have met the criteria for an ICD implant using the ESC scoring algorithm compared with ACCF/AHA guidance (43% vs 7%, p = 0.029). In those without SCD events (n = 274), a larger proportion of individuals not requiring an ICD was identified using the ESC risk score model compared with the ACCF/AHA model (82% vs 57%; p < 0.0001). Based on risk stratification criteria alone, 5 more individuals with a previously aborted SCD event would not have received an ICD with the ESC risk model compared with the ACCF/AHA risk model. In conclusion, we found that the current ESC scoring system potentially leaves more high-risk patients unprotected from sudden death in our cohort of patients.