No abstract

Ventricular tachycardia is a common arrhythmia in patients with structural heart disease and heart failure, and is now seen more frequently as these patients survive longer with modern therapies. In addition, these patients often have multiple comorbidities. While anti-arrhythmic drug therapy, implantable cardioverter-defibrillator implantation and ventricular tachycardia ablation are the mainstay of therapy, well managed by the cardiac electrophysiologist, there are many other facets in the care of these patients, such as heart failure management, treatment of comorbidities and anaesthetic interventions, where the expertise of other specialists is essential for optimal patient care. A coordinated team approach is therefore essential to achieve the best possible outcomes for these complex patients.

Background: The rate of left ventricular (LV) lead displacement after cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) remains high despite improvements in lead technology. In 2017, a novel quadripolar lead with active fixation technology became available in the UK.Methods: This was a retrospective, observational study analyzing device complications in 476 consecutive patients undergoing successful first-time implantation of a CRT device at a tertiary center from 2017 to 2020.Results: Both active (n = 135) and passive fixation (n = 341) quadripolar leads had similar success rates for implantation (99.3% vs. 98.8%, p = 1.00), although the pacing threshold (0.89 [0.60-1.25] vs. 1.00 [0.70-1.60] V, p = .01) and lead impedance (632 [552-794] vs. 730 [636-862] Ohms, p < .0001) were significantly lower for the active fixation lead. Patients receiving an active fixation lead had a reduced incidence of lead displacement at 6 months (0.74% vs. 4.69%, p = .036). There was no significant difference in the rate of right atrial (RA) and right ventricular (RV) lead displacement between the two groups (RA: 1.48% vs. 1.17%, p = .68; RV: 2.22% vs.1.76%, p = .72). Reprogramming the LV lead after displacement was unsuccessful in most cases (successful reprogramming: Active fix = 0/1, Passive fix = 1/16) therefore nearly all patients required a repeat procedure. As a result, the rate of intervention

Aims Catheter ablation for atrial fibrillation (AF) has historically required inpatient admission post-procedure, but same-day discharge (SDD) has recently been reported. We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of SDD compared with overnight stay (OS) post-ablation. Methods and results We performed a systematic search of the PubMed database. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed to assess the efficacy (successful SDD) and safety (24 h complications, 30-day complications, 30-day re-admissions, and 30-day mortality) of a SDD AF ablation strategy. Fourteen non-randomized observational studies met criteria for inclusion, encompassing 26488 patients undergoing AF ablation, of whom 9766 were SDD. The mean age of participants was 61.9 years, and 67.9% were male. Around 61.7% underwent ablation for paroxysmal AF. The pooled success rate of SDD was 83.2% [95% confidence intervals (CIs): 61.5–97.0%, I2 100%]. The risk of bias was severe for all effect estimates due to confounding, as most cohorts were retrospectively identified without appropriately matched comparators. There was no significant difference in 30-day complications [odds ratio (OR): 0.95, 95% CI: 0.65–1.40, I2 53%] or 30-day re-admission (OR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.49–1.89, I2 82%) between groups. There were insufficient data for meta-analysis of 24 h complications and 30-day mortality. Where reported, no re-admissions occurred due to 24 h complications after SDD. Two deaths (0.04%) were reported in both SDD and OS groups. Conclusion Same-day discharge after AF ablation appears to be an effective and safe strategy in selected patients. However, the available evidence is of low quality, and more robust prospective studies comparing SDD to OS are needed.